If only your wife's words were used against you at court why does your current Prison Inmates online profile say that new DNA evidence proves your innocence? Which is it? Was there DNA evidence that convicted you or not? People don't get 200 years for just a bitter spouses words! And your "numerous" experts who testified that your wife forced the kids to lie is also a life! You had ONE expert testify. And this man was hired and he works as a university professor and does this "testimony" on the side for extra money. He NEVER spoke to any of the children or the wife. He gave a general commentary that the kids COULD have been influenced. NOT that they were influenced because he can't PROVE that. Only that they COULD have been. Well, Unicorns COULD exists. So take that "expert" testimony for what it is - trash and like the jury decided it wasn't good enough to overcome all of the other EVIDENCE. Yes, REAL evidence. You had full opportunity to show whatever you wanted to PROVE your innocence. You had nothing which is why nothing was shown. You continue to say you are going to upload proof of your innocence to your websites but in three years you HAVE NOT! The only "evidence" you put on those sites is deperate women who love you and support you writing things such as your ex-wife is a cunt and a liar. That is NOT evidence of your innocence! You were convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT. Stop lying on your websites saying you are in prison for escape and assault. You are not putting all the crimes down! 1st degree sexual assault does not nessesarily mean RAPE. You were not charged with rape. You were charged with sexual assault and CONVICTED. Stop trying to confuse people who do not know legal jargon into thinking you were wrongfully accused.
Nathan Lindell, You were not there during the marriage. You DO NOT KNOW what happened. Tayler and Sean know what happened. Sean has every reason to lie. This was an all or nothing situation for him. Fighting until the death is the only option for him. Who would admit to being a sex offender? What if Sean is lying? How would you feel then that you were fooled by him and that you helped him continue to tormet his wife and children who are VICTIMS? Stay out of this because it has nothing to do with you. Question everything Sean tells you. He is a master liar and manipulator. And stop posting this for him and giving him a platform to continue his lies. Ask Sean why he deleted his own Between the bars blog? Why? Because he doesn't like the things that were posted in response. Ask Sean about his involvement as a FBI informant with the Mark Jordan / David Stone case?
I don't know where to start. It's been awile sence I last wrote I been so busy with my son and trying to find a job. I been tempted to go back to my old ways but I'm trying hard to make money the right way. For my son. Me an jade hit bump in the road but where working threw it. And on top of all this I miss my brothers and sisters. About the calls being monitored I geues it's cus they didn't want me going behind there back and saying things that could get them in trouble. I talked with adoptive parents an they say it's cuz they don't want us ganging up on them. Me an my adoptive mother don't get along all the time and we had a huge agruement cuz I don't want the kids in institutes. And she has grudges against destiny and I don't think she's fit to make choices as a parent if she just wants to be mean to my sister. Now destiny is an open mind and she speaks what she thinks is right and are adoptive mom hates it she wants destiny and all of us to think the way she thinks. I talk to destiny the most and she's doing good I just say try and work threw it. I'm more concerned about David he is in a level 10 fesility and and has escaped once an gotten farther then any kid has but he did get cought. I rarely talk to him he told me he has tried to kill himself it breaks my heart to hear this. My parents say it's just a game he's playing he's done it b4. But they have never been locked up they have no fucking idea what it's like. I told David about the time I was sent away also. And he asked how long? I told him 3 months he laughed at the time I was captive. But I told him you know why I was only there for 3 months. He asked why. I said cuz I did what they wanted I faked a smile and played there game. It messed with my head but I made it out. I told him to stop fighting it. To just go threw the steps. He's been in fights and assaulting staff I told him just take it slow. And now he's doing a lil better but I worry so I tried to get heather to adopt him. And told my adoptive parents let him have phone calls with her but i don't know if it will happen. I feel powerless.
Sean Riker talks with his attorney, Laura Sette, before he is ordered held on $1 million bond at his initial appearance in Racine County Circuit Court, Thursday November 12, 2009. Riker was arrested Tuesday after a standoff with Racine County Sheriff's deputies at his home in the town of Norway. He was previously convicted of 1995 pipe bombings in St. George, Utah, and served a federal prison sentence. Sette, a pubic defender, told the court commissioner after the hearing that Riker does not qualify for representation by the public defenders' office. / Mark Hertzberg mhertzberg@journaltimes.com
Rule 10(e) allows a party to supplement the record on appeal but does not grant a license to build a new record.
United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1191 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because this document was not before the district court, Rule 10(e) does not permit supplementing the record. Nor is this a case where we will exercise our inherent equitable power to allow Mr. Jordan to supplement the record. See id. at 1192. CONCLUSION The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The BOP's motion to strike is GRANTED, and Mr. Jordan's motion to supplement the record is DENIED. We remind Mr. Jordan that he must continue to make partial payments until the entire filing fee has been paid.
Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 603-04 (1982), which reaffirms the First Amendment right of access to criminal trials. Liberally construing Mr. Jordan's district court filings as raising a First Amendment claim, we proceed to consider this claim. See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003) (construing pro se pleadings liberally).
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled that there is a constitutional right to access court documents. See United States v. Gonzales, 150 F.3d 1246, 1256 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806, 812 (10th Cir. 1997).
Even assuming, without deciding, that there is a First Amendment right to court documents, that right is not absolute. See Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 606.
"Where . . . the State attempts to deny the right of access in order to inhibit the - disclosure of sensitive information, it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling government interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Id. at 606-07. Applying this test, we conclude, as a matter of law, based upon our prior discussion, that any interest Mr. Jordan has is outweighed by the safety needs of Mr. Riker. Accordingly, Mr. Jordan cannot obtain access to the sealed documents.
PENDING MOTIONS Mr. Jordan attached to his reply brief a five-page document that had not been part of the district court record. The BOP moved to strike the attachment.
Mr. Jordan then moved to supplement the record on appeal, a motion the BOP opposes.
After acknowledging both sides' interests, the district court then correctly balanced the public's interest in access against the interest of ensuring Mr. Riker's safety. The nature and degree of the potential injury to Mr. Riker could be quite significant. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995). Thus, as the district court found, the BOP met its burden of showing a significant interest that outweighed the presumption of access. See Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149.
We therefore conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there was a compelling reason to continue to seal the two documents.
Mr. Jordan's "generalized claim that the file might contain helpful matter does not outweigh the government's justifiable concern with safety." Hickey, 767 F.2d at 709. Furthermore, our review of the sealed documents leads us to the - conclusion that there is nothing in them raising a reasonable doubt about Mr. Jordan's guilt. And Mr. Jordan is clearly aware of Mr. Riker's FBI statements and grand jury testimony.
II. First Amendment Right to Access Mr. Jordan next argues that the district court erred in failing to assess his right to access under the First Amendment. The BOP counters that Mr. Jordan failed to argue in district court that he has a First Amendment right of access to Mr. Riker's complaint, and he therefore cannot raise this argument for the first time on appeal. We recognize that Mr. Jordan did not expressly raise a First Amendment argument in district court, but he did cite to Globe Newspaper Co. v.
Like the district court, we first consider the public's interest in the documents. "[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default." Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Especially "where documents are used to determine litigants' substantive legal rights, a strong presumption of access attaches." Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 121 (2d Cir. 2006); see also Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d at 409 ("[R]elevant documents which are submitted to, and accepted by, a court of competent jurisdiction in the course of adjudicatory proceedings, become documents to which the presumption of public access applies[.]"). On the other hand, where the documents "play only a negligible role in the performance of Article III duties, the weight of the presumption is low and amounts to little more than a prediction of public access absent a countervailing reason." Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121 (quotation marks omitted).
The complaint documents at issue here are the type that are generally made available for public access. But these documents had little to do with the district - court's exercise of judicial power, as the court considered the documents only to determine whether to seal them. No further adjudication occurred. Thus, the district court correctly determined that the public's interest in access to the documents is weak.
Next, the district court correctly recognized that the BOP articulated a competing interest to the right to public access: the need to protect Mr. Riker's safety. Although Mr. Jordan criticizes the BOP and the district court for stating this interest in only conclusory terms, the sensitive nature of the sealed documents warrants the conclusory treatment.
RSS
proves your innocence? Which is it? Was there DNA evidence that convicted you or not? People don't get 200 years for just a bitter
spouses words! And your "numerous" experts who testified that your wife forced the kids to lie is also a life! You had ONE expert testify. And this man was hired and he works as a
university professor and does this "testimony" on the side for extra money. He NEVER spoke to any of the children or the wife. He gave a general commentary that the kids COULD have
been influenced. NOT that they were influenced because he can't PROVE that. Only that they COULD have been. Well, Unicorns COULD exists. So take that "expert" testimony for what it is - trash
and like the jury decided it wasn't good enough to overcome all of the other EVIDENCE. Yes, REAL evidence. You had full opportunity to show whatever you wanted to PROVE your innocence. You had nothing
which is why nothing was shown. You continue to say you are going to upload proof of your innocence to your websites but in three years you HAVE NOT! The only "evidence" you put on those sites is deperate
women who love you and support you writing things such as your ex-wife is a cunt and a liar. That is NOT evidence of your innocence! You were convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT. Stop lying on your websites saying
you are in prison for escape and assault. You are not putting all the crimes down! 1st degree sexual assault does not nessesarily mean
RAPE. You were not charged with rape. You were charged with sexual assault and CONVICTED. Stop trying to confuse people who do not know legal jargon into thinking you were wrongfully accused.
Nathan Lindell,
You were not there during the marriage. You DO NOT KNOW what happened. Tayler and Sean know what happened. Sean has every reason
to lie. This was an all or nothing situation for him. Fighting until the death is the only option for him. Who would admit to being
a sex offender? What if Sean is lying? How would you feel then that you were fooled by him and that you helped him continue to tormet his
wife and children who are VICTIMS? Stay out of this because it has nothing to do with you. Question everything Sean tells you.
He is a master liar and manipulator. And stop posting this for him and giving him a platform to continue his lies. Ask Sean why he
deleted his own Between the bars blog? Why? Because he doesn't like the things that were posted in response. Ask Sean about his involvement
as a FBI informant with the Mark Jordan / David Stone case?
I don't know where to start. It's been awile sence I last wrote I been so busy with my son and trying to find a job. I been tempted to go back to my old ways but I'm trying hard to make money the right way. For my son. Me an jade hit bump in the road but where working threw it. And on top of all this I miss my brothers and sisters. About the calls being monitored I geues it's cus they didn't want me going behind there back and saying things that could get them in trouble. I talked with adoptive parents an they say it's cuz they don't want us ganging up on them. Me an my adoptive mother don't get along all the time and we had a huge agruement cuz I don't want the kids in institutes. And she has grudges against destiny and I don't think she's fit to make choices as a parent if she just wants to be mean to my sister. Now destiny is an open mind and she speaks what she thinks is right and are adoptive mom hates it she wants destiny and all of us to think the way she thinks. I talk to destiny the most and she's doing good I just say try and work threw it. I'm more concerned about David he is in a level 10 fesility and and has escaped once an gotten farther then any kid has but he did get cought. I rarely talk to him he told me he has tried to kill himself it breaks my heart to hear this. My parents say it's just a game he's playing he's done it b4. But they have never been locked up they have no fucking idea what it's like. I told David about the time I was sent away also. And he asked how long? I told him 3 months he laughed at the time I was captive. But I told him you know why I was only there for 3 months. He asked why. I said cuz I did what they wanted I faked a smile and played there game. It messed with my head but I made it out. I told him to stop fighting it. To just go threw the steps. He's been in fights and assaulting staff I told him just take it slow. And now he's doing a lil better but I worry so I tried to get heather to adopt him. And told my adoptive parents let him have phone calls with her but i don't know if it will happen. I feel powerless.
No posts. No posts.
Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) Followers
About Me
seanrikerisinnocent View my complete profile
NO POSTS - Where is the transcrips you say you have?
Stand off - not Sean coming out and surrendering.
United States v. Kennedy, 225 F.3d 1187, 1191 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Because this document was not before the district court, Rule 10(e) does not permit supplementing the record. Nor is this a case where we will exercise our inherent equitable power to allow Mr. Jordan to supplement the record. See id. at 1192. CONCLUSION The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The BOP's motion to strike is GRANTED, and Mr. Jordan's motion to supplement the record is DENIED. We remind Mr. Jordan that he must continue to make partial payments until the entire filing fee has been paid.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled that there is a constitutional right to access court documents. See United States v. Gonzales, 150 F.3d 1246, 1256 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. McVeigh, 119 F.3d 806, 812 (10th Cir. 1997).
Even assuming, without deciding, that there is a First Amendment right to court documents, that right is not absolute. See Globe Newspaper, 457 U.S. at 606.
"Where . . . the State attempts to deny the right of access in order to inhibit the - disclosure of sensitive information, it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling government interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest." Id. at 606-07. Applying this test, we conclude, as a matter of law, based upon our prior discussion, that any interest Mr. Jordan has is outweighed by the safety needs of Mr. Riker. Accordingly, Mr. Jordan cannot obtain access to the sealed documents.
PENDING MOTIONS Mr. Jordan attached to his reply brief a five-page document that had not been part of the district court record. The BOP moved to strike the attachment.
Mr. Jordan then moved to supplement the record on appeal, a motion the BOP opposes.
We therefore conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding there was a compelling reason to continue to seal the two documents.
Mr. Jordan's "generalized claim that the file might contain helpful matter does not outweigh the government's justifiable concern with safety." Hickey, 767 F.2d at 709. Furthermore, our review of the sealed documents leads us to the - conclusion that there is nothing in them raising a reasonable doubt about Mr. Jordan's guilt. And Mr. Jordan is clearly aware of Mr. Riker's FBI statements and grand jury testimony.
II. First Amendment Right to Access Mr. Jordan next argues that the district court erred in failing to assess his right to access under the First Amendment. The BOP counters that Mr. Jordan failed to argue in district court that he has a First Amendment right of access to Mr. Riker's complaint, and he therefore cannot raise this argument for the first time on appeal. We recognize that Mr. Jordan did not expressly raise a First Amendment argument in district court, but he did cite to Globe Newspaper Co. v.
The complaint documents at issue here are the type that are generally made available for public access. But these documents had little to do with the district - court's exercise of judicial power, as the court considered the documents only to determine whether to seal them. No further adjudication occurred. Thus, the district court correctly determined that the public's interest in access to the documents is weak.
Next, the district court correctly recognized that the BOP articulated a competing interest to the right to public access: the need to protect Mr. Riker's safety. Although Mr. Jordan criticizes the BOP and the district court for stating this interest in only conclusory terms, the sensitive nature of the sealed documents warrants the conclusory treatment.