March 9, 2007 7:51 AM
Courts knew ex-judge was laptop suspect
Colorado judicial authorities who told Denver police they didn't want the case of a stolen laptop prosecuted "at this time" knew the suspect was a former district court judge and city attorney, reports Lou Kilzer
That was revealed in a statement released by the state court administrator's office on Thursday.However, the statement from the office of State Court Administrator Gerald Marroney said Larry Manzanares, who became Denver city attorney in January, did not receive "any preferential treatment" by the administrator's office.
The office said it declined to recommend prosecution because it was conducting its own investigation. .
The Rocky's editorial says the statement raises far more questions than it answers:
Do state court administrators usually argue against prosecution in possible thefts of comparable magnitude from their own offices? If so, why? Doesn't the public expect the courts, of all institutions, to pursue punishment for lawbreakers? On the other hand, if the administrator's position favoring no prosecution in this case was unusual, doesn't it amount to special treatment for Manzanares - treatment that Mullarkey and Marroney specifically deny?
PREVIOUSLY:
A top Colorado judicial department official asked Denver police to drop the case against former city attorney Larry Manzanares who had been caught with a stolen laptop, reports Lou Kilzer.
Carol Haller, legal counsel for the state court administrator's office, says in a written statement to Denver police that she had reviewed police reports and discussed the issue with State Court Administrator Gerald Marroney and asked "that no prosecution take place at this time."Discussion
Join the discussion
March 8, 2007
7:24 AM
JS writes:
Now isn't this just a waste of time and money! And another over zealous DA "over rules" someone? Now isn't he just part of the problem with the so called "american justice system", which isn't anymore.
March 8, 2007
8:05 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
The top Colorado judicial department official and the deputy Denver district attorney should both be part of the investigation. Sounds like obstruction of justice to me.
March 8, 2007
8:39 AM
joe johnson writes:
Yes,
Attorneys can steal and they do. I guess thats the ticket.
DEMOCRATIC LAW
March 8, 2007
8:40 AM
Rick writes:
Didn't the 'highly ethical former judge', have ANY questions, when he saw a 'Property of the State of Colorado' tag on the laptop? Or is that too high tech for Denver? The State of Colrado?
March 8, 2007
9:17 AM
JW writes:
"The top Colorado judicial department official and the deputy Denver district attorney should both be part of the investigation. Sounds like obstruction of justice to me."
I love the double standard Hogar. Youre a peach.
March 8, 2007
9:21 AM
Anonymous writes:
That's pretty clear thinking from you Hogar. Now what do you think about the 8 state district attorneys that have been fired across the U.S. that were investigating Republican corruption from their state? Sounds pretty Bush league. Another example of above the law party politics.
March 8, 2007
9:22 AM
Just an ordinary citizen writes:
So if I ever get into a position such as the former judge and steal something from the State, then it's not really stealing as it was all a mistake? Yeah, keep sending the mixed messages about what is crime and what is not.
You steal, you've stolen, face the consequences of your actions to the full extent of the law, but then there is no law for former judges to follow because they're above it? Come on, give me a break.
March 8, 2007
9:56 AM
Lowly Surf writes:
How can I get a deal like that? Wait, I can't. I am a lowly money generator and my place in society is etched in stone. My job is to keep working, pay taxes and buy things. That way, politicians and judges can use me for income and a source of revinue for their favorite intitlement programs. Ahh it is so wonderful to be stuck between rich scumbags and poor scubags...
March 8, 2007
10:04 AM
Voice of Reason writes:
These are the same schmucks that will YELL, "If you don't want a speeding ticket, then don't speed!"
Ha-ha charade you are!
March 8, 2007
10:59 AM
Frank Blanc writes:
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said, " We have given the people a democracy. Let's see if they can keep it."
It appears that there are different layers of justice for different citizen and non-citizen classes. Elected government and appointed officials have given themselves a special set of rights not available to you and me.
Illegal aliens as non-citizens have been give special rights through the "winky, winky" justice system set aside by your elected officials. (How many stolen SS numbers, registered for the draft, identity theft, no payment of income taxes etc.)
We citizens and tax payers are a class in ourselvesas. We are the source of dollars going into the government coffers. We pay all the way around but somehow fail to demand what we want and what is right under the laws of Colorado.
We loose not because of corruption in government but because we do not take the time and energy to demand good clean government and justice for ourselves at the voting booth.
March 8, 2007
11:13 AM
Wilson writes:
I was charged a crime last year on the basis of a completely false report, and was able to provide inarguable, bullet-proof hard evidence to the Denver DA's office that the charge was unfounded. No matter, it took 7 months before the charges were dropped ... and the DA REFUSES to charge the actual criminal - the person who lied and presented fabricated evidence - with false reporting. Denver's DA office is a sick joke. I'm out thousands in legal fees. There's NO justice in Denver.
March 8, 2007
11:32 AM
Brandy Y. Schwarz writes:
Buying ANY kind of computer from someone you don’t know would send out common sense red flags to me. How can someone let alone a judge with degrees lose all common sense and buy a stolen computer. They dropped the charges, why? First of all every cop in this great state will tell you ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. In this case ignorance IS no excuse for breaking the law-receiving property of theft is a crime!! Why should the great white people of our judicial system let this man go free!!! I’m outraged again that a system designed to protect the law abiding citizens is now a system designed to HELP criminals. Had it been me-which it won’t- the cops would have been up my backside with a microscope and down the front collecting evidence to charge me with a crime.
March 8, 2007
11:33 AM
Reader writes:
Come on Wilson, step out from the other side of that fence and give us some details. What happened and how.
March 8, 2007
12:43 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
I love the double standard Hogar. Youre a peach.
Posted by JW on March 8, 2007 09:17 AM
JW,
There is no double standard. Here is a known crime, the person who was in possession of the stoen property and those who wanted nothing done should be investigated. If there is no crime, then don't investigate till you have some descrepancy in the testimony, drop the case. I have no problem with the fact that Fitzgerald investigated, but when he found the person who outed Plame, (Armitage) he should have stopped investigating and either charged Armitage or not.
This is a case of not investigating even though you have a person with opportunity in possession of the stolen property and then you have people who do not even want to investigate. They are the ones with double standards. And I don't even want to throw the book at the judge if he is found guilty in a court of law, even though he would be more guilty than Libby.
March 8, 2007
12:51 PM
Anonymous writes:
In order for Mr. Manzanares to have criminal liability here, I think we first must ascertain his intent and/or knowledge at the time the PC was purchased. The easiest way to do this is to ask "How much did he pay for the PC? If the answer is an unreasonable amount, say $100 or $200, then the probability that he knew and intended to buy a stolen PC increases. It is, I think, unreasonable to purchase a PC for this amount. Conversely, if he paid a reasonable amount for a used PC, say $500 or above, I think the scale starts to slide towards mistake rather than crime. This one fact, for me, is the most important information here. One price leans towards the purchase and/or receipt of stolen goods, the other price leans towards a good deal on a used PC (although his judgment here could have been better, i.e. obtaining a bill of sale from the seller - even if it was on a napkin).
March 8, 2007
1:13 PM
Lj writes:
Brandy,
"Why should the great white people of our judicial system let this man go free!!! "
To quote Jay and JW,
WTF???
March 8, 2007
1:15 PM
JW writes:
"There is no double standard. "
If youre a partisan hack. The double standard is that this guy did something wrong, and you want him prosecuted. But Libby! No, Libby is a Republican administration official! He COULDNT have done anything wrong! And the fact that he has now been CONVICTED of PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE means nothing! Hes a REPUBLICAN for God's sake!
"Here is a known crime, the person who was in possession of the stoen property and those who wanted nothing done should be investigated. "
Did you bother to read the article? The lady read the police reports, and decided there was no reason to press charges. This is pretty routine, and also means THERE WAS SOMETHING DONE.
That said, I have no problem with them investigating further. If there was an abuse, they should deal with it, just like they did with Libby.
"And I don't even want to throw the book at the judge if he is found guilty in a court of law, even though he would be more guilty than Libby."
How so? This guy recieved stolen goods. Hes guilty of that. Libby perjured himself, and obstructed justice. Hes guilty of those things. Sounds like they are just guilty, none more so than the other.
March 8, 2007
1:31 PM
2:12 writes:
Uh, 12:51... do you really think this guy ended up "buying" one of his own former department's laptops from a guy in a parking lot outside his building?
March 8, 2007
1:40 PM
debra f. writes:
My son is in jail ( in St. Charles, Mo.)for a class A felony...robbery. He allegedly robbed & punched out a pizza delivery guy ,who is a drug dealer, (he delivers more than pizzas & evidently rips off his customers). So a felony robbery is a felony robbery right??? I think the laptop thief needs to be locked up. my son's offer from the DA is 20 years. pucker up Larry!!! you need to be in the Big House!
March 8, 2007
2:13 PM
Anonymous writes:
2:12 - I don't know, but that's his story right now. As such, he deserves the benefit of the doubt, just like anyone accused of a crime. If the facts fail to back-up his story, then he should be charged. If they tend to support it, then maybe he shouldn't be charged. There's lots of information being thrown around on this blog. However, (1) the article says nothing about the PC having an easily identifiable label, sticker, or stamp, stating that it was city property; (2) there's no mention of the price paid; (3) nothing suggesting that anyone, including any dock-area security cameras, saw him take the laptop; and (4) nothing which tells us that software installed on the PC would immediately alert anyone to the city's ownership. These are just a few of the missing pieces. Then take into consideration that the article itself is media-driven - they want to write articles that grab attention.
Although technically the same, facts can be crafted to either support or refute any given argument. For example, assume that someone states in an affidavit that "I saw someone running from the loading dock, holding a laptop PC." This fact can be related in such a way as to support his guilt, by simply compunding it with another seemingly relevant fact, i.e. "A witness said that he saw a man running from the loading dock, carrying a laptop computer, at about the time Manzanares said he bought the PC in the parking lot." Or, one might write to support non-guilt, by including more facts that the pervious version omits, i.e. "A witness said that he saw a man running from the loading dock and carrying a PC; however, the witness was unable to identify whether it was a man or woman, or what the person was wearing." One writing seems to suggest that the witness saw Manzanares running from the loading dock with a PC under his arm. The other version suggests that although a person was seen running from the loading dock with a PC, it could have been anyone, and may have even been a woman. The second writing, in fact, tends to suggest that the witness didn't see any useful information, let alone enough to make an ID, a matter which the first writing absolutely suggests. The second writing could easily lead to an inference that the person running from the docks was late for a meeting or something. All I am saying is that none of us should ever pass judgment on anyone - public figure or not - based on a newspaper article alone.
March 8, 2007
2:59 PM
2:12 writes:
2:13: Some of this is already known. He doesn't remember how much he "paid" the "man" in the "parking lot" who was selling him the computer from the former judge's own department in the building next door. The computer went missing around the time the judge resigned. The "man" in the "parking lot" supposedly said he needed to "sell" the computer because he needed to raise money for bail.
The computer did have ID on it -- it's unique IP address, which allowed police to trace it.
Why did the state court administrator want to drop the matter after getting it back and not want police to find the thief? Maybe there's a big theft "ring" in the C&C building that could be "cracked."
I wonder if police are able to tell by examining the laptop's hard drive to whom it was previously issued within the Denver District Court? Wonder if it was assigned to the former judge? What an incredible coincidence that would be, for the judge to "buy" a "stolen" laptop from a thief who happened to purloin the computer shortly after the judge resigns and, of all things, end up "selling" it to the person to whom it used to be assigned? Just wondering, of course.
March 8, 2007
3:19 PM
Anonymous writes:
2:13 - I agree with you that, obviously, if it was Manzanares laptop when he was there, that weighs heavily against him, and would be the strongest evidence of theft yet. But the IP Address comment? Do you know your IP address without turning your PC on? I definitely don't. In fact, many people wouldn't even know how to discern their PC's IP address. Again - all else being equal, there's nothing to suggest that someone could just look at the PC and know it belonged to the city.
March 8, 2007
4:39 PM
Sherlock H. writes:
The computer was probably stored in a closet, not being used. This clown decides to take it for his own use - because, hey, it is just sitting there, no being used. Unbeknowst to him, there is a tracking device on it, he gets caught with the goods. He goes to his friends "in high places" tells them he will return it, please don't take it any further. They agree, but somehow, someone spills the beans to Channel 7. He resigns. End of story. He won't have to do any jail time because, hey, it was just sitting there, right, no one was using it. He returned it.
Give me a break. If it were you or I, average Joe, we would be sitting in a jail cell. It's who you know, you know?
March 8, 2007
5:42 PM
disgusted writes:
I find it hard to believe that someone in that position could buy anything from someone in a parking lot and not have the suspicion it might be stolen goods cross his mind. But then, I find that story hard to believe, anyway. But the worst fact of the matter is that the DAs office wants to simply drop it. They wouldn't do so for you or I. No one should be above the law, and the officials of our judicial system have an obligation to set an example. How can they with any conscience prosecute common criminals while turning a blind eye to one of their own? It's pure hypocrisy.
March 8, 2007
8:58 PM
Steve in Denver writes:
What a moron...being an attorney you'd think he'd have the money to be able to buy a kick butt lap top from dell or best buy and not bat an eye. Then again most people with money are very tight with it. He deserves the same treatment as anyone who gets caught for theft. Lets just see what kind of sentence he's given if found guilty...probably very watered down I'd think.
March 8, 2007
9:22 PM
bozo writes:
It makes no sense that this former Judge (the guy was making decent money) would either steal a used computer or buy a stolen computer unless...
Do you think there may have been something on that hard drive that the former Judge didn't want anyone to see? Why would a smart guy risk his career over an old $200 computer. I suspect that whatever was on the computer had the potential to be pretty damaging.
March 8, 2007
10:14 PM
David Hakala writes:
Yes, the Judicial Branch was right to ask the Executive Branch to drop this investigation. It could only have led to a conviction that would not serve the interests of justice or the people of Colorado.
Justice is not witless application of the law with zero tolerance and willful ignorance of total circumstances. Those who think it should be are as sick as the cross-dressing, paranoid fascist who said,
"Justice is incidental to Law and Order." - J. Edgar Hoover.
Sociopaths like him weaseled their way into Congress during the Reagan years and stole much of this nation's capacity for justice with mandatory sentencing "guidelines". As a direct result, the U. S. has the highest rate of incarceration of any "civilized" nation, but we are no safer.
Our FUBAR "corrections" system has become one huge network of crime colleges. Get a scholarship for smoking a joint and you can graduate with a Master's Degree in racketeering, plus a ready-made network of job offers.
I've had cops give me a break, and bust my chops for no good reason I could see. I've had cops give others breaks when I wanted them busted, or at least Tasered. Victims are no more qualified to judge than perpetrators are.
Every prosecutor has dropped many charges "in the interest of justice". I've read many a news report in which judges showed mercy. The "lawn order" mullahs should reflect upon that word's meaning:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/297200.html
Manzanares is a good man who did something wrong, apparently for the first time in a life filled with opportunities to enrich himself illegally. A petty offense like receiving receiving stolen property - not stealing it, as you Hoover-esque hyenas keep howling - would not be strained at all in his case. His well-documented ability to serve society should not be destroyed.
March 8, 2007
11:16 PM
R. Check writes:
One of the reasons Denver has seen an increase in violent crime is lack of resources to investigate and prosecute. Everyone knows Mazanares stole the computer. He has lost his job and been publicly embarassed. He has also lost any professional creditibility and is a complete laughing stock. The DA's office really does have more important things to prosecute than a silly misdemeanor theft. Besides, no one in Denver would ever get jail time on a first offense for something like this.
March 9, 2007
1:18 AM
Checking R. Check writes:
Sounds like R. Check has a dog in this fight. Sorry, not buying the bovine waste today. You guys screwed the pooch.
March 9, 2007
8:52 AM
JW writes:
"Justice is not witless application of the law with zero tolerance and willful ignorance of total circumstances. "
You have the right, should you be on a jury, to refuse to convict someone even if you KNOW for a fact they committed the crime. WE make the laws in this country, and WE can decide they are invalid as part of a jury. Judges don't like it. Prosecutors don't like it. And that is why, despite precedent, judges frequently give instructions to the contrary, and our citizens are ignorant of this.
YOU can decide if someone should be punished REGARDLESS of whether or not they broke a law. In this way, we can see justice done, even when the laws fall short of that aim.
March 9, 2007
9:06 AM
Lynn Kimbrough, Denver DA's Office writes:
Whether the DA's Office has more important crime to prosecute or whether someone is going to get jail time aren't valid considerations in this case.
The issue is much larger than 'just a theft case' because it involves the public trust. A full investigation MUST be done by an independent agency because the integrity of our criminal justice system depends on it. Public officials ARE held to a higher standard.
It would have been fairly routine for the Deputy DA who first declined the case to do so in a situation where the property had been returned and the victim wasn't interested in pursuing charges. (We deal with folks all the time who are glad to have their stuff back and who don't want to endure a long criminal justice process.) But this case can't be treated routinely precisely because the allegation involved a public official.
When a public official faces an allegation of wrongdoing like this the situation requires immediate action to fully investigate all aspects; an investigation that must be done by an outside agency. That's why the Assistant District Attorney took those steps immediately upon learning of the case.
March 9, 2007
9:49 AM
Mike writes:
It's funny how I can't drive down the road with 45 day old plates on my truck without getting pulled over and given a citiation but this servant of the people can rip off a computer and get away with it. Illegal Mexicans run rampant, but it's the white working folks that have to pay the price. I am sick of it and have no respect for the law anymore since it only applies to legal, white citizens of this country.
March 9, 2007
10:28 AM
rw writes:
Of course he's getting preferential treatment. They should take the vehicle that he transported stolen goods in along with the house where he stored stolen merchandise.
March 9, 2007
10:31 AM
Joe writes:
Of course he didn't get preferrential treatment. Let's see, he took something that didn't belong to him. Is that a crime?
He lied about how he got it to the police.
Is that a crime?
Now the big question. The officials don't want to press charges 'right now'?
Is that a crime?
March 9, 2007
10:41 AM
Me thinks writes:
This guy should go on trial and be prosecuted to the full extent possible. The prosecutor should blame the whole Valerie Wlson Plame fiasco on him and the jury should wait to see if they can get Cheny's or Dubyas scalp. They should then convict him on faulty memory and when Dubya doesn't have to testify, the jury can be disappointed, get movie deals and write books. Maybe even an Oscar or at least a Golden Globe.
March 9, 2007
10:45 AM
Mommar Kaffur writes:
Hakula- "Justice is not witless application of the law with zero tolerance and willful ignorance of total circumstances."
Unless it is Libby, then convict him on faulty memor and let the nutroots go whacko.
March 9, 2007
4:00 PM
Rick writes:
The State of Colorado does NOT put tags on their merchandise? Pens, pencils, paper clips I can understand, but a $1600.00 laptop? Great to be so free with taxpayer money!
March 9, 2007
5:09 PM
Richard Ostberg writes:
He is a lawyer.What do you expect? Naturally,he will be protected by other lawyers.Have you ever had any experience with trying to get a lawyer disbarred.If the lawyer is part of a large firm,you are just spinning your wheels.They only go after single lawyer law firms.If Herman Frank was a lawyer in Colorado,he would never have been disbarred,much less hung.These people know how the system works.And it only works for them.If a truck driver had done what this lawyer has done,you can be sure he would face charges.His explanation of how he got this computer,just shows how stupid he thinks the rest of us are.
March 9, 2007
6:20 PM
Holier Than Thou writes:
You know there's something wrong when county courthouses are fancier and bigger than the state capital.
American justice is a sick joke. We have people suffering lengthy terms in prison who never hurt anyone. While violent felons get a second chance to barbecue someones baby and burn down a city block. Here's your proof that our government, especially the police and court system, is nothing more than a collection of degenerate and cowardly thieves.
Manzanares should be forgiven for stealing that laptop because it's nothing compared to the evil his self-righteous colleagues do every day. Instead, we should hang him for insulting the people with that lame excuse about buying his own laptop computer from a mysterious stranger in the parking garage. Mind if I take a swing at this fruitcake? Build a proper gallows and do them all.
March 10, 2007
6:45 AM
lee writes:
I would think that if he's willing to "buy" a computer from a man in a parking lot, then other things has he used bad judgement on? This is a public offical that is supposed to know the law and his actions are contrary to that. Even a lowly serf like myself knows it's a crime to be possession of stolen property, so why wouldn't a fomer judge recongnize computer as potentially stolen when he purchased it.
I do know that if he gets a "get out of jail card" then you know that we are headed towards the same corruption that a certain county south of us has. Where if you have money and influence, you are above the law.
March 12, 2007
8:54 PM
Anonymous writes:
Hmmm
The buck continues to richochet off of Hickylooper each time his administration screws up. The laptop judge who concocts an embarrasing lie while his office runs interference for him is compounded by the dog-walking DA who tries to strong arm a pooch detective. And all the while the press (sorry,...) the LIBERAL Denver press pretends there is no CEO in charge of all this corruption.
Birds of a Feather.