Columbine Statements Ordered Destroyed

[Nambe]

DENVER(AP)

A magistrate ordered the destruction of sealed statements that the parents of the Columbine High School gunmen gave as part of a wrongful death lawsuit.

U.S. Magistrate Patricia Coan said Thursday there appeared to be no need to keep the depositions from the parents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold because the case had concluded.

The families of five victims settled the case for unspecified damages. They claimed in their lawsuit that the gunmen's parents knew or should have known what their sons were plotting before the shootings.

Two of the families said they planned to appeal the magistrate's ruling. ---

Ride Don’t Drive It’s Global Cool

[goforit]

1. Destroy the evidence????.......What about freedom of Information????

:wtf:

She is off her rocker!!!!
Doesn't she have better things to do?

[TahitiNut]

15. I tend to agree with the judge.

This was a civil suit -- a claim of specific harm (tort) to the victims and families where the responsibility for that harm is shared by the respondants. A civil deposition ccan and usually does cover a wide range of topics -- topics that can intrude upon privacy, both financial and personal. The questions in a deposition can often be questions that'd be prohibited as irrelevant by the judge in a trial setting. They are often allowed in a deposition only to be later disregarded as irrelevant by the judge. To make such depositions public would only serve to deprive respondants of their privacy in matters unrelated to the suit -- a kind of 'punishment' that, to me, seems potentially very disproportionate, even on top of such (irrelevant) disclosures to a plaintiff.

[leesa]

2. I would like to know this judges political affiliation

Has this judge never heard of appeals? What a whacky judgement.

[RobinA]

3. What's the Problem?

I can't imagine what these people's personal statements would add much to the public discourse and they need a break. It's just voyeurism that would make anybody want to read what they had to say.

You can't appeal a settlement.

[Caution]

4. The problem is that the court system is run by the public

It is in the public's interest that these records exist. They provide an important check on the power of government. Maybe this particular case doesn't make a good example of that, but how about a case involving cheney and halliburton? how about the whitewater case? These documents not only form a vital part of a way to keep the government from hiding their own actions but they also provide an important historical record. Maybe right now this is just voyeurism but 100 years from now this may be seen as a watershed event and it will need to be interpreted.

[Dhalgren]

5. Good point.

Even scholars, now, would benefit from having this documentation. Everyone wants to say that we know all we need to know about this tragedy; maybe personally, we do, but as a society we need to be able to effectively deal with the dynamics of the causes of this sad incident. If these documents would help in even the smallest way, that would be for the good. And, indeed, we need to make sure that ALL documents are maintained that might have bearing on the society at large.

[sangh0]

32. Bad point

Though it may be in the public interest to keep those records, it is also in the public's interest to protect people's right to privacy. If the civil courts are required to hold on to private info and to release to the public, it will make many people less reluctant to be forthcoming in the courtroom.

[demdave]

8. Clinton appointee....do you not have google?????

Washington Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D - CO) announced today that President Clinton has nominated Judge Patricia A. Coan to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

[Chovexani]

6. She must be a Repuke

They love destroying evidence.

What about the Freedom of Information act? Or was that one of the things Asscrack put in the shredder with the Bill of Rights?

And does this set some kind of legal precedent (sp?)? I mean, I could care less what was in those documents myself, but what kind of message does that send? A judge has the right to say what evidence is relevant and what isn't but to order something destroyed outright? :wtf:

Maybe it's my Asscrack-era paranoia but I'm not sure we ought to just allow people to destroy legal documents like that, regardless of what's in them.

[demdave]

7. You must be prone to baseless accusations. I would even say prejudiced.

Washington Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D - CO) announced today that President Clinton has nominated Judge Patricia A. Coan to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

[Chovexani]

11. Sigh.

I was trying to make a feeble Enron joke. Obviously it didn't work.

Note to anyone else who accuses me of being prejudiced: IT WAS A JOKE. A poorly thought out one, but one nonetheless. I'm not concerned about the party of the person who did it.

Besides, it's more infuriating to me when Dems do this kind of thing. We ought to know better.

[cherryperry]

29. It was NOT feeble; it was CLEARLY a joke and

a good one at that!

If you apologize or try to explain one more time, I'm going to have to :spank: you...wait a minutes, you might enjoy that, so I will instead :toast: you, whatever...you have now been initiated into the elite group of us who get our chops busted whenever we attempt elitist things, such as the use of humor in a deadly serious political thread. Congratulations! Official membership perks, decals, etc. will arrive soon in your "inbox".

:grouphug:

:yourock:

[RobinA]

9. Oh, Here We Go

I don't agree with you so I must be a Republican.

I can see the merit of the "save for posterity" argument, but I'm still OK with destroying these records in private civil cases such this. These people have suffered enough. This doesn't involve government activities and it doesn't involve any foreseeable benefit to mankind or public interest. Someone in the future may wish they had these records for writing a book or something, but I guess that book will just have to not be written. I'm in favor of protecting the innocent. This is not some oddball decision made by a judge run amok, and in this case I support it.

[Chovexani]

14. I see where you're coming from, sort of.

(Read my above post re: "she must be a Repuke". I'm not wasting any more breath on that)

I agree that the people involved have suffered, but I disagree that this doesn't involve any kind of public interest. I think it's an issue of public safety, probably the paramount public interest--scholars should have access to this kind of info. It's been what, four years since Columbine? To this day no one really knows why it happened (of course, I think I know exactly why it happened, but I don't have any fancy degrees and no one ever listens to me :P). If these documents can give any kind of insight to the situation, then they ought to be made available to the public. I could understand if it was something like a kid committing suicide. But this was a very public mass murder, and it involved the larger community (the town, obviously, but also the nation). In spite of the initial hand-wringing which always happens after these kinds of incidents, nothing has really changed--people just kind of collectively shrugged their shoulders and moved on.

Columbine is just a very sensitive issue for me, I guess. I was in HS at the time it happened, and nearly got suspended for a video project I did examining why it happened, and if the same thing could happen at my school. The documentary was seen as being "too sympathetic to the shooters" (of course, the fact that I was one of the black-clad "weirdos" probably had something to do with it too). Since then I've done more research into the incident while at uni. This decision just strikes me as another attempt to sweep this thing under the rug, in the hopes that it will just go away. It could well be that the documents in question have no real bearing on anything, I don't know, and barring a successful appeal we'll never know. I guess that's what bothers me about this. I think history--and the public--ought to be able to decide that, not some judge. I don't want to see innocent people suffer by having their dirty laundry aired out in public any more than the next person, but at the same time I think our legal system ought to be based on the pursuit of truth (even if that isn't always the case in practice), and hell the truth hurts a lot of times. I would rather a small group of people have their feelings hurt than more kids imploding and taking others out with them, and more families having to be paraded in front of cameras while they're trying to grieve. As I said, I'm not sure the documents in question have the answer, but I think we ought to have the right to determine that for ourselves. YMMV, of course. And I don't think you're a Republican. :)

[demdave]

10. I now know why we are called knee-jerk liberals.

Out of 6 replies, not counting my 2 responces, we have 1 asking for party affilliation ramping up for a rant and another that just baselessly declares this judge a Rep. The exact same thing happen yesterday about the first judge that blocked the do-not-call registry.

Could we try to refrain from showing our ignorance by simply doing a little research? How different from freepers are we if we attribute everything we have a problem with to the opposition when in fact it was one of our own? We accuse freepers of demonization when we have a thriving practice going here.

[Chovexani]

12. Okay.

Since I'm stupid, and a bigot, and no different from a freeper, please educate me. I asked a question in my post ("does this set a legal precedent?"). I was being facetious with the "she must be a Repuke" line, but I wasn't when I asked about the legal ramifications. I honestly don't know, law is not my area of expertise. Like I said, it could be my tinfoil hat paranoia, but I get very nervous about this kind of thing. That's why I asked.

Instead of calling people ignorant how about educating them? That might help the situation. I just find it amusing that you would demonize other posters in the same breath that you're telling people not to demonize people.

[demdave]

13. I didn't demonize you, the problem actually existed.

As you stated, it was a poorly identified joke, if it was a joke at all. My statement about people making assertions before they have the facts stands. Remeber, you led your entire post with that statement.


As for education, type "http://google.com" and enter key words.

[Chovexani]

19. You called me prejudiced

And accused me of making baseless accusations. I think that qualifies as demonization. That's neither here nor there though--I apologize if my post came off improperly, as I don't have the best communication skills online. I tend to type before I think and it gets me in trouble (kinda like now :)).

I know about Google. It doesn't answer my question though--I don't understand legalese, and trying to make sense of it for more than five minutes makes my overworked brain spin. I asked the question in the hopes that someone with more knowledge in that area could explain it, in English. Maybe I'm just being lazy, but I thought part of the idea of DU was people of varying backgrounds bringing their knowledge to the table and helping educate other DUers who may not be familiar with those aspects of a situation. I'm admittedly very stupid in the area of law. Googling is very helpful, but if you don't understand what's going on in the hits you find, it can leave you more confused than before you started.

[demdave]

20. My take on the issue of the destruction of the depositions.

Having finished my rant :) I went back and re-read the small article. It doesn't give me all the info I need, but I will tell you what I can figure. I get the impression that the victim's families sued the parents of the murderers. If this is true, then I do not see what benefit there is to release info that led to a settlement. Settlements are objective decisions based upon a variety of conditions, the evidence for and against, your perception of your chances, your attorney perception of your chances and the expense (the cost sometimes overrides all others). So I fail to see how this could be helpfull to the public. I would have to say that it is more of a voyueristic desire.

Sorry about the rant, I have a discussion yesterday over the same topic and I guess you just happen to step into the crosshairs.

I hope this has helped.

[Chovexani]

25. Thanks

Your perspective was helpful, since civil cases baffle me (even after having been on a jury for one). I didn't know the specifics of the case and will have to look into it some more (the article was pretty sparse on info). I agree that there is probably an element of voyeurism involved, and it saddens me. I'm just approaching it from a desire to add to history and maybe our understanding of the incident.

Hey, nothing wrong with ranting. :) I think every DUer is up to his/her eyeballs in stress right now with everything that's going on, and misunderstandings are bound to occur. No harm done. :hi:

[Atlant]

16. Actually, you provide no evidence that this judge *ISN'T* a Republican.

Actually, you provide no evidence that this judge ISN'T
a Republican. The fact that they were nominated by Clinton
suggests a possible party affiliation but is certainly no
proof one way or the other.

And the better judges tend to be pretty circumspect about
such things, so Google (and OpenSecrets, etc.) often isn't
very revealing about this.

Atlant

[demdave]

17. It has been generally accepted in these forums that Reps. appoint Reps.

and Dems. appoint Dems. I have never seen it even questioned before. Funny that you should now that the shoe is on our foot.

[Atlant]

18. Please don't take this personally, but...

Please don't take this personally, but while I'm more than willing
to accept the concept that Repubs appoint Repubs, and historically,
Dems appoint Dems, I'm not willing to accept, absent data that
proves it, that Bill Clinton appointed Dems.

He was having such an awful time even getting his appointees a
hearing that I suspect he relaxed the rule a little.

Does anyone have data, one way or the other?

Atlant

[Atlant]

24. Data, indirect but suggestive...

I dunno about Federal Judges, but when it comes to the FTC,
Clinton apparently appointed two Republicans to the five-
member Commission and elevated a third Republican to Chair.

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:mjJJLSiCC_8J:www.stevenslee.com/PDF/AB/sept01.pdf+%22Clinton+appointed+Republicans%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Timothy Muris is new FTC Chairman

Timothy J. Muris, 51, has been named as the new Chairman
of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Chairman Muris
returns to the FTC, having spent most of the early 1980s at
that agency, which has major anti-fraud and other consumer
protection, as well as antitrust responsibilities. He has since
taught antitrust law at George Mason University in Virginia,
published many articles on antitrust and been Of Counsel at
a Washington, D.C., law firm. His interest in economics
extends beyond antitrust and consumer protection into many
government budgeting matters. He joins four holdover
commissioners – two Democrats and two older, Clinton-
appointed Republicans – former Vietnam War pilot and
P.O.W. Orson Swindle, and former General Motors lawyer
Thomas B. Leary, who later practiced antitrust law in
Washington, D.C. Mr. Muris, nominated by President Bush to
a seven-year term as commissioner, was confirmed by the
Senate on May 25. He assumed the job on June 4 after
former Chairman Robert Pitofsky resigned to return to his
Washington, D.C., law practice and his teaching position at
Georgetown Law School, opening the way for Mr. Muris to
join the five-person commission.

[Dhalgren]

21. One point I might make regarding

the "demonization" of Republicans - if the shoe fits. The Republican Party has been taken over by neofacists and I, for one, have little problem with "demonizing" facists. If that paints with too broad a brush, so be it. I don't want to work with Republicans on a political level, I don't want to socialize with Republicans and I don't care if this is regarded as a "prejustice", because it is. The Republican party is in the process of destroying my country - not metaphorically, not euphemistically, but literally, in the real world and it's happening right now. This "let's be nice to the facists so we won't look like them", is one of the reasons we are now in the dire circumstances in which we find oueslves. Don't come to a gunfight with a knife and don't try to fight republicans with civility - you will lose.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dhalgren]

23. Is it biggoted

to demonize Nazis? Is it a fault to hate people who are destroying your country? I have no problem with holding such prejustice. If you do, then beware the label "Quisling".

[Chovexani]

26. I'm with you

To some extent. On the political level I agree, because aside from the handful of moderates who have been pushed out of influence there really is no reasoning with today's GOP. I am inclined to be more sympathetic to the moderates, until I remember that they are the ones that vote for leadership, etc--then I tend to think of them as enablers. I really don't have a leg to stand on though, because someone could very well call me an enabler of Al From and the DLC because I vote Democratic in every election. It's a tough situation. At any rate, when you've got people like Tom Delay calling the shots, you can't really afford civility.

Socially is a slightly different matter though. I would never knowingly associate with your typical Talibornagain racist Limbaugh worshipping Puke, cause honestly I think those folks ought to be given some time to catch up to the rest of us on the evolutionary ladder, but the others? I'm not so sure. I have a very good friend who's a Repuke. He's a cop who was in the Marines, went to Texas A&M and likes Poppy. We've learned to keep our dinner conversations confined to Buffy, Dune, and our other dorky interests. If we don't, we sound like an episode of Crossfire--especially since he's the only Republican in our small circle of friends. He's a really great guy, and we just adore him, I don't understand why he votes Repub. He hated Giuliani, hates Junior (he likes Clark though, interestingly enough), is Pro-Choice, thinks the Religious Reich is full of shit, etc. His parents are also aging hippies and registered Greens. I think he's just Republican by assimilation, from being around so many in the military and school. People like that I have no problem associating with, they are basically good people, but just misled. People that willfully put blinders on and absolutely refuse to "get it" (my Libertarian ex-BF, for example), are another story. They're not worth my time.

--C.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. I Must Be A Repuke, Too

I support both of the decisions to which you refer. I have been involved in several civil suits (business) as an expert witness for both the plaintiff and the defense.

Depositions tend to include questions not entirely pertinent to the case being adjudicated because the integrity, validity, and expertness of the witness is in need of either support or refutation. As a result, there will be information in a deposition that isn't relevant to the case, but is personal information of the person being deposed.

I've never said anything in these business cases of which i would be ashamed (it was only business, after all) but there is personal information within them that is nobody else's business.

As far as the "Do not call" issue. I've gotten in enough arguments over that one. I have retired from those discussions.

But, based upon the knee-jerk reaction you mentioned, i must be a repuke. Funny, i thought i was a liberal independent who almost always votes dem. Guess i was wrong.

The Professor

[demdave]

31. There must be a misunderstanding

I was responding to the fact that people were claiming the judge in this matter MUST be a Rep. when they didn't know one way or the other. In both the cases I referenced, the same mentality was there..shoot first, do the google second. In both cases it was a Dem. appointee, Carter and Clinton. This was the subject I was addressing.

As for the issue of releasing these files, as I have posted above, I think it has only voyeuristic value. So I guess we agree.

The do not call issue has moved to a new issue and level.

The only knee-jerk reaction I ever refered to was to label a judge a Rep. without giving it a cursory search. As far as I know, you were not guilty of that and I never implied you were.

Perhaps you replied to the wrong post.

[Selwynn]

28. Read TahitiNut's post

This isn't some vast conspiracy.

[cherryperry]

30. Excellent post (as can usually be expected from Selwynn) eom