2010.07.15 Defense motion to protect phone call of Robin Lunceford

[ThinkTank]

Thanks ThinkTank - I didn't ever notice that. Hmm maybe HHJP has known LDB since before she was married and was still LD?

Yeah .... Judge P. calls her "Ms Drane" almost every time he addresses her by name .... makes me a little nuts every time. But, nobody wants to correct the Judge.

 

[faefrost]

Originally Posted by kushka What gets me is the nerve of JB for fighting to have the conversation suppressed, however in his motion itself he writes the part of the conversations HE wants to make public "Lunceford along with Maya Derkovic conspired with Adams to possibly benefit by lying to the State about Casey Anthony,".In other words suppresses all the parts of the conversation that might show him in some misconduct, but publicizes the one statement he want every one to know.



JB announced this matter in OPEN court at the last Hearing on July 15th. Usually, when JB does not want the public to know something, he asks for a SIDEBAR to go talk to the Judge in private. With this matter, JB announced in open court, for the CAMERAS, that he wanted the phone call from this Inmate sealed. IMO he said just enough for the cameras, to let potential jurors know that Inmate Maya D's testimony AGAINST Inmate Anthony is not to be trusted.

He wants the phone recording sealed ... while at the same time ... leaking out just a hint of info to make potential jurors question the Prosecution's witness, Inmate Maya D. and Inmate Robin A..

If the recording gets sealed, like JB wants it to be ... at least he got the part OUT to the public, which he wants potential jurors to hear - that they should disregard Inmate Maya's testimony about Inmate Anthony saying she gave her daughter chloroform.

While that's possible, it still doesn't explain his actions or obsessions with this tape. It's not like the SA cares about it or plans to use it for anything. As near as I can tell from the SA's point of view it has nothing to do with KC or her case? It would only show up if JB and company sought to introduce it or the witness/lying convict/conwoman for some insane reason. if he just wanted to do as you say, and get the idea out there, while trying to block its release, than why do the follow up motion? "I really really strenuously object!"? he made his point back in the hearing. Why keep going deeper with this? Would the SA even have this tape if he hadn't brought it up in court? Wasn't the tape and the prison in question in another jurisdiction, and the tape the subject of a different investigation than KC? i'm sure if the SA thought that there was anything on the tape that damned JB they would have requested a private meeting with the judge and had everything regarding it sealed. (Much as they did with the letters to the fellow inmate). Further it's obvious that JB really has no idea what was said on this call or what he heard or did. So why the hell risk lying to the court and stirring up the SA with tweaks and insults over this? What if any potential productive purpose could this possibly serve for his client, his case or his practice? I just can't see it?

 

[Purple Iris]

Wonder if it was a snipe at the Judge, because Judge P. usually calls Ms Burdick .... "Ms Drane" ?
Maybe he was pointing out that everybody makes mistakes? Like he was trying to say that he just made a "mistake" (as opposed to an outright LIE) when he said the Inmate Robin gave him names of new witnesses?

You answered the above to Tori's Mom, where she is wondering if Baez using Ms. Drane's in only italics; speculating if it was perhaps a silent slam.

When our kids were younger, and acting up, I used to tell them that they were being a "pain in the drain", vs, well.....it was much nicer than the normal term, and, in saying it this way, at least we could have a laugh and move past whatever it was that they were doing that really was a pain in the ***. LOL.

So, maybe, he used my old saying, leaving out the "pain in my" part?? But, I do think that it was a "stab", or at the very least, a showing of disrespect, IMO, towards her.
That's okay, she can take it and will let it slide off her back and just concider the source.

As far as Judge Perry calling her Ms. Drane, I wonder if it's because she has been around for 20 some years, and, I'm sure that she has been before him in the past. I would suspect that he knew her before she married, and is just used to calling her by her maiden name?
Judge Perry, to me, is very old school in regards to showing respect to people.
I'm sure he grew up calling everyone Mrs., Mr., Miss, or Sir and Ma'am.
Those values, once set in place, never leave you.

He even refers to Jose Baez as Mr. Baez, and, I'm sure that there are times that he would prefer to call him anything BUT Mister.....just as so many of us have had those times.

 

[nums24]

BAEZ WANTS PARTS OF JAIL CALLS REDACTED

<Snipped> http://www.wftv.com/orangecounty/24427998/detail.html

Casey&#8217;s lawyer, Jose Baez, is trying to get portions redacted from some recorded jail phone calls.

An inmate told Baez that two other inmates, including Casey&#8217;s jail pen-pal, made up lies about her. But Baez says he can't remember being warned that their conversation was recorded.

He's expected to ask a judge to at least edit out his comments before releasing the calls.

 

[Steely Dan]

BAEZ WANTS PARTS OF JAIL CALLS REDACTED

<Snipped> http://www.wftv.com/orangecounty/24427998/detail.html

Casey’s lawyer, Jose Baez, is trying to get portions redacted from some recorded jail phone calls.

An inmate told Baez that two other inmates, including Casey’s jail pen-pal, made up lies about her. But Baez says he can't remember being warned that their conversation was recorded.

He's expected to ask a judge to at least edit out his comments before releasing the calls.

:loser:

 

[The World According]

Originally Posted by kushka What gets me is the nerve of JB for fighting to have the conversation suppressed, however in his motion itself he writes the part of the conversations HE wants to make public "Lunceford along with Maya Derkovic conspired with Adams to possibly benefit by lying to the State about Casey Anthony,".In other words suppresses all the parts of the conversation that might show him in some misconduct, but publicizes the one statement he want every one to know.



JB announced this matter in OPEN court at the last Hearing on July 15th. Usually, when JB does not want the public to know something, he asks for a SIDEBAR to go talk to the Judge in private. With this matter, JB announced in open court, for the CAMERAS, that he wanted the phone call from this Inmate sealed. IMO he said just enough for the cameras, to let potential jurors know that Inmate Maya D's testimony AGAINST Inmate Anthony is not to be trusted.

He wants the phone recording sealed ... while at the same time ... leaking out just a hint of info to make potential jurors question the Prosecution's witness, Inmate Maya D. and Inmate Robin A..

If the recording gets sealed, like JB wants it to be ... at least he got the part OUT to the public, which he wants potential jurors to hear - that they should disregard Inmate Maya's testimony about Inmate Anthony saying she gave her daughter chloroform.

Mr. Baez is neither clever or original. It is called spin. I think he wants to be a politician. He may very well be in need of a new career path before it is over. 1 800 Geraldo
The Florida Bar summed up the problem regarding our Mr. Baez.
"His overall behavior, they wrote, showed "A total lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law."

 

[LambChop]

So what part does JB want redacted. The parts where he knows RL is lying or just the ranting part????? And what could possibly be considered "work product"? I have yet to hear of him doing any actual work... jmo

 

[TorisMom003]

From the wording of that article it sounds like Baez wants everything he said kept away from the public. In other words let the public hear what Robin has to say about the two other inmates and how they have "lied against Casey" but do not let the public hear what Baez said in response to her.

So why do I have this feeling that Baez may have told Robin something along the line of.......Yea, that's good. Just remember that you have to say you know they were lying. Anything else you can think of to make them look unreliable.

 

[zoey]

So what part does JB want redacted. The parts where he knows RL is lying or just the ranting part????? And what could possibly be considered "work product"? I have yet to hear of him doing any actual work... jmo

from what I have seen I think that actually is his "work product"----:crazy::innocent:

 

[Paintr]

Serious question, because I am not a lawyer. Is Mr Baez really as inept at his profession as he appears to be? Do other lawyers carry on like this, with poorly written motions, sounding petulant and childish, skirting the rules of the court, multiple complaints to the Bar, ect? Maybe these things are common and we just don't see them because they aren't part of a high profile case. :waitasec:

 

[Just Jayla]

Hi, Just Jayla. I agree with all of your post, except one part. I believe that the State will definitely use Robin A to introduce the letters Casey wrote to her. I believe they will at least introduce the letter to Robin wherein Casey tells a brand new Zanny the Nanny story, and actually tells her she knows she didn't take Caylee, Paraphrasing, "I can't blame her (Zanny) for not coming forward, getting arrested, and having to sit here with me for something she didn't do." JMO

Yes, I think they will ask Robin about this....but rather than asking the jury to depend on Robin's credibility, I believe the state will just tie this new story change back to KC's own propensity to change her stories, as she went from the Sawgrass story to the JBP story....and like you wrote, to bring in the new story in KC's own writing-But as to the content of what Robin has to actually testify to? It is not so much Robin's words as it is the letters.

 

[The World According]

This is the beginning of the end for Mr. Baez on this case. If, as and when the court should find that he has misled the court in his verbal legal arguments or in his legal documents, this may well be having to answer for his behavior in connection with the phone calls to the state bar.

With his history, he has just about used up the generous good graces of the bar. IMO. Maybe he will wise up and take Terry's original advice.
Lenamon as follows:
http://www.wftv.com/news/19448158/detail.html
"We had a difference in what I believe should have been done with the
approach that is mental health related," Lenamon told CNN's Nancy Grace
during an interview Tuesday night." Lenamon explained he would have had
Casey plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

Video:
http://www.wftv.com/video/19448983/index.html

I believe every lawyer that has been on the case with him from jump has opined in a similar fashion as the above. He has been in over his head, and in the words of Mr. Nejame , "I am being overly generous in my characterization".



What he has done in this situation was career suicide. IMO he lied to the judge, and he lied to the WRONG judge. Playing dumb will not carry the day. Even if he does not get disbarred, he has lost all credibility and all the patience of Judge Perry. If he cannot implore upon Casey to ask for a plea deal soon, so the case comes to an end, it may be that he will be removed against his will.

Remember this is the guy that
accused the prosecutors, Mr. Nejame, and Judge Strickland of having ethics violations.
He is going to well deserve what he gets.

MOO

The Florida Bar summed up the problem regarding our Mr. Baez.
"His overall behavior, they wrote, showed "A total lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law."

 

[countzero]

.

Remember this is the guy that
accused the prosecutors, Mr. Nejame, and Judge Strickland of having ethics violations.
He is going to well deserve what he gets.

MOO

rsbm: and a great post!

JB, if not disbarred or sanctioned by the bar, better move to another county in Florida if he wants to continue practicing law. Because if he doesn't, his past behaviors will be long remembered by not only his colleagues but also by HHJS and HHJP as well as the other Judges who sit on the Bench.

Personally, JB will never be able to escape his past. He is a marked man for the rest of his professional and personal life.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I agree, I think he's really blown it, and for the good of his client he should step aside. But then, when has he ever acted for the good of his client? JMO

 

[nums24]

This is the beginning of the end for Mr. Baez on this case. If, as and when the court should find that he has misled the court in his verbal legal arguments or in his legal documents, this may well be having to answer for his behavior in connection with the phone calls to the state bar.


The Florida Bar summed up the problem regarding our Mr. Baez.
"His overall behavior, they wrote, showed "A total lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law."

Respectfully snipped for brevity

I think this is the rule that will apply to this matter:



Rules Regulating The Florida Bar

4 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
4-4 TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN CLIENTS

RULE 4-4.1 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6.
Comment

Misrepresentation

A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. For dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement or for misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client, see rule 4-8.4.

http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/93092C63E3C334B785257171006AAC0F

 

[wildchild1961]

I think that syndrome about not telling the truth has completely rubbed off on JB from the A-Team. What a wonderful bunch.......not

<chuckles> a wonderful phrase I heard once.. and it has always stuck.. is...

"water seeks level"

wild

 

[RainyGirl]

Re: Baez, I feel the need to modify a quote from Hamlet here (I hope the bard doesn't mind!):

"The lawyer doth protest too much, methinks".

IMO, Baez has said something in this recording(s) that he wants to keep private. His legal arguments are weak and lack any substance. He got caught with his drawers down, and now wants protection from the bench. Ain't gonna happen. The jig is up. I continue to have great faith that HHJP will follow the letter of the law......which doesn't bode well for our protesting lawyer. As I am unfamiliar with the FLA Bar Association, I really have no idea what will happen in the long run. I DO know that here in my jurisdiction, lawyers genuinely expect their peers (from both sides of the bench) to maintain integrity and honesty in all matters. When one lawyer deliberately "plays dirty" and is dishonest, it makes ALL lawyers look bad! The profession receives enough flack as it is......so my DH and his state colleagues really want to maintain dignity and respect in their daily work. It is not unusual for lawyers to take notice of any "bad apples" and try and remedy the situation. This doesn't always mean disbarment. Many older, more experienced lawyers will mentor a "Greenhorn" for several years and will try and set a good example to follow.

Just my usual ramblings!! ~and JMO, MOO!

 

[Steely Dan]

Does anyone know when the ruling on this is supposed to happen?

 

[Marshmallow]

From the wording of that article it sounds like Baez wants everything he said kept away from the public. In other words let the public hear what Robin has to say about the two other inmates and how they have "lied against Casey" but do not let the public hear what Baez said in response to her.

So why do I have this feeling that Baez may have told Robin something along the line of.......Yea, that's good. Just remember that you have to say you know they were lying. Anything else you can think of to make them look unreliable.

like Q & A without the A.
What're the odds that a judge would agree to this?

I mean, we'd all love to put a mute button on Mr Baez at times but this is a court of law not a tv set.

 

[QB.]

08-02-2010 Order Denying
Motion for Protective Order Regarding a Telephone Recording of Robin Lunceford

clerk's office docket update