President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
60%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 24, 2007 04:37 PM UTC
79 Comments
I got smacked down a little last week for calling “no big deal” on this, but come on. I drink a lot on Saturday night too, but–seriously–you should find something more important to complain about every Sunday morning.
Did you ever consider the death of this man might be worth three lousy paragraphs?
… Last week someone – mountainman? – complained to our erstwhile Pols that the front page stories have gotten very long. I chimed in, opining that there is no need to tell the whole story on the home page; most of us probably read every thread anyway. Pols agreed.
So, here we are a few days later and they are back to the old, annoying habit.
That’s all, nothing to do with the sad death of Mr. Manzanares. It could have been any topic, I would have said the same thing.
OK? 🙂
. . . over in the weekend open thread. I don’t think that ColoradoPols went too far out on a limb to mention the porn aspect and, for the record, KnowYourCOURTS.com made not a single mention of it in the two or three comments posted on our News & Comment section. This was clearly an issue confined to the prosecutor’s office and media outlets, who ran with a scandalous story. Don’t be surprised to see the prosecutor’s office caught in a difficult situation now of having to balance between adding further injury to the family and their compelling need to defend their actions by coming clean with (or, in the case of JeffCo, leaking) information about why they felt the porn aspect was inculpatory.
Holding a grandiose news conference all about the porn on the laptop, which was presumably not itself criminal and in any case irrelevant to the only criminal charges filed in the case, was a needless and unprofessional assault on Manzanares personally. Pols is exactly, devastatingly on target about the volume of coverage of this story in the last two weeks. According to the Rocky Mountain News, that’s exactly what Manzanares said on Friday at the courthouse–and a short time later he committed suicide.
Jefferson County DA Scott Storey, and in my opinion Rocky Mountain News reporters Lisa Ryckman and Sue Lindsay, as well as with Denver Post reporters George Merritt, Kieran Nicholson and Howard Pankratz (note my deliberate use of all their names), share responsibility for Manzanares’ death.
And hell yes, what about Paschall, DA Storey?
I haven’t commented on this case before. But, unfortunately, I was not surprised either by the prosecutors’ conduct or by the media’s handling of the case.
Prosecutors, in my judgment based on a ten-year career in the law, generally believe that an arrested person is a guilty person. They also generally believe that any tactic, no matter how sleazy, is appropriate if it will put that “bad guy” behind bars. And prosecutors, in general, think that any constraint on their behavior is really just a muddle-headed way of helping defendants who should be punished get off scott-free.
In this matter they figured that the porn angle would be likely to convince almost any juror to overlook Manzaneres’ record of community service and his reputation as a skilled lawyer and respected judge. So they leaked that aspect of the “evidence,” though it was never clear that Manzaneres even knew the porn was on the laptop and it certainly wasn’t clear that the porn had anything to do with the way Manazaneres obtained the laptop.
The judge in the case, as is so often the case, failed to even attempt to control the prosecutors’ behavior.
As for the media, about all you can say is that they love a scandal story and they don’t care about distortion or getting all the facts. I worked for a daily newspaper, covering politicians, and I assure you that the thirst for that kind of tale is driven by a firm belief that it is what the public wants. And reporters like those stories because they don’t require research or taking the time to figure out what really happened.
You can pretty much bet that any story about a scandal surrounding a public figure will be distorted in significant ways. Most likely will be that the target of the story will not be heard. His or her version of what happened, if reported at all, will be only briefly mentioned and then treated skeptically, with no attempt to verify any allegation the target makes.
In this case the media jumped all over what it wanted to be a tale of a fallen man. Discerning observers will note that we have no actual evidence to support that construct. But that’s okay; the tale sells newspapers.
I don’t know whether Larry Manzanares did what Scott Storey’s band of cocky, arrogant lawyers say he did. But I do know this: trusting prosecutors to play fair, or by the rules, is usually unwise and unrealistic and expecting news editors to be interested in publishing a fair story about a prominent person charged with a crime is naive.
Well said, but don’t forget ambition. Serving as a D.A. is a one of the most well-worn paths to higher public office, and a high-profile prosecution or two can only help (unless you’re one of the few unlucky ones who’s overreaching itself becomes a story). I don’t know jack about Storey and won’t pretend to, but all too often prosecutorial overreaching in high-publicity cases can’t even be attributed to the decent motivation of wanting a conviction of someone believed to have committed a crime.
Before we engage in what I’m certain will be an enormous debate over who shares the blame, and I’m certain there will be plenty to go around, I think that we should allow for a respectful period of mourning by Larry’s family and friends. I didn’t know Larry, however, he was a person and thus deserving of basic human dignity as are his surviving wife and children. May God bless and comfort them and may they be in all of our prayers.
today thoughts for his family – and that’s all.
His poor wife and kids – just awful…
This is a horribly rough time for his family and friends. They deserve to be left in peace with their grief and pain.
That’s what Tony Blair so eloquently had to say about the lecherous media. And, obviously, he was prophetically and experentially within reason to say so.
(Colorado Pols is hardly a kingmaker in Colorado media–or politics for that matter. To assume that you had any effect on Manzaneres is arrogant in the least).
The rest of the media–mostly the MSM–should be held responsible for this. If I was one of Larry’s loved ones I wouldn’t flinch at taking these “feral beasts” to court.
The problem is that it is all about the personal both politically, culturally, and otherwise. It matters a whole lot less about Manzanares’ legal issues than the worthless revelation that he was into porn. Bill Clinton’s disasterous political life was so much less important to the media than his inconsequential personal life. The left is too busy cooking up conspiracies about 9/11 and Halliburton to focus rightly on Bush’s policies. The examples are endless and span the political spectrum.
SO WHAT?!
Manzanares’ porn addiction–if that was even the case–was troubling for him and his family. I think the porn industry is in the top five of corrosive influences on our families and society. Porn and the industry’s cohorts are foul scum–but that’s not the media’s business. But that matters to the Manzanares case about as much as some shocking revelation that he was into cotton candy.
I’m truly sorry for Larry and his family. They were raped by the media and the moral wrong done to him and his friends is so much more indecent and disgusting than anything he has ever done.
You mean like his 70% plus approval rating on the day the rabid Republicans started impeachment proceedings?
You mean 8 years of peace and prosperity?
You mean no terrorist acts on our soil?
Yeah, real disasters. GW should be so lucky to have such a disastrous administration.
Or did the bombing of the Murrah Building in 1995 (just cuz it was done by a white guy doesn’t mean it wasn’t an act of terrorism) and the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 escape your observation. Last time I checked those were considered terrorist acts and Bill Clinton was President during both of them. Oh and there’s one more thing: Whitewater. Need I say more?
Both Bill and Hillary Clinton were exonerated in Whitewater by none other than that ace investigator, Ken Starr. After spending $40 million, Starr did, however, establish that Bill Clinton did enjoy a blow job.
No, you don’t need to say more.
Anyone still hung up on Whitewater is a deluded loon who just hates the Clintons for no real good reason.
I do believe that question will go down (so to speak) as a trivial pursuit question someday; What is the most expensive BJ in history?
….I was referring to Muslim/Arabic/IRA/whatever. I don’t consider McVeigh exactly the same, he wasn’t part of an organized effort funded by rich Arabs.
Actually, I did think of one case, the first WTC bombing. Didn’t that happen on his watch? Of course, unlike the second where we allowed the Saudi’s to be whiscked out fo the country w/o interrogation, we did find, capture, and prosecute the perps for #1. Under Bill Clinton.
The first WTC bombing, Somalia, and Waco all happened within the first two months of the Clinton administration…after 12 years of Reagan/Bush. Thank you, thank you very much.
I said “On our soil.”
Yes, we had no attacks on us during Carter, Johnson, Ford, Kennedy, etc. What’s the point.
Waco had its wheels in motion well before Janet Reno became AG. Really, look it up. Nor is “Waco” an act of “terrorists” as we normally define it.
And you seem to have forgottent the 231 (???) Marines who lost their lives in Lebanon, then Reagan “cut and ran.”
He caught all the perps associated with those.
OTH, W. has not caught the anthrax folks (though he did accuse an individual who absolutely could not have done it alone, which ignored all the evidence in the cases), Bin ladin, etc.
the 1st WTC bombing and the Oklahoma city bombings were both terrorist attacks on our soil during Clinton’s watch.
Yes, I caught myself responding to rio above this post.
Please don’t let him turn this in to a political argument in the post about this terrible loss. In respect for Larry’s family please ignore anything he posts in this diary.
…..but after reading some of the vulgar excrement coming from Rio, Dobby’s remarks are down right civil! (All things are relative….)
You’ve shown yourself to be a class act, as well; I guess you think it is somehow better to willfully lie. Funny that you are losing your collective cookies over Scott Storey allegedly doing what you do as a matter of course.
You’re off the deep end.
I rarely find myself in agreement with you but you are spot on. This isn’t the day or the thread to turn this into a political battlefield.
Thank you for thinking of Larry’s family and keeping the focus where it should be–respect for his family and friends during this painful time.
Apparently downright intoxicating because you must have blurred over the part where I said that this sort of nasty media frenzy exists across the politcal spectrum–indeed, is so much bigger than politics.
You see, I’m a conservative. I believe that politics is downstream from culture. And this media problem is a cultural issue that informs politics–not the other way around.
From Nifong to Manzanares, there is a culture of personal destruction that ruins lives and families. Manazanares was truly a victim and I feel sorry for him and his loved ones.
There is a “culture of personal destruction,” and we’ve seen some of it here in this blog. When I was attacked personally at the outset by Cuervo, by unfairly casting aspersions on my mental state, it was business as usual.
Now, everyone is wringing their hands with respect to their precious Larry Manzanares … conveniently forgetting that some of his blood is on their hands. They are part of the culture, knowingly nurturing and exploiting it when it served their purposes. Well, words have consequences, and there is a man lying in the morgue as an indirect consequence of what one newsman referred to as the “cruel” conduct here. You set the standard, and the Pest and Crocky lived down to it.
Think about it when you walk by Manz’ coffin, Polsters.
I think it is the dregs of Marxism that the left still cannot shake. It is the toxic idea that politics and economics trumps everything else and so who you are is quite literally underlined by your political preferences. So being a conservative doesn’t just make you wrong–it makes you MORALLY wrong. For most conservatives being a liberals is being wrong, naive, silly–whatever–but it doesn’t make you evil or dangerous.
The problem is that hardcore social cons who oppose equality for all ARE morally wrong. If that stings a bit then you should think about your positions more.
Because you also must have missed the whole damn thread! I was merely reacting to the thread itself and the influence of the media on Manzanares’ death.
And, please, Davey. You are probably 30 years older than I am. I mean, by the time you are 50 or 60 years old the sanctimonious “please ignore DDHGLQ” meme should be a little, oh, beyond your time. That’s something my kids do.
I believe that there was something disgusting done to Manazanares and his family. Real respect is not playing childish games on a political website. It is righting wrongs and I think there’s no doubt Larry and his family was deeply wronged.
I thought Pols reporting on this was close to what was reasonable. Reporting the alleged crime makes sense. And in the second story they made clear that the porn was not an issue. This is correct in my opinion and Pols wouldn’t have even needed to talk about the porn if the regular media didn’t make such a big issue about it.
For all the times the Pols has been cruel, I applaud your position and kindness toward Manzanares and his family during this especially difficult time.
As a member of the media I am especially sensitive to the stories published about this man by my colleagues. Sometimes we are out for the glory of the story and forget about what consequences may be brought about by the story.
At times, it seems that the only investigative reporting of any consequence in the state is done by the Westword, and the only world-class investigative reporter in America is Greg Palast — and he works for the BBC. The Rocky didn’t even mention the Gonzales caging scandal (according to NewsBank, the word didn’t appear once in the past six months), and the only way we could get reliable news about the Iraq War during 2003 was to read the newspapers in New Zealand. We can’t get the news we need to function as good citizens on a reliable basis from the cRocky, the Pest, or the tube because everyone there is focused on Paris, Anna Nicole, John Mark Karr (Do I really need to know whether he had a Coors?), and whatever sick story du jour happens to be on.
The reality is that Pols has been cruel, but they seemed to have taken the day off in the Manzaneres scandal due to an apparent partisanship. One can only imagine how ballistic and brutal they would have been if it had been Kevin McCasky….
If it hadn’t been for the special treatment Manzanares was getting — par for the course, for our corrupt courts — and the public outrage that this precipitated, I frankly doubt that the media would have descended upon this little incident with the force that it had. From the Rocky’s first story:
“Cocaine Mary” strikes again! Preferential treatment for a partisan Democrat who just happened to go to Harvard Law School? Heaven forfend!
That’s what made this a story.
While we will never know for certain now, the porn might have been the most significant aspect of the story, at least as it applies to the motivation for LM’s suicide. And that is what makes a story in today’s America.
If there is any fault, it is with the drive-by corporate media’s obsessive coverage of sex-related scandals in general (haven’t you had enough of Paris Hilton, already?), at the expense of credible reporting about scandals like the corruption in our courts and the (alleged) malfeasance of the Mark Paschalls of the world. We need more reporting of the other scandals, as opposed to less of stories like this. Unfortunately, newspapers exist to sell sofas, and people like to read about sex almost as much as Larry Manzanares apparently liked to look at it. It is as it is.
Note also for the record that in the ten articles run by the Rocky, the word “Democrat” is notable for its absence.
Let me get this straight. Because the victim of the alleged theft, namely the state judicial administrator’s office, didn’t want to press charges, that means Manzaneres got favorable treatment.
Really? How do you know that there was actually any evidence indicating Manzaneres stole the laptop? All we really ever knew was that he was not authorized to have it. But what if his story about buying it in a parking lot were true?
Admittedly, it’s a story that had some holes. But the media is not a place to try a man. And if the victim of a crime doesn’t want the crime prosecuted, who is the media to second guess that choice?
Moreover, your analysis totally overlooks the way the Jefferson County D.A. sensationalized things. We are told, by the Rocky and the Post, that Manzaneres was a porn addict. We are told, by the Rocky and the Post, at least in so many words that he had to have stolen the laptop, that he didn’t come clean because of the porn on it, and that he took his own life because he couldn’t face the consequences of his flaws.
Isn’t it equally likely that Manzaneres was despondent because he had already been tried and convicted in the mass media? Isn’t it equally likely that the public character assassination he had to endure was driven by a publicity-seeking, unscrupulous, politically ambitious district attorney who figured he had to bias the jury pool against Manzaneres for obvious reasons?
Your whole argument assumes that Manzanares did what the prosecutors in Scott Storey’s office say he did. But there never was a trial by jury. There never was a chance given Manzaneres to defend himself.
And, btw, Manzaneres’ tragic decision to kill himself might be better comprehended if one were familiar with the way in which the culture of lawyers operates. Lawyers are told, by words and otherwise and from day one of law school, that mistakes are intolerable. “Good lawyers don’t make mistakes.” When they do, the bar association comes down on them with every possible amount of weight it can summon. Absolutely no compassion or regard for circumstances is provided, despite what the rules say. And when that lawyer is suspected of a crime, prosecutors see their chance for a headline-grabbing defendant and a big star from a public who hates lawyers anyway. Not much chance for reasoned judgment there, either.
Larry Manzaneres was, if you’ll excuse my use of the verb, lynched by the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post. The bullet that killed him was, for all practical purposes, fired by the reporters and editors at those papers who blew the story out of proportion, failed to present a balanced, accurate and fair version of the facts, and took everything Scott Storey and his zealous band of “advocates” said to the bank.
No amount of anger or disapproval that some defendants do get treated differently than others can make up for such shoddy journalism and for such unethical, disreputable, and unconscionable behavior by the lawyers in the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office. They are supposed to seek justice, not pursue a conviction at any cost.
May God rest Larry Manzanares’ soul, and may He bring his wife and children and all who knew him peace. Whether he made the mistake for which he was charged with a crime or not, Larry Manzanares was a human being who did good things for his community and loved his family. He deserved better.
Green Arrow: But what if his story about buying it in a parking lot were true?
This reminds me of my old Bar-Bri course, and the CrimLaw lectures. One guy bought a set of new tires for $10 — of course, they were ‘hot’ — and told the truth, as counsel (the instructor) advised: (that he bought the tires for $10). To make a long story short, he was convicted …
CastleMan, would YOU buy a laptop for $300 on the friggin’ street without even examining it? How could any Harvard Law grad be so flaming stupid? And if you did examine it (as any sentient being would), wouldn’t you be on notice that it was probably ‘hot’?
Could you make that argument in court without having to put a bag over your head, especially when you don’t have the seller to corroborate it?
CastleMan: And, btw, Manzaneres’ tragic decision to kill himself might be better comprehended if one were familiar with the way in which the culture of lawyers operates. Lawyers are told, by words and otherwise and from day one of law school, that mistakes are intolerable. “Good lawyers don’t make mistakes.” When they do, the bar association comes down on them with every possible amount of weight it can summon. Absolutely no compassion or regard for circumstances is provided, despite what the rules say.
Errr, it’s not like I didn’t earn the same J.D. and pass the same bar exam you did, CastleMan. I “know the culture” and the corruption pervading it. If it appears in a judicial opinion, it is taken as gospel truth, even though it is well-known that judges manhandle “the facts of the pending case, or of the precedent, so as to make it falsely appear that the case in hand falls under a rule which in fact it does not fit, or especially that it falls outside of a rule which would lead in the instant case to a conclusion the court cannot stomach.” Karl Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals (1960) at 133. Whenever our judges cook the books — and they do it as manically as Emeril on speed — the stench is unmistakable. As Llewellyn remarked, “[s]uch action leaves the particular point moderately clear: the court has wanted [the result] badly enough to lie to get it.” Id. at 135.
I challenge you to read http://home.earthlin… and the supporting documentation and then, being fully advised in the premises, come back and tell me that I don’t know exactly what is going on. In a sense, I have been down the road where you say Manzanares was, harassed by government bureaucrats intent on exacting their pound of flesh. Given all the fairness and courtesy I was shown by the rabid Polsters, Frankly, I am rather enjoying giving them back a taste of their own bitter medicine, and listening to their bleats of righteous outrage. Let them hate me for showing them what they really are, and the ugliness that lies within. I don’t care overmuch any more.
I have refrained from comment on the Manzanares incident (I may have said a thing or two, but don’t recall it if I did) until he offed himself. But when he did that, he screamed his guilt. If you’re innocent like I am, you’ll fight like hell and accept no quarter. Hanz Manz effectively admitted to everything they charged him with and more.
Ok I’ll accept that you passed the bar. But how do we know where you got your JD from? Did you go to Regent University School of Law, like Monica Goodling? Seems like their graduates are allowed to make mistakes, well so long as they get immunity.
. . . our very own Sturm College of Law at D.U. And, I believe, that he took and passed the ordinary Colorado bar exam (score and number of times, I don’t know).
I say that not to defame the school, I went there because of the part time program, but rather to point out the reality of the school.
DU has got some great clinical programs, but the school is not very good at preparing people for the bar.
There are many ways to be a “good” lawyer but first you have to pass the bar and DU is doing a disservice to its students.
To forestall he who shall not be named. I passed the first time, handily.
. . .
I had a risk management consulting business I started during law school using my finance background. I broadened that to include estate planning/ business continuation issues once I passed the bar.
However, my wife got pregnant my final year of law school and we decided one of us needed to stay home. The practice has developed slowly due to the additional time constraints and it has been insuficient and irregular for a single income. So to shorten an already to long story, I’m looking for a job. Truthfully my resume looks better in finance than it does for law, though I enjoy them both.
I rapped up most of my clients and haven’t been doing any business development in anticipation of not being independant, which is why I suddenly burst on the scene after casually lurking at the Pols.
for presently-unemployed enterprising lawyers with time on their hands (e.g., to post on ColoradoPols all day and night!) – click here.
which is gracious plenty for a pass-fail exam. Not quite O/C, but not far away.
CastleMan: No amount of anger or disapproval that some defendants do get treated differently than others can make up for such shoddy journalism and for such unethical, disreputable, and unconscionable behavior by the lawyers in the Jefferson County District Attorney’s office. They are supposed to seek justice, not pursue a conviction at any cost.
Since when has THAT ever happened? Certainly, not in the real world.
It doesn’t matter whether Scott Storey acted out of political partisanship, because as a society, we seem to think that we should allow our judges and prosecutors to be as nasty as they pretty much want to be. I proposed my Judicial Accountability Act of 2008 to cure this problem (http://home.earthlin…), which many Polsters denounced. Well, now that one of yours offed himself as a result of what some are saying was improper prosecutorial conduct, perhaps you would reconsider? While I share his/her reluctance to amend the state constitution unless necessary (in the case of state judges, the only way that meaningful reform can happen is through an amendment), our own CAR can use one of the five bills alloted to propose an elimination of prosecutorial immunity.
prosecutors don’t have immunity when they act as investigators or give press conferences
It’s like having our very own village idiot.
. . . but, I have to weigh in here again:
Within a week, we’ve all gone from:
You know, I was with everyone on base # 1 and base #2, but I’m not going to base #3, even if Rio’s statements may make position #3 seem attractive. We don’t contribute this kind of compassion (`though perhaps we ought to, occasionally) for petty criminals or alleged so-called “dead-beat dads” or other folks, who take their lives in a fit of desperation. We often call them losers, selfish, cowards and quitters. If Mr. Manzanares did, in fact, come into possession of one or more laptops through knowingly criminal means, shame on him for bringing disrepute to a high, venerated, supposedly esteemed office. That shame does not get dissolved because someone chooses to take his own life.
Bottom line is, we don’t have this kind of pity for someone who’s found hanging from a noose fashioned out of a bedsheet in his jailcell while awaiting arraignment or trial. Let’s get back to reality on this situation.
Hanz Manz deserves no more pity — and neither does his family — than Polsters would give to truly innocent persons who have found themselves on the business end of malicious government bureaucrats’ ire. But if you consider that many Polsters are malicious government bureaucrats, you can understand why they would circle the wagons around one of their own.
C’mon Pols, don’t backpeddle away from your coverage. “Open dialogue” is pure and should never be apologized for.
With respect to Scott Storey, I seriously doubt this is a case of prosecutorial misconduct as some are inferring. Manzanares’ own words and deeds did him in. “He bought the stolen laptop in the parking lot?” Puhlease. He lied his ass off during the entire investigation.
Investigators tracked the computer to Manzanares’ house. Then after examining it, determined that files were being deleted in response to questioning.
That’s not prosecutorial misconduct. That’s an idiot petty thief (who happens to be a District Court Judge) who got busted cold attempting to cover his tracks.
With respect to the disclosure by Storey of the porn on the computer, it’s relevant. Deal with it. Manzanares had to get the porn from somewhere. He likely paid for it with credit cards in his own name. Tracing those online transactions back to Manzanares would unquestionably be admissible evidence in the case. So Storey was forced to decide between releasing that information now, or dropping that bomb later. Storey decided, and rightfully so, to just make it part of the indictment.
According to reports, there were also several questionable images on the computer that may have been “child pornography.” The last I heard on this issue was that the images were being forwarded to a specialized data bank in an attempt to identify and categorize the pornography. So the jury is still out on that one.
It’s the media who plays up the porn angle. And again, rightfully so. I have no problem with giving the readers what they want. I see no boycotts of the Rocky, the Post, or Pols anywhere on the horizon. People seem to be interested in a Judge who surfs online porn, or bangs a hot little prosecutor who just happens to be trying a case in front of him. I know I am. Irony, hypocrisy, and payback are tasty morsels for the voracious reader.
And finally, while I feel bad for the Manzanares Family, his haughty friends can eat crap as far as I’m concerned. No one swallows a bullet just hours after a preliminary court appearance, unless it’s going to get much worse. Exoneration was not in the cards for Manzanares. “Total and complete public humiliation” was.
This guy spent 15 years sending guys to the slammer on the afternoon docket, and then went home in his expensive car, to his big house, where he had dinner with his pretty wife – just another day at the office.
I bet not ONE of the guys he sentenced ever swallowed a bullet. But I bet a lot of them went through just as much hell as Manzanares did.
We can bantar all day about what a great lawyer or benefactor he was, and how much he gave to his community. I submit that when you are prominent, that comes with the turf. Compared to the average Joe, sure, maybe Manzanares did more than most. But with success comes responsibility. You can’t have it both ways.
Manzanares is no victim. He’s a weakling. You can add this to the list of things they don’t teach you at Harvard: “How to be a man and atone for your sins.”
The guy got basically what he deserved … and if he chose to swallow a bullet, it was his choice alone.
His haughty friends can eat crap. Unless you have been on the business end of governmental misconduct, you don’t know what it’s like.
Oh, guess I posted that already.
Come on rio, this man didn’t do any thing to you, AFAIK. Stop conjecturing on why he did what he did. Stop saying that he got what he deserved.
You are really appearing to be petty and vindictive. Again.
Rio apparently stopped caring long ago that nobody is listening to him, the natural product of having only repulsive things to say.
My expectation is that he will keep going, quite unconcerned with the contempt he inspires in everyone he deals with, feeding on your denunciations as if they were encouragement. Because he is a sociopath and he gets off on your disgust.
It’s no wonder that some court somewhere snubbed him, like Kay Sieverding, as anyone would naturally do with such petty, grudge-bearing, small-minded, unreasonable people.
…but even sociopathic clocks are right twice a day. So I take from him what has good content, and I slam him when he is otherwise.
I have yet to see anything particularly enlightening from him, but plenty of LaRouchie tinfoil-hat nonsense, pointless invective against pretty much everybody, and let’s not forget the bigotry.
even though my nature is combative, I refuse to validate him. He is…well I could insert many things here–most of them not very flattering.
I can’t help myself commenting about him though.
that we’re glad to be rid of The Nemesis –you know, the troll, who was following Rio around from forum to forum to save everyone from our own alleged lack of discernment.
I think that Rio gets so wrapped up in the anger induced by injustices that it causes him to be compbative to the detriment of his core message.
But Rio is sick. The only question is whether he is dangerous or not.
You know I actually went to law school because I did’t like lawyers. I thought they were arrogant and small minded. I am ameanable to the arguements about the judicial system.
My opinion has changed. Now I only believe that most lawyers are arrogant and small minded. (slight joke). There are significant problems with the legal system, I am particularly concerned with low income access, but just because you got a bad result, doesn’t mean yhe system is corrupt.
We could discuss or debate the truth or falsity of whether the bad outcome that Rio speaks of or that others (including myself) have spoken if is indicative of systemic “corruption.” I can tell you, for example, that I’m compiling a collection of compelling case evidence in the Tenth Circuit of pro se parties and/or civil rights complainants being discriminated agaists and fixing the outcome –not because of the merits of the case but, because of the because-I-said-so doctrine, as applied through non-precedential opinions. I can’t believe that no one has spoken up (besides a few law professors, like Rob’t Mead & Brad Shannon) before now.
We could also talk “civil Gideon” for hours but, that’s a whole separate diary entry.
I don’t disagree with the basis for your repudiation of Rio’s presentation but, don’t allow that to tarnish the broader message (the one that I’m carrying).
There is a prejudice. However, because court procedures are technically driven and often procedural factors drive decisions more than case specific facts, the bias may reflect an intimidating and overly complex procedural system. On the other hand, technical considerations are the difference between military commissions in Gitmo.
I always keep an open mind toward your posts.
My findings are that explaining away pro se bias based on the ordinary pro se litigant’s ignorance has been used as a pretext for the much broader practice of suppressing jusiticable controversies. For example, you’ve have lots and lots of lots of cases with opinions like:
and as echoed in similar cases like Steiner v. Concentra, etc. These courts never acknowledge pro se bias (esp. systemic bias). My theory is that, if a learned, studied pro se tries to prosecute a case against “Towne Hall,” and the court cannot otherwise find a legally defensible, meritorious basis to dismiss his case, they do so anyway under the because-I-said-so doctrine. They’re just not about to permit any pro se outperform a lawyer or intrude on that territory because, I suppose, it would set a bad precedent or, they fear, open up the flood gates for similar litigation.
It’s like a casino owner recognizing an experienced poker player coming in to the casino. He knows that the odds are now against the house so, because he can’t “legally” prevail, he slips the dealer a stacked deck for use against that player.
is “anyone who persistently disagrees with me.”
“Anyone who persistently disagrees with me.”
Folks do seem to be listening, and do seem to be outraged that I would be candid enough to not be so obsequiously politically correct. Whatever.
I have my takes. You have yours.
Whether you want to hear it or not, PR, Larry Manzanares got pretty much what he deserved, and what he should have fully expected. He chose to become a public figure — and while thatstatus has certain advantages, it also has substantial disadvantages. If his name was John Elway or Patrick Roy, the same disclosure would have happened (remember the French doors?).
Manzanares really got screwed when Mary Mullarkey chose to place her finger on the scales of justice for the benefit of her fellow Democrat and Harvard Law grad (which is the way things work in Colorado’s corrupt bureaucracies). Someone in the D.A.’s office placed a call to Tony Kovaleski, and the rest is history. He chose to give Tony an interview — real stupid! — and came up with the ludicrous claim that he bought the laptop on the friggin’ street for $300. TK bent over backwards to give him every chance to pull his foot out of his mouth, to no avail.
Who in their right mind with an I.Q. over 40 would buy a used laptop sight unseen? Who wouldn’t notice upon even a cursory examination that it was owned by the City? When he came up with that lie and Tony got it on tape, his fate was sealed.
If the arrogant f’s in the judiciary had had any sense, they would have told Manzanares to ‘take his medicine’ and cut a plea deal with Mitch Morrissey (who’s about as corrupt as it comes) for a slap on the wrist. He takes a deferred judgment and gets a private admonition, and virtually no one is the wiser. But instead, they chose the full monty — a complete cover-up — and the public outcry is what got Scott Storey involved.
Craig Silverman said the porn was relevant, and belonged in the indictment. Kaplis chimed in that the coverage was for the most part fair, pointing out that more salacious info lies in the indictment itself, and neither the cRock nor the Pest went for the really lurid stuff.
As Green Arrow said, Larry Manzanares was not a victim. He did it to himself. Others have been through a lot worse — and through no fault of their own (and yes, I count myself in that group, as do many courtys), and haven’t decided to swallow a bullet. Manzanares was not a great man; he was a common thief. Why can’t you stop lionizing him?
Well, I didn’t have the cajones to put it quite that way but, since you have, thank you.
I really hear what you’re saying and I’m sympathetic to it. Suicide is contemptible and cowardly. No doubt about it. And pornography is a terrible, disgusting addiction. I don’t mean to vindicate Larry on these issues, but that doesn’t vindicate the media’s frenzious obsession over Larry’s porn.
I’m charting a middle ground here. The media sets out to ruin lives in order to obtain ratings. Yet, people should be living their lives beyond reproach. I dabble from time to time in public life and I generally live by the rule that just as you never walk off in the woods surrounded by bears and mountains lions without protection, you don’t walk into public life with the media hounds lurking if aren’t willing to live a scuff-less life.
The Duke Lacrosse Case and the obsession in the media over Manzanares’ porn are both egregious examples of an over-zealous media. But the Duke boys shouldn’t have had a stripper over and Larry shouldn’t have been stealing computers and then filling them with porn.
what the media did to Bill Clinton. Sex is bad.
You say “people should be living their lives beyond reproach.” I assume you mean that people should not make mistakes, not sin.
That is totally unrealistic and a completely flawed view of human nature.
We all make mistakes. Indeed, the whole premise of Christianity, to take one example, is that to sin is inevitable. No one is free of it, or ever can be. Thus it is, at a minimum, naive to proclaim that people should be lest they be subject to unfair treatment by the media.
Then you say “Larry shouldn’t have been stealing computers and filling them with porn.” No jury ever found that Mr. Manzaneres stole a computer. The only things we know are: (1) Manzaneres had a laptop he wasn’t authorized by the State Judicial Administrator to have (the laptop belonged to the state’s judicial branch); (2) Manzaneres said he bought it in a parking lot; (3) the District Attorney theorized that Manzaneres stole it and secured a grand jury indictment to that effect; and (4) according to Scott Storey, and as repeated by the media, the laptop had pornographic images on its hard drive.
There is no way that anyone can conclusively say whether Manzaneres stole the laptop or whether he downloaded the pornography allegedly found on it. That’s why we have trials.
Manzaneres should not have committed suicide. That act was desperate and harmful to his family and friends. And, yes, it is possible that he was guilty of the charges contained in the indictment. But it is also possible that he was not, and we have no way of knowing the truth.
Therefore I think it ridiculously presumptuous of you to proclaim that Larry Manzaneres was a thief and an unseemly porn addict. You don’t know whether those claims are true anymore than anyone else reading this blog does. And I think it is hypocritical for you to say that everyone has to be perfect or accept the sensationalistic, unprincipled “journalism” spewed forth in cases such as this as being the unavoidable, appropriate, and even just result of their fall from grace.
Manzaneres may have made the mistakes you and Mr. Storey say he made. But that doesn’t justify either the prosecutorial grandstanding and attempts to bias the jury pool that explain Storey’s focus on the porn (which is not illegal to have on a computer) or the mass media’s lazy, one-sided and misleading coverage of the case.
. . . I do assume that, notwithstanding the untimely death of the accused, any investigation into contraband will continue because, if contraband is found on the laptop, they will want to learn from where it was downloaded and expand the investigation from there. If contraband is identified on the laptop[s], I certainly hope that Mullarkey won’t make some efforts to keep that hush hush.
the mention of the porn in the indictment was proper, and I can’t really disagree with him. Scott Storey was just doing his job on this one.
The journalists did theirs. Tony Kovaleski ferreted out the cover-up, and the outrage precipitated by his story led to the assignment of the case to Storey. As for the porn, the fact that he was buying it and putting it on his stolen laptop was going to be in the news for a few days, but porn has become so ubiquitous that it would have been forgotten in due course.
The people who didn’t do their jobs all work for the Democrat machine, and it is their actions which led to this unfortunate outcome. Lay the blame where it is deserved.
As for Manzanares’ guilt, his own admission on tape when he was interviewed by Kovaleski, coupled with his suicide, is a powerful circumstantial case. No one with a degree from Harvard Law would be stupid enough to buy a laptop for $300 from a street vendor sight unseen without examining it, and even a cursory examination would have revealed that it was “hot.” Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is all that is required for a conviction. And don’t you think for even a New York minute that the learned lawyer Manzanares didn’t know it.
In killing himself, he proclaimed as eloquently as he could for all to hear that he did it. And who knows whether those images were of kiddie porn….
Rio, much on this thread has been awful, cruel, and insensitive. I can’t believe you think it’s appropriate to anonymously say things about someone that just created a tragedy for so many that knew him (no matter where fault ultimately lies) so soon after his death. What kind of grudge/pissing contest gives you so little respect for others?
Really, it’s sick, and sad. I’m outta here.
I hope you mean this thread, and don’t mean you’re joining the exodus of polsters who can’t stand rio…
As much as I loathe saying anything more about the Larry Manzanares situation, I suppose I should say a few things in response to your comments.
The only reason I have posted “anonymously” in the first place is because I have been followed around the ‘Net by televangelist Bob Larson, who has been intent upon attacking me obsessively, personally, and anonymously in every forum in which I participate. I’d be as comfortable saying what I have said here to Mary Mullarkey or Alex Martinez. Mullarkey’s arguably criminal meddling was a cause of Manzanares’ suicide, as it imposed transparency upon the criminal prosecution process. Everyone knows that Manzanares was going to receive preferential treatment; it’s just ‘the way things are done’ within the bowels of the Pena/Romer Crime Syndicate. (FWIW, I’ve documented this with respect to Mitch Morrissey, btw.)
Polsters have maliciously attacked Scott Storey for simply doing his job; is it not appropriate to counter those unfair attacks with candid commentary? There was no question that Manzanares was guilty — his own admissions, caught on tape by investigative reporter Tony Kovaleski, essentially sealed his fate. As one wag put it:
If Tony the Thug tried that fast one in Judge Manzanares’ court, he would have been laughed out of court. Guilty as charged. End of discussion. Is it “cruel” or “awful” to say that at the end of the day, Larry Manzanares was a petty thief who deserved what he got, just because he was a Harvard-educated judge?
As for my comments being “insensitive,” that denunciation is doled out in a rather selective manner on this blog. How were my remarks any more “insensitive” than those by Green Arrow:
It was as candid as it was correct: Larry Manzanares was bright enough to know that he could survive by cutting a deal, though his dream of being a federal judge was probably gone. Unless he knew that things were going to get a lot worse — like kiddie-porn worse — there was no reason for him to commit suicide. (Some suicides, like that of Hermann Goering, make perfect sense.)
Finally, no one has ever given a flying f’ about my feelings on this blog, and I can find no salient reason why I should be compelled to treat anyone else better than they have made a practice of treating me. Nothing has been said here that hasn’t been said elsewhere, and if you thief-lovers are hurt by my frank commentary, you should stick to Martha Stewart’s blog.
_______________________________________________________________
It’s strange that because Manzanares committed suicide, people were reluctant to go after Judge Nottingham
I think Judge Nottingham plotted with my defendants to try to get my husband to divorce me, try to isolate me, and try to get me to commit suicide.