ZFG Civil Case: Casey's Deposition #2

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry for the double post--something is wrong with my connection.

Anyway, my point is that just because someone sues Casey Anthony doesn't make them right. :)
 
krkrjx said:
It has nothing to do with what KC did to her. It has everything to do with attacking the victim. The defense is hell bent on painting ZG as a money grubber who sees a chance to make a buck or two. They have already implied that ZG is a citizen who could not be defamed no matter what, insinuating that only famous or wealthy people can be such victims. Pointing out anything they can about the victim being uneducated or vagrant or WHATEVER they can think of is their way of saying ZG is not worthy of any consideration.

It was done to Kronk. It will be done to TM.

I pray that if this goes to trial the jury looks at it from a viewpoint of, "There but for the grace of God go I." And also that the judge in this case has a bit of common sense, enough to consider only the aspects of this civil proceeding that are relevant, i.e., might a reasonable person have looked at ZG in a negative manner when these lies were told, etc.
Click to expand...

And that is the sad fact of a lot of trials. Dredge up somebodys' past to such a degree to shame and humiliate them into possibly dropping the lawsuit-Unless prior life actions are a direct result of what could have happened that involves the case at hand, I do not think it is anybody's business if someone didn't have a great education, or lives at poverty level for whatever reason, had 6 children by 5 different men or if someone had a problem with the bottle-That has nothing to do with what is actually going on such as this. Just a scare tactic and tactics like that should be out of bounds-stick to what's actually going on or what had gone on to bring it to a courtroom, kwim?

As for good ol' CA, she's a flip flop. She has to be in on the action any way she can-she's a mixer, but she's also the one who got in front of the news camera and flapped her gums. It is what it is. I just hope this time nobody is allowed to sit in on testimony at trial. I know there are depositions, but that doesn't mean some other questions can't pop up out of the blue.
 
Intermezzo said:
:what:
:waitasec: He is?

I went into the TES civil suit records and I see an Affidavit submitted by a John G Degirolamo on Jan. 5, 2012..

The Lawyers for the TES case are Chmelir (Lead Attorney) and Greene..

Did you see or read something that states DeGirolamo is a lawyer on one of her cases?

Is John D. a rookie lawyer working for one of the 2 lead attorneys?
:)
Click to expand...

When I googled him, ran across a link to a filing (court minutes) that listed him as counsel for the defendant (CA): http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2012/0..._Casey_Anthony_Wites_Kapetan_order_1-9-12.pdf

It might have been for limited purposes. I have no idea who he might be associated with professionally. Sorry. :)
 
A motion which describes KC's lies in detail trying to make the Plaintiff look bad. It's just amazing that an attorney feels that this is a good thing. jmo
 
AZlawyer said:
This motion is not only well-written, it is IMO legally sound for all the reasons I've talked about for years.

I think I said way back in 2008 that ZG's best chance would be if she could prove that Casey really did single her out by, e.g., taking her name from the Sawgrass apartment card--or perhaps from a form she filled out at some other apt complex on her list that happened to overlap with the list of apt complexes being looked at by Tony (with Casey in tow). Those forms often ask what other apartments you've looked at in the area, so even a form from another complex like Crane's Landing or whatever it was called (where Casey was forced to hang out in the apt complex office because she didn't have her driver's license) might reveal that ZG had been at Sawgrass.

But as far as I can tell, Morgan et al. have made no effort to investigate this possibility. Instead, they relied on demonstrably untrue allegations like "my name is ZFG" (fascinating that they understood her name was ZG for purposes of the contingency fee agreement but not for purposes of the Complaint); "Casey gave LE the description of my car"; "Casey gave LE the names of my kids"; etc.

Maybe they investigated the Sawgrass connection and couldn't figure it out--I don't know.
Click to expand...

This is what I was afraid of as I read it...I hate the thought of Casey having legal standing to get this thrown out, but it looks like she does. *Sigh*
 
BTW all the "bad" statements about ZG in the motion are completely relevant to the legal issues, and in fact the motion explains exactly how each fact is relevant. Sometimes bad things about people are relevant, and if you don't want those things in the public record, you shouldn't file lawsuits in which they will be relevant.

I once had a guy come into my office wanting to sue someone for calling him mentally ill and impotent... to make a long story short, he decided against the lawsuit. ;)
 
like Cindy Anthony said "the Anthonys aways win"

I don't expect anyone will ever prevail against her. Florida is her rhymes with witch.
 
Marshmallow said:
like Cindy Anthony said "the Anthonys aways win"

I don't expect anyone will ever prevail against her. Florida is her rhymes with witch.
Click to expand...

I know there's not much to laugh about in this case, but you got me with that one! :floorlaugh:

Even if this civil suit fails, we have to keep in mind that Casey is young and there are many, MANY years yet for karma to catch up with her. She can't escape it forever. Even in Florida.
 
AZlawyer said:
BTW all the "bad" statements about ZG in the motion are completely relevant to the legal issues, and in fact the motion explains exactly how each fact is relevant. Sometimes bad things about people are relevant, and if you don't want those things in the public record, you shouldn't file lawsuits in which they will be relevant.

I once had a guy come into my office wanting to sue someone for calling him mentally ill and impotent... to make a long story short, he decided against the lawsuit. ;)
Click to expand...

Just curious. The item:

142. She is the grandmother of 2 children, born to her oldest daughter, although she cannot name the fathers of either of those grandchildren.

is relevant how?

(side note: Funny that this is even brought up since Cindy could not name the father of her own grandchild. Kind of doubt KC could either.)
 
I would love to see this go to court in order to see CA and CFCA ripped to shreads and then to fringe like on a pair of old cut off jeans. But I wont be surprised when it is tossed out of court as none of the Anthony's have had to answer for any wrong doing they have done (or still do for that matter). Sorry, I'm all out of faith in our justice system. I'm more sorry for Caylee then anything else. I mean how much more injustice can be slamed into Caylee's face then what has already been done and to think that this poor little girl wasn't even 3 years old yet.
 
Marshmallow said:
like Cindy Anthony said "the Anthonys aways win"

I don't expect anyone will ever prevail against her. Florida is her rhymes with witch.
Click to expand...

Ugh no kidding. I can't remember if FCA filed a countersuit but I shudder to think what could happen with that, just based on FCA's luck with the courts.
 
KarmaGet'em said:
Just curious. The item:

142. She is the grandmother of 2 children, born to her oldest daughter, although she cannot name the fathers of either of those grandchildren.

is relevant how?

(side note: Funny that this is even brought up since Cindy could not name the father of her own grandchild. Kind of doubt KC could either.)
Click to expand...

OK, they didn't need to include that last part. ;) But anything about ZG having kids and grandkids, when the described ZFG was childless, is relevant. Similarly, anything about ZG's "good name" or "reputation" (or lack thereof) is relevant, because she's suing for damage to her good name/reputation. Just like you can't sue for someone denting your car in a place where you already had a big old dent, you can't sue for someone denting your already-dented-up reputation.

IMO the last part of that sentence has more to do with the reputation of ZG's daughter than ZG's own reputation.
 
AZlawyer said:
BTW all the "bad" statements about ZG in the motion are completely relevant to the legal issues, and in fact the motion explains exactly how each fact is relevant. Sometimes bad things about people are relevant, and if you don't want those things in the public record, you shouldn't file lawsuits in which they will be relevant.

I once had a guy come into my office wanting to sue someone for calling him mentally ill and impotent... to make a long story short, he decided against the lawsuit. ;)
Click to expand...

I really don't agree that just because FCA's attorneys argue it, or because people say they are relevant, that they are. Makes no sense.
 
Horace Finklestein said:
Yeah it looks like CA's support is unwavering despite the cruelty visited on her by FCA. I'll never understand how she can support FCA after she led her to believe there was hope of finding Caylee alive when she knew she was dead. Unimaginably cruel, but I guess CA likes that for some reason.
Click to expand...

Because that "cruelty" is orchestrated for public consumption ONLY.
 
Horace Finklestein said:
I really don't agree that just because FCA's attorneys argue it, or because people say they are relevant, that they are. Makes no sense.
Click to expand...

These things (e.g., ZG's poor reputation) are not relevant because Casey's attorneys argued them. They also are not relevant because people say they are relevant. You can't make something relevant by saying it. These things are relevant only because they tend to make a fact at issue in the case more or less likely to be true, which is the legal definition of relevance.

Example: if ZG had a poor reputation before Casey came along, it is less likely to be true that her poor reputation now (assuming she has one) was caused by Casey.

Similarly, if ZG tended to be unemployed before Casey came along, it is less likely that her current unemployment was caused by Casey--although I guess she has dropped that part of her claim now.

One more example: if ZG was used to being questioned by police every so often even before Casey came along, it is less likely that being perfunctorily questioned by police in this case caused her a lot of psychological harm.
 
Casey got ZFG information somewhere, and it seems reasonable that Casey got the Sawgrass information from there.

Matthew Crisp in his interview with Det. Lee on July 17th said that Casey called him on June 19th about looking at an apartment at Crane Landing, said that she and Tony came by and Casey was left behind. I always thought it odd that an old friend of Casey's wouldn't let her go with Tony to see the apartment. Matthew Crisp also said the next time he saw Casey again was at a Subway on July 7th.

Casey had way too much info about ZG for it to be a coincidence. You don't just come up with that much information about a complete stranger on your own.

I wonder if Cindy will "mike up" when Morgan and Morgan take her on again? That one phrase and Cindy's anger and just plain hatefulness, has stuck in my mind and I always laugh when I watch Cindy and George and their anger when asked to tell the truth.

They, along with Casey will do down.


Bigmomma, thank you for the welcome. I didn't blow you off and ignore you. I didn't know how to reply (and still not sure), and wasn't sure if you got my message.

ILTBP
 
How much weight should be given to a "sworn affidavit" given by Cindy Anthony? LOL Her word means about as much as her daughters....and her husband's.
 
How much weight should be given to a "sworn affidavit" given by Cindy Anthony? LOL Her word means about as much as her daughters....and her husband's.
 
TotallyObsessed said:
How much weight should be given to a "sworn affidavit" given by Cindy Anthony? LOL Her word means about as much as her daughters....and her husband's.
Click to expand...

At the summary judgment stage, the judge won't weigh the truthfulness of the witnesses at all. If ZG disputes anything Cindy says with any admissible evidence whatsoever, Cindy's testimony will not be considered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 115 more.
Total: 2,258 (members: 116, guests: 2,142)

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
2,142
Total visitors
2,258
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,790
Messages
17,992,468
Members
229,236
Latest member
Sweetkittykat
Back
Top