2010.04.29 Motion to Seal Casey's Jail Logs. Why?

[nums24]

I am curious why the Exhibit of the Bent case that Jose attached to this Motion does NOT include Page 5, which is included in Hornsby link and includes the statement:

NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING

:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:


http://www.4dca.org/opinions/Sept 2010/09-29-10/4D10-2726 & 10-2727.op.pdf

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Motion-for-reconsideration-1015.pdf

Here is the complete motion, including page 5:

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Motion For Reconsideration.pdf

 

[Pink Panther]

What a disgrace...this entire fiasco of sociopaths! Does no one else feel embarassed and ashamed at the utter disregard of justice given the fact that a two-year old was obviously killed by her mother who has yet to face the consequences of her crime more than two years later?

MOO

 

[Horace Finklestein]

:clap: yes, and didn't Jose assign KC law research so she could "teach" her boys?

Yes he is such a wise mentor! She needs to teach him about the sunshine law.

 

[Torrie]

I am sick to death of all of this. I have not read this whole thread, so maybe this has been addressed, but WHY does JB continue to be allowed to file and re-file these motions? This was ruled on once, he's just wasting time, and tax-payers $$$. SPEAKING of tax-payers $$$, this question has been bugging me for quite awhile... WHY does KC get to be provided with a "dream team" (said with tongue in cheek)? If the tax-payers are footing the bill, why doesn't she just get a court-appointed attorney? I don't understand.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I am sick to death of all of this. I have not read this whole thread, so maybe this has been addressed, but WHY does JB continue to be allowed to file and re-file these motions? This was ruled on once, he's just wasting time, and tax-payers $$$. SPEAKING of tax-payers $$$, this question has been bugging me for quite awhile... WHY does KC get to be provided with a "dream team" (said with tongue in cheek)? If the tax-payers are footing the bill, why doesn't she just get a court-appointed attorney? I don't understand.

Well I understood that there was a courtdecision relevant to the sunshine laws, so he is hoping the judge will reconsider based on that new decision. People here are saying he pretty much argued it incorrectly/oddly though.

One thing about this case...it neeeeever ends. New stuff happening all the time. Is it may yet??

 

[The World According]

He knows FL criminal law and it is obvious he has done more research than Baez or Mason regarding this case. And he isn't costing the taxpayers a dime.


There really is no excuse. I've used both Westlaw and LexisNexis, but primarily Westlaw. If you are intent on challenging a law (like Baez has been about the Sunshine Laws et al), you can *flag* that particular law and Westlaw notifies you anytime a ruling comes down that affects the law negatively. They will email you - believe me! (I won't call it spam, but Westlaw loves email. lol) I'm sure Lexis has a similar feature. If they had flagged those laws, they would've known about Bent.

Beach, set your hot coffee down first..
Ok, ready?
Baez worked for Lexis Nexis!
One would never know it by the way he is always wrong on the facts and wrong on the law and hardly is able to prepare a proper motion or even serve it to the relevant parties.
Remember the time be walked Casey out of jail and he was shielding her with a Lexis Nexis umbrella. I thought at the time, oh dear, the officials over there must be cringing.
It doesn't seem he or Cheney for that matter are proficient at searching case law, and in the words of Mark Nejame, "I am being overly generous in my characterization".

Richard Horsby would mop the floor with the pair of them as unprepared as they come into court. IMO
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE-48nqlbnE[/ame]

Since Cindy is prone to say things that cannot be backed up off of and so is Casey, I do not doubt the defense is loathe for the visits to begin again, but taped or not, how long can they go with having her not have family visits? Wont she later claim it was cruel and unusual and wholly her attorney's fault, on appeal? I had forgotten this little gem, that Cindy told Ryan that her daughter is a sociopath! [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrZgdS-LCqA[/ame]

As for the jail visitation logs, those visitors will be easily figured out by looking at the defense expert witness list. Of course her food she orders up is irrelevant. It is the visitations that would be a priority if it were my case.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

How many bites of the apple do they get?

Didn't His Honor tell them it's a Federal issue and would need to go across the street and file there??? He has no authority over OCJ!

What is it the defense doesn't want shown...the hatred ICA still carries for her wonderful mom??? JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[The World According]

How many bites of the apple do they get?

Didn't His Honor tell them it's a Federal issue and would need to go across the street and file there??? He has no authority over OCJ!

What is it the defense doesn't want shown...the hatred ICA still carries for her wonderful mom??? JMHO

Justice for Caylee

Yes, with a heavy sigh and a LAUGH he told them that! Priceless!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IIzi5fpVWk[/ame]

 

[Jomo]

I really think that the constant filing of this motion is to permit Casey to receive those who will negotiate the sale of her movie, book, and other rights. The defense wants to hide this because they want to hide the money. If anyone ever found out, Casey would no longer be indigent and she would have to pay everything back.

If the visitor logs were sealed, she could negotiate deals!

I wonder if this happened with the deal being in effect after the trial and promises of payment after the trial, would she then technically still be indigent during the process and not have to pay back any of the money?

None of these negotiations can go on until the jail is "sealed". JB can't do the negotiating (he would get in smokin' trouble), she can't do it through the mail (that is being copied and released), and she can't do it through her parents (they have already made a ton of blood money and now Casey wants her share).

CM and JB want their shares as well and if they don't keep filing the motions, no one is going to have a chance to get anything.

I think that at this point, anyone who goes to see her is "material" because she is so sneaky. Everyone wants a piece of the pie.

 

[LambChop]

But would the jail not continue to monitor and tape her jail visits but they would not be released to the public? I do not see JB telling the jail what they can and cannot do. She is on parole less JB forget. So her activities are the State's business. jmo

 

[chefmom]

But would the jail not continue to monitor and tape her jail visits but they would not be released to the public? I do not see JB telling the jail what they can and cannot do. She is on parole less JB forget. So her activities are the State's business. jmo

Good point, but this whole bunch is soooo sneaky that I just can't put anything past them. I can actually see JB sending in the mitigation people for KC to put on a show for the cameras in case the jail releases those visits and then say "See! She is really not right. I tried to help her, but. . ." I can also see JB taking the people who might be negotiating the deals in to see her in his company so that the jail could not record any of it. They can record all visits except the attorney visits, so if a deal-maker came in with JB, there would be no listening in.

 

[Snaz]

Good point, but this whole bunch is soooo sneaky that I just can't put anything past them. I can actually see JB sending in the mitigation people for KC to put on a show for the cameras in case the jail releases those visits and then say "See! She is really not right. I tried to help her, but. . ." I can also see JB taking the people who might be negotiating the deals in to see her in his company so that the jail could not record any of it. They can record all visits except the attorney visits, so if a deal-maker came in with JB, there would be no listening in.

BBM

Chefmom, I'm not sure this would work, because as I understand it, if a third party who did not fall under the umbrella of a/c confidentiality sat in on a meeting, the State could subpoena that third party.... and I doubt a book publisher or movie producer would fall into that category.

Please someone correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

Thanks!

 

[LambChop]

BBM

Chefmom, I'm not sure this would work, because as I understand it, if a third party who did not fall under the umbrella of a/c confidentiality sat in on a meeting, the State could subpoena that third party.... and I doubt a book publisher or movie producer would fall into that category.

Please someone correct me if my understanding is incorrect.

Thanks!

And then there is that warning the Judge issued about not getting caught breaking the rules. I think Judge Perry was saying, "Times up folks, the games are over!!! jmo

 

[beach]

But would the jail not continue to monitor and tape her jail visits but they would not be released to the public? I do not see JB telling the jail what they can and cannot do. She is on parole less JB forget. So her activities are the State's business. jmo

Your post just jumped out at me, LambChop. It has been several weeks since I have read the Bent ruling, but I wonder if the fact that she is already a convicted felon serving time might differ Casey from the Bent defendants... maybe that would make Bent not applicable in her case...:waitasec: I dunno. I need to read that ruling again.

 

[beach]

Okay, I just read it again. This is the only passage (pg. 4) that referenced the difference between accused and convicts:

"In addition to housing convicted defendants who are serving sentences, the jail houses persons like petitioners, who are simply accused of crimes."

Bent Ruling

It is really vague, but it does reference a difference between convicted inmates and those accused awaiting trial. Casey is a convicted felon.

I must say after reading it again, I totally concur with AZ. JB could have used this and had a really good argument with case law backing him up to win the debate in re. private phone calls between Casey and her family, particularly her parents. Very, very telling that he didn't even ask for that in his motion. However, I think the jail logs are a whole 'nother can of worms. I am not getting where the defense (or Hornsby) feel the jail logs fall under this umbrella. In fact, the jail logs (IMO) meet the criteria that Bent emphasized (pg. 2, para. 4) as a disclosable record under the FL Public Records Act. It defines what is considered a public record and emphasized (in italics): "in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency."

IOW, Orange County Jail is an agency and the jail logs are records conducted in the course of everyday official business. So, I'm thinking the jail logs are a big stretch. However, the phone calls stood a really good chance of being protected under Bent.

Gotta wonder what Cindy & George are thinking about not including that request that they have been ranting about for 2 yrs.

 

[faefrost]

Good point, but this whole bunch is soooo sneaky that I just can't put anything past them. I can actually see JB sending in the mitigation people for KC to put on a show for the cameras in case the jail releases those visits and then say "See! She is really not right. I tried to help her, but. . ." I can also see JB taking the people who might be negotiating the deals in to see her in his company so that the jail could not record any of it. They can record all visits except the attorney visits, so if a deal-maker came in with JB, there would be no listening in.

Not true! Attorney Client privilege ONLY exists between the client, the attorney, and by extension the attorneys direct employees. So PI's, Expert Witnesses, Administrative Assistants, Paralegals, etc. Having a third party present, such as some sort of media deal maker, breaks the privilege. The jail can listen in. The SA can depose the third party, overall it is a bad thing to do. I would suspect that trying to sneak an unprivileged third party into the jail under the cover of attorney client privilege is something that could result in JB getting disbarred, arrested and jailed.

 

[denjet]

Okay, I just read it again. This is the only passage (pg. 4) that referenced the difference between accused and convicts:

"In addition to housing convicted defendants who are serving sentences, the jail houses persons like petitioners, who are simply accused of crimes."

Bent Ruling

It is really vague, but it does reference a difference between convicted inmates and those accused awaiting trial. Casey is a convicted felon.

I must say after reading it again, I totally concur with AZ. JB could have used this and had a really good argument with case law backing him up to win the debate in re. private phone calls between Casey and her family, particularly her parents. Very, very telling that he didn't even ask for that in his motion. However, I think the jail logs are a whole 'nother can of worms. I am not getting where the defense (or Hornsby) feel the jail logs fall under this umbrella. In fact, the jail logs (IMO) meet the criteria that Bent emphasized (pg. 2, para. 4) as a disclosable record under the FL Public Records Act. It defines what is considered a public record and emphasized (in italics): "in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency."

IOW, Orange County Jail is an agency and the jail logs are records conducted in the course of everyday official business. So, I'm thinking the jail logs are a big stretch. However, the phone calls stood a really good chance of being protected under Bent.

Gotta wonder what Cindy & George are thinking about not including that request that they have been ranting about for 2 yrs.

Thanks for the info ... technically, KC is not convicted of the crime that is keeping her at the jail, but she is a convicted felon on other charges ... and I'm not sure, but I thought she got time served for the fraud convictions ... regardless, in the Bent case, the defendants were minors that were charged as adults and it pertained to the defendant talking to his family ...
I'm just not sure the Bent case is applicable ...

ITA that it's interesting that Jose hasn't fought harder for her to talk to her parents ... and that it's deliberate on Jose's part to keep them separated which could be because of the inevitability of KC's hostility towards them coming out or maybe because her parents may try to talk some sense into her about her baffoon of a lawyer and the strategy he's taking ... :boohoo:

 

[Kentjbkent]

Not true! Attorney Client privilege ONLY exists between the client, the attorney, and by extension the attorneys direct employees. So PI's, Expert Witnesses, Administrative Assistants, Paralegals, etc. Having a third party present, such as some sort of media deal maker, breaks the privilege. The jail can listen in. The SA can depose the third party, overall it is a bad thing to do. I would suspect that trying to sneak an unprivileged third party into the jail under the cover of attorney client privilege is something that could result in JB getting disbarred, arrested and jailed.

Interesting....

So privilege would NOT have existed when Juan Pablo Manterola, current Director of Operations at Matchpoint Studios, previous Producer / Editor at DNP Studios, (and http://www.massagingmedia2.org/juan-pablo-manterola) visited with KC at the jail with Baez in attendance on January 20, 2009 for 1 1/2 hours?

Since Baez was in attendance meeting with KC, would this visit have been videotaped but not recorded (audio)?

Would privilege have NOT have existed on July 7, 2009 when Esther Kim and Benjamin Davis, both linked to media positions, met with KC at the jail, with Andrea Lyon for an hour and 45 minutes?

Since Andrea was in attendance meeting with KC, would this visit have been videotaped but not recorded?

And of course, the most interesting visit of all....

Would privilege HAVE existed when Allison La Donna Cochran met with KC on March 9, 2009 ALONE for 10 hours????

What about when she returned ALONE on March 11, 2009 for 4 minutes in order to notarize KC's signature on the affidavit, dated March 10, 2009 in reference to Motion of Conflict of Interest by SA

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4802245/Casey-Anthony-Sworn-Affidavit-March-10-2009

Interesting here to note....SA filed "princess to pauper" Motion on March 9, 2009, the same day that Allison Cochran met with KC for 10 hours? Perhaps this "meeting" was not privileged and when SA caught wind of it, they immediately filed a motion, forcing Cochran to return two days later with an affidavit for KC to sign.....:waitasec:

And what about all those meetings with Jeanne Barrett and Mort? Privileged or not?

 

[countzero]

Kentjbkent, just what the hay does and can a notary have to talk about with and to a jailed person for 10 hours????? Clothes, hair, bras, snacks, twizzlers, bean dip, what????

Any clue .... seriously ... I hope the SAO is checking this one out extensively.

On a side note, wonder what ICA did about missing a meal or two with that visit. Second thought, don't care.

 

[sassy_texasbelle2]

Interesting....

So privilege would NOT have existed when Juan Pablo Manterola, current Director of Operations at Matchpoint Studios, previous Producer / Editor at DNP Studios, (and http://www.massagingmedia2.org/juan-pablo-manterola) visited with KC at the jail with Baez in attendance on January 20, 2009 for 1 1/2 hours?

Since Baez was in attendance meeting with KC, would this visit have been videotaped but not recorded (audio)?

Would privilege have NOT have existed on July 7, 2009 when Esther Kim and Benjamin Davis, both linked to media positions, met with KC at the jail, with Andrea Lyon for an hour and 45 minutes?

Since Andrea was in attendance meeting with KC, would this visit have been videotaped but not recorded?

And of course, the most interesting visit of all....

Would privilege HAVE existed when Allison La Donna Cochran met with KC on March 9, 2009 ALONE for 10 hours????

What about when she returned ALONE on March 11, 2009 for 4 minutes in order to notarize KC's signature on the affidavit, dated March 10, 2009 in reference to Motion of Conflict of Interest by SA

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4802245/Casey-Anthony-Sworn-Affidavit-March-10-2009

Interesting here to note....SA filed "princess to pauper" Motion on March 9, 2009, the same day that Allison Cochran met with KC for 10 hours? Perhaps this "meeting" was not privileged and when SA caught wind of it, they immediately filed a motion, forcing Cochran to return two days later with an affidavit for KC to sign.....:waitasec:

And what about all those meetings with Jeanne Barrett and Mort? Privileged or not?

Another one that might be nice to give Kathy Belich!