2010.03.19 Indigent Status Granted

[Intermezzo]

Translation of JAC motion into plain English:

Dear HHJP,

We noticed Casey has a couple of new lawyers. We want to know if she's paying them. If so, maybe she ought to be using that money to pay her costs instead.

Love, the JAC

Nicely put AZ
So tell if I get get it or not,

1) It has come to the JAC's attention that Casey has additional lawyers..
IMO Baez has not NOTIFIED the JAC that Casey has new lawyers on her case, failure to notify the proper parties is getting very old Mr Baez..very old indeed.

and,

2)The JAC does not know if or how these additional lawyers are getting paid or if they are Pro Bono and that adding these extra lawyers may impact the JAC's obligation to pay due process costs..

IF Casey has come into any ASSETS (that being the key word) to her directly or on her behalf....then the Defense is obligated to notify the Court...
HMMM did one or more of these lawyers "donate" assests? or is the last statement normally found in this type of motion.

 

[AZlawyer]

Nicely put AZ
So tell if I get get it or not,

1) It has come to the JAC's attention that Casey has additional lawyers..
IMO Baez has not NOTIFIED the JAC that Casey has new lawyers on her case, failure to notify the proper parties is getting very old Mr Baez..very old indeed.

and,

2)The JAC does not know if or how these additional lawyers are getting paid or if they are Pro Bono and that adding these extra lawyers may impact the JAC's obligation to pay due process costs..

IF Casey has come into any ASSETS (that being the key word) to her directly or on her behalf....then the Defense is obligated to notify the Court...
HMMM did one or more of these lawyers "donate" assests? or is the last statement normally found in this type of motion.

You've got it.

In this case, apparently you do have to ask whether the lawyers are donating anything to the "cause." If they are, or if someone is paying them, KC might not qualify as "indigent."

I don't think anything will come of this, though. I think the new lawyers will say they are working for free and have given no "donations."

 

[sleutherontheside]

You've got it.

In this case, apparently you do have to ask whether the lawyers are donating anything to the "cause." If they are, or if someone is paying them, KC might not qualify as "indigent."

I don't think anything will come of this, though. I think the new lawyers will say they are working for free and have given no "donations."

After the Todd Macaluso $70k debacle it is now a concern. I also interpret, correct me if I am wrong, this to require JB to notify the court if anyone pays for anything on behalf of KC.

As in...if "media entity A" or "possible future deal entity B" foots the bill for some experts or costs by experts relating to the case....the court wants to know. Am I right??

 

[Intermezzo]

You've got it.

In this case, apparently you do have to ask whether the lawyers are donating anything to the "cause." If they are, or if someone is paying them, KC might not qualify as "indigent."

I don't think anything will come of this, though. I think the new lawyers will say they are working for free and have given no "donations."

So are the JAC thinking along the lines of former lawyer Todd Macaluso's donation?
oops..didn't read the posts further down...

 

[RainyGirl]

As usual JB doesn't ask permission and goes straight to asking forgiveness.

"Umm, uh, you see what happened was, um I forgot to call you. Did my assistant not do that?"

"And......uh....umm.....besides......to clarify...ummm......er.....I never heard any recording about the call being from an inmate......"

Quick Baez! Blame someone else! :loser:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

You've got it.

In this case, apparently you do have to ask whether the lawyers are donating anything to the "cause." If they are, or if someone is paying them, KC might not qualify as "indigent."

I don't think anything will come of this, though. I think the new lawyers will say they are working for free and have given no "donations."

I wonder how someone with so many lawyers, so many, many lawyers and experts (some international) can be indigent...

 

[AZlawyer]

After the Todd Macaluso $70k debacle it is now a concern. I also interpret, correct me if I am wrong, this to require JB to notify the court if anyone pays for anything on behalf of KC.

As in...if "media entity A" or "possible future deal entity B" foots the bill for some experts or costs by experts relating to the case....the court wants to know. Am I right??

Well, this is just a motion by the JAC. The court hasn't said anything one way or the other about it. But the JAC certainly wants to know.

I wonder how someone with so many lawyers, so many, many lawyers and experts (some international) can be indigent...

If none of them are getting paid, then she can still be indigent.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

At what point does the judge draw the line with the use of taxpayer money? How many attorneys can she have, or does she need, on her defense? Baez, Mason, LKB, AL...and we see others occasionally. Not to mention, out-of-state defense experts. I heard while listening to the hearing tonight that Mason said Henry Lee basically works for cheap (a box of oranges :waitasec: )...Henry Lee said on NG way back that he was working Pro Bono.

Judge Strickland asked, but I never heard an answer, about why they can't find experts locally, or at least in the State of Florida. Why do we have to pay to fly in people/experts from Canada, California, etc., when there are people (maybe not as high profile) right here in Florida?

I'm screaming mad, but I understand why Judge Strickland granted Casey's indigent status.

Don't forget those lovely international experts! Clearly all defendants should be this lucky!

I agree about being screaming mad. The ONLY thing happening here is the legal system rewarding incompetence and fame. That's it. No one would be flocking to this inmate if she wasn't famous.

Please, Bar Association, PLEASE do something about this. Utterly shameful.

 

[Snaz]

Don't forget those lovely international experts! Clearly all defendants should be this lucky!

I agree about being screaming mad. The ONLY thing happening here is the legal system rewarding incompetence and fame. That's it. No one would be flocking to this inmate if she wasn't famous.

Please, Bar Association, PLEASE do something about this. Utterly shameful.

BBM

I think you might mean INFAMOUS. :crazy:

 

[Nore]

As usual JB doesn't ask permission and goes straight to asking forgiveness.

"Umm, uh, you see what happened was, um I forgot to call you. Did my assistant not do that?"

------------------------
They may be wondering of JB recieved anything for his stint on JVM.The rules sound the same as for Medicaid,mom was on that after a while.The Nursing Home told me not to buy even an aspirin or cough meds.for her they had to do it.Snacks for her,clothes as needed ok. They are Very touchy!!

 

[faefrost]

After the Todd Macaluso $70k debacle it is now a concern. I also interpret, correct me if I am wrong, this to require JB to notify the court if anyone pays for anything on behalf of KC.

As in...if "media entity A" or "possible future deal entity B" foots the bill for some experts or costs by experts relating to the case....the court wants to know. Am I right??

I think the heart of the JAC's question is, are these new lawyers being paid, and if so by who? For example if GA and CA were to have gotten a pay out from a GMA interview from "licensing photos" (/e gag!) and then turned around and paid for a lawyer for KC, well that is something that the JAC would take issue with.

 

[RR0004]

Don't forget those lovely international experts! Clearly all defendants should be this lucky!

I agree about being screaming mad. The ONLY thing happening here is the legal system rewarding incompetence and fame. That's it. No one would be flocking to this inmate if she wasn't famous.

Please, Bar Association, PLEASE do something about this. Utterly shameful.

Now, I'd really like to know who's paying them. I truly think they're tied to CBS somehow.

 

[nums24]

Nicely put AZ
So tell if I get get it or not,

1) It has come to the JAC's attention that Casey has additional lawyers..
IMO Baez has not NOTIFIED the JAC that Casey has new lawyers on her case, failure to notify the proper parties is getting very old Mr Baez..very old indeed.

and,

2)The JAC does not know if or how these additional lawyers are getting paid or if they are Pro Bono and that adding these extra lawyers may impact the JAC's obligation to pay due process costs..

IF Casey has come into any ASSETS (that being the key word) to her directly or on her behalf....then the Defense is obligated to notify the Court...
HMMM did one or more of these lawyers "donate" assests? or is the last statement normally found in this type of motion.

I thought waiting until the defense was out of town to file the motion was not a coincidence either.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Now, I'd really like to know who's paying them. I truly think they're tied to CBS somehow.

Oh, good one RR ~ I never thought of that. Your suggestion made me wonder if Cindy's pal, JL, could be footing the bill. He wouldn't even have to be paying them $$ but offering them some kind of contract to be included in whatever media deal he seems to be organizing. This would surely be to his advantage because it would give him leverage and put him in the position to make the "story" even more marketable.

 

[cottoncandy]

Now, I'd really like to know who's paying them. I truly think they're tied to CBS somehow.

And NBC, and ABC, and Lifetime...


moo

 

[Gnatcatcher]

Glad to see JAC is on the ball and paying attention to the case. Does anyone know if their motion will be heard in the regular status hearing coming up next week, or would it require a separate hearing at which Casey would need to be present?

 

[Spangle]

Glad to see JAC is on the ball and paying attention to the case. Does anyone know if their motion will be heard in the regular status hearing coming up next week, or would it require a separate hearing at which Casey would need to be present?

Didn't the Judge say that all motions had to be heard in 2 weeks? I would think they would roll this in with something all ready scheduled. Just guessing.