Mayor Michael Hancock Issues Level 3 Stay at Home Order for Denver, Colorado

Is This About Controlling the People or Controlling the Virus? Hancock’s Mistake. 

Cristal M Clark 

All week I had planned to bring you Halloween related stories just for entertainment but you know the pandemic is technically a horror story of its own right?

Today Mayor Michael Hancock of Denver issued level 3 stay at home orders once again limiting outings, business capacity and shuttering some indoor activities leaving the citizens of Denver with the threat of shutting the city down again. I get it, his heart is in the right place, his head is a bit foggy though. I have lost friends to the virus, to depression due to job loss, lockdowns, drug overdoses due to the same recently so I get it but the virus is not the only thing killing people. 

Naturally, this news caused an onslaught of anger, fear and emotional turmoil for many. I personally do not agree with restrictions in terms of limited capacities and forcing businesses to shut down. And I am so sick of seeing people take to social media with complete anger and without becoming educated and claim it’s about control not the virus. 

First of all, think about that ridiculous statement. It is about control, idiots, it’s about controlling the spread of the virus not individuals. Sadly, when trying to control the virus we are seeing government overreach to the level of epic proportions. These leaders have yet to see how the effort to keep the virus at bay is affecting even industries they deem essential. The money for many is running out, spending will slow now just in time for the holiday season and even construction will slow and when that happens, the bottom is going to tank out. That is simple mathematics.

The control here is to keep hospitals from running at capacity, from keeping them from running out of beds. Which has yet to happen and is even less likely than back in March to happen today. We have better treatments and the young are driving the spikes. The young are more likely to survive. So what Mayor Hancock is trying to achieve is unnecessary. In fact keeping things shut down and limiting businesses from open at capcity is causing further damage to the economy. A damage that cannot be undone.

Shutting down and restrictions have not worked thus far, which I’ll get to in a bit. A lot of people sounded off on social media locally today claiming this is not legal, the mayor and governor cannot order shutdowns, we need to fight back, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. 

Well, yes they can shut things down. 

To prevent abuse, the power to make laws, enforce laws, and interpret laws are separated into three branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. And the three in terms of the virus are for sure not on the same page at all. 

This prevents, mayor’s, governors and even a president from simply doing what they want (like a king or dictator), even if they feel those actions are best for the people. They must do only those things which comply with the laws enacted by the legislature-as interpreted by judges. Interpretation is everything when it comes to upholding laws. 

So upon declaring a state of emergency, a Governor and any other executive declaring an emergency will issue a series of executive orders invoking specific State legislative enactments. Those statutes pre-authorize the executive branch (which the Governor heads) to take certain, specific actions when the state is facing an emergency.

Most declarations of emergency pertain to snow storms or hurricanes, wildfires. In those instances, the State invoked more familiar provisions of the statutes governing declarations of emergency, including freeing up money earmarked for emergency use; calling on the national guard to help with the effects of the storm; and allowing the police to redirect traffic. But the Governor’s statutory powers during an emergency are broad, flexible, and include the ability to make such orders. . . as may be necessary adequately to meet the various problems presented by any emergency, including the designation of vehicles and persons permitted to move during an emergency, the conduct of the civilian population during the threat of and imminence of danger or any emergency, and on any matter that may be necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people. 

Many States have moved to an Emergency Health Powers Act, which have provided additional authorization for control over medical facilities, the distributions of medical resources, and authority to identify areas that are or may be dangerous to the public health and to cause the movement of persons within that area to be restricted, if such action is reasonable and necessary to respond to the public health emergency. The states may require quarantine for persons who are unable or unwilling to undergo vaccination and for those who are sick. 

For an added kick in the balls, the FMLA was changed to accommodate those who fall ill from the virus currently, doesn’t really matter the organizations size either. 

So Yes, states, cities and municipalities can shut businesses down right now. And they can vaccinate you, quarantine you, and are immune from a lawsuit for doing any of those things.

Like it or not that is what it is, you can stomp your feet, throw tantrums, become outspoken on social media, this is what it is. 

Now, all of that said, Mayor Hancock made a mistake here, first the threat of another shutdown, that is akin to political suicide and here is why- 

Millions of people are still out of work, that threat is more or less a promise that they will continue to be out of work for the foreseeable future. For workers who have gone back to work, now they get to live in constant fear of losing their jobs, again which by the way lowers an individual’s ability to fight infection, fear causes worry, worry causes stress, which affects overall health. 

The biggest reason this was a fatal mistake however goes back to those three branches of Government and it ends in the lap of a judge who thus far almost nationwide, have been unwilling to uphold punishment for anyone who goes against these local and state mandates.

Think about it, how many news stories are we seeing with regards to the virus and state or city mandates, where the cops try to enforce a mandate, a state agency tries to enforce a mandate and it ends with a Judge who is unwilling to punish the business or individual for whatever indiscretion. 

So these three branches can’t bother to be on the same page let alone effectively enforce restrictions or mandates, why should the people follow these orders? Now I am not suggesting we go against what Mayor Hancock said today, I am posing a very serious question whilst also pointing out the flaw in issuing mandates. 

Additionally, I saw Mayor Hancock’s not so kind words with regards to the Trump administration’s failure to get another stimulus put through before the election, yes I agree that was bullshit however, to Mayor Hancock, Governor Polis and any other state or local leader who might read this, get off of your little high horses because you all share in the blame here. I saw not one of you march your higher than thou happy asses up to Capital Hill and demand that rather than rush a hideous, religious zealot, who has no idea what being a woman is, and who wants to take us to the dystopian era into the supreme court and demand a stimulus deal be reached instead. 

I did see a number of state and local leaders nationwide take to news outlets to bitch and whine about it, but you know as well as your voters going to the media doesn’t do shit for your people. You all failed on that one so do not just blame Trump and White House on this one. If enough of you would have grown the balls to get in his face as a collective team regardless of party, he would have sided with you hence with the people. Some of us do in fact pay very close attention to the details here so I would not assume anyone missed that. 

Now, if we want to do the right thing by the people we must of course, educate on mask wearing, social distancing, hand washing (for some of you bathing in general), and we must isolate the vulnerable and the sick. 

In addition to that we must open our economies and to do that our governments must work with the people and allow for less restrictions in terms of permits to have outdoor seating, here in Denver we have fantastic winters, if we shut down enough streets and parking lots these local businesses will figure out how to make it work. Businesses would actually help neighboring businesses by partnering up to make things work during the pandemic. 

I think Mayor Hancock and other Mayors, our Governor and other states will find if you leave it to the people to figure out how to open at full or 75% capacity the majority will find ways to make it work and they will do it right. But to just force them to close or limit capacity to a point where it makes no sense to open, you are basically turning your backs on them. And that is what is causing the pandemic anger. 

We will see less argument over mask wearing, group gatherings and the like if we left it open to businesses to find a way and remove restrictions like permits to have sidewalk seating, we need to start closing streets so as to allow businesses to open. These businesses will pay to get outdoor heaters and to have a thriving business back if we let them. 

It all goes back to those three branches, you are pretty hard pressed to find a Judge to uphold your mandate these days. And I hate to say this but after reading hundreds of comments today after Mayor Hancock issued his updated mandates for the city of Denver, after conversing with many people and business owners, if we keep poking the bear here it’s not going to end well. 

Pay attention to the people, they are becoming desperate, and angry, with the election, the racial tensions, police shootings, protests, the far left, the far right. All of it spells disaster and that will spill onto the streets and into every corner of this country in the form of civil unrest the likes no one has ever seen. 

How many guns are legally in the hands of what were once responsible gun owners? I say “what were once” responsible because no matter which side you are on, once the shooting starts, well we will become the wild west again. Now add that to the amount of guns on the streets and in the hands of those who have them illegally. We are already seeing an increase in certain crimes all because of the pandemic.

It’s time to think before local and state officials react, it’s time to reflect on the damage those actions and mandates and orders are causing. IT is no longer a small sacrifice you are asking of us, we the people, you are destroying lives at a far higher rate than that of the virus. Every reaction by leaders is going to start to have an equal if not more powerful reaction from the people.

To Quote Mayor Hancock: “ This is not a game.” 

Keep messing around with people’s ability to live, work, pay bills, own a business, own a home, own a car, buy food, keep messing with it state and local officials because my friends, “This is not a game,” that is one hell of an atomic bomb, and it it just so happens to be ticking.

Cristal M Clark

IOS users can find The Crime Shop on Apple News

@thecrimeshop on twitter

Murder of JonBenet Ramsey


JonBenét Ramsey – Boulder, Colorado

JonBenét Patricia Ramsey was just 6 years old when she was murdered December 25, 1996 in Boulder, Colorado.

Earlier this year we saw an onslaught of made for TV investigations into the murder of JonBenét, all of which really offered no new information and no new leads.

They were all basically a collection of the same old theories being re-investigated by different investigators attempting to prove to the world who might be responsible for the murder of JonBenét Patricia Ramsey.

The main focus of each of the shows that aired this year were; the bowl of pineapple, the flashlight, the DNA, the crime scene, the mistakes that were made by police and of course Burke Ramsey.

One positive from all of the shows however was the ability to create doubt around the Ramsey’s being cleared due to the original DNA testing.

It is very true that the DNA may in fact be useless due to cross contamination and the fact that the crime scene was so blatantly staged that it’s truly hard not to miss.

Through the years I have been asked what my thoughts are, and as each show aired this year, I received many messages asking me what my thoughts are, who do I think is responsible for the death of JonBenét?

The case had many suspects and now the Boulder police department are going to conduct new tests on the DNA that from the crime scene.

The bottom line however is simple, will the new tests truly lead us to any new suspect or unmask JonBenét’s killer finally?

For the majority of the public, the case always only had three possible suspects, none of which were ever outside of the Ramsey home at the time of the murder.


Patsy and John never had issues with child abuse despite the fact that JonBenét had a bed-wetting issue for all intents and purposes they were very loving parents, if anything I believe that they gave into every whim and fancy that JonBenét might have had.

I read through a lot of message boards after Burke’s interview with Dr. Phil as well. Many people think Burke has Asperger’s or some other form of autism.

Regardless, many focused on his smiling through the interview and after watching his interview with investigators when he was a little boy, it’s easy to see why people would suspect that he has Asperger’s or autism.

I know of individuals who can tell a white lie every now and then with no problem yet when it comes to the ability to tell a lie that involves something pretty serious those same individuals are not capable of being able to lie and keep a straight face.

Studies have yet to prove or show, let alone find a true trigger or reason within the brain as to why some people are incapable of telling a lie and manage to keep a straight face, but it does happen.

So Burke may have some form of autism or he may just be incapable of being able to tell a lie.

Burke may also be one of those individuals who smiles, laughs or chuckles at inappropriate times when he is nervous.

At any rate, for those that have been asking, what I believe happened in this case is more a matter of what I believe in fact happened based off of logic and what I know firsthand to be the truth.

For me, the evidence has never at any point in time supported the theory that someone outside of the immediate family killed JonBenét.

The evidence also does not support the idea that JonBenét was lead from her bedroom by an intruder, fed pineapple, molested and murdered accidentally or otherwise.

The entire crime scene was in fact staged, from the basement window being opened to the ransom note. The actual crime scene does not make logical sense, therefore it was staged.

The idea that someone who initially intended on kidnapping JonBenét for a ransom would stage the crime scene is also not logical.

Nor is writing a ransom note on paper from the home and the note being so long, well only a woman would write such a long note, ransom or otherwise.

The idea that she was molested by said intruder is preposterous. The investigations have shown that the blood could have come from anywhere and it was not ever at any time proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that JonBenét Patricia Ramsey was molested during the commission of her murder or any other time in her life.

What’s more is that in one particular news interview with John and Patsy you can see clearly that Patsy is in utter disbelief, shock and possibly denial. She is struggling, confused and so very numb.

She knows exactly who murdered her little girl and is powerless to do much about it and it is destroying her.

The evidence does in fact lead to a family member being responsible for the murder of JonBenét.

The pineapple while interesting is only a small part of the overall crime scene.

Agreed with many experts, the spoon in the bowl is a telling tale that a mom didn’t make the snack for her child. A dad wouldn’t have either because a child would inform the dad the spoon was too big for her to use and a dad would have swapped it out.

The flashlight, this one in particular interests me the most. While the CBS special about the case illustrates that only a child could have killed JonBenét using the flashlight, the fact that it had no prints on it, including the batteries makes no realistic logical sense.


I have always believed that in fact Burke killed his sister and that John and Patsy covered it up.

If a parent kills a child as a result of child abuse, you’d typically see tell tale signs of ongoing abuse, old injuries from it and the like.

Logically speaking, most parents who kill a child don’t reach for a weapon such as a flash light. Especially a mother.

A father is more likely to shoot, strangle or beat the child with his bare hands.

A child is more logically likely to have reached for a weapon so as to strike his sibling as hard as he could, thus killing her.

Burke was the only person in the home who would have had the motive for wanting his sister dead because he felt anger, angst and rage towards her.

Something set him off that morning and he wanted to hurt her. He picked something up and struck her as hard as he could.

I believe that it was Burke who covered his sister up with a blanket initially. He may also have tampered with the crime scene in an attempt to keep his parents from knowing what he had done.

The evidence shows this once you start to dig your way through it. Some parts of the crime scene are juvenile in nature while other aspects are clearly more adult and in a very clear attempt to cover up the truth.

Some evidence makes no sense whatsoever, which makes sense if you believe like I do that John and Patsy are attempting to cover up the truth.

Covering up the crime of their son, turned into overkill in terms of trying to deflect suspicion away from the family.

The problem that you have with such a crime and cover up is that it was staged to look like something that it never was. But because those that staged it are related to the actual killer, it becomes extremely difficult to prove who he might have been.

It can turn into a he said/she said scenario.

Because of so much contamination on top of poor investigating, crucial evidence was contaminated or lost.

While the evidence once followed properly leads you to who is responsible, unless the new DNA tests hand over a smoking gun, this case may very well go unsolved in legal terms for quite some time still.

Cristal M Clark

IOS users can find The Crime Shop on Apple News

@thecrimeshop on twitter