2011.01.06 Baez Slapped with Formal Sanction

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh that just SUCKS. Please oh please let Baez or Mason be dumb enough to bring it up when asked if there is anything more! So much for an exciting hearing...
 
Intermezzo said:
Are we assuming the Reconsideration of Sanctions will not be heard? Casey should be present for that, Non?
Click to expand...

Well, the article said Casey is not going to be there and no motions are expected to be discussed. She should really be there for that motion, so if she's not going to be there tomorrow, then it probably won't come up.
 
Aedrys said:
Oh that just SUCKS. Please oh please let Baez or Mason be dumb enough to bring it up when asked if there is anything more! So much for an exciting hearing...
Click to expand...

Although if the hearing is about Jury selection, i.e., making progress then that is a good thing for Caylee ... rather than going backwards or focusing on noise and distraction.

The sideshow circus is entertaining but it does nothing towards justice for Caylee ... it only serves to reward those children who choose to play rather than work. The time for games is over.

Lets get down to core business ... that's how HHJP rolls. 2011 is Caylee's year.
 
cyberborg said:
Although if the hearing is about Jury selection, i.e., making progress then that is a good thing for Caylee ... rather than going backwards or focusing on noise and distraction.

The sideshow circus is entertaining but it does nothing towards justice for Caylee ... it only serves to reward those children who choose to play rather than work. The time for games is over.

Lets get down to core business ... that's how HHJP rolls. 2011 is Caylee's year.
Click to expand...

Good point. I guess I was getting caught up in the distractions so much I was forgetting that this does need to move forward despite the distractions. Not every hearing needs to be a smackdown of Baez and Mason, but they usually bring it on themselves. Hopefully, some good will come out of the hearing tomorrow and the case will continue to advance. That is the most important thing! Thanks for reminding me :)
 
nums24 said:
WESH is reporting that per the court, no motions will be heard tomorrow and ICA will not be there.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping wesh doesn't know what they are talking about because often we go into a hearing and it doesn't "go" the way it's been reported it will go.
 
Goodness! I have a lot of catching up to do. Is there a "betting pool" for which desk the defense is going to be sitting? My bet is they will stay where they are.....what a mess they have made of this.....:shakehead:
 
logicalgirl said:
I'm hoping wesh doesn't know what they are talking about because often we go into a hearing and it doesn't "go" the way it's been reported it will go.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know WESH is not always reliable, but I don't think HHJP would want ICA to miss any more motions hearings.
 
Horace Finklestein said:
Is there a motion where Baez blames the new attorney for things being turned in late? I'm confused on that one seems like people are referring to it but I can't find it.
Click to expand...


I can't help but ponder a few things...

Let's recall JB using a hearing to have Judge Perry swear in William S. as a new attorney. Many found it an odd time to take care of something like that.

Let's recall that in the eyes of the defense... it's always someone else's fault.

Let's look at the affidavit by "newly sworn in" William S. that he was late due to traffic AND that he was denied access to the OC Courthouse because he only had his FL. Bar card as opposed to his O.C. Bar Association card.

Now.....can you imagine a scenario that goes something like this? ...."But Judge, as a new attorney he didn't realize he would have to obtain an OC Bar association card in order to be granted access to the Courthouse "after hours". You were the one to swear him in so you know he is brand new and inexperienced. Right??"

Now...if one wanted to refute that "argument" they could simply point to the clerk records and show that William S. obtained KC case records on June 2, 2009....so he should have been up to date on clerk hours and operations.
 
FYI, the timestamp on the Motion for Reconsideration is 1/11/2011 @ 4:42 PM. It wasn't on the ones put up by the media, I think.

MM :rocker:
 
WESH just reported they HAVE a copy of Baez's check and a letter written by Mason to Jeff Ashton asking him to consider NOT cashing it..he also asks Ashton not to oppose their Motion for Reconsideration

No link, yet...Nums?

The Reporter did state that the SAO Office said the check and letter are not going to be released as Public Record BUT when the Court Admin received it, he said they did pass it on to him (reporter).

Waiting for Link to be posted on WESH...

UPDATE
thanks nums

Letter Asks Prosecutors To Consider Not Cashing Baez Fine Check

http://www.wesh.com/r-video/26487150/detail.html Video Report

http://www.wesh.com/r/26486629/detail.html Article

In his letter, Mason said there is a good faith reason not to oppose the motion, given the potential future impact on Baez.
 
Intermezzo said:
WESH just reported they HAVE a copy of Baez's check and a letter written by Mason to Jeff Ashton asking him NOT to cash it..and hopes he will not argue against their Motion for Reconsideration
Click to expand...


You have to issue a warning next time, I don't have a change of clothes with me and I almost peed myself laughing. :laugh: :laughcry:
 
Intermezzo said:
WESH just reported they HAVE a copy of Baez's check and a letter written by Mason to Jeff Ashton asking him NOT to cash it..and hopes he will not argue against their Motion for Reconsideration

No link, yet...Nums?

The Reporter did state that the SAO Office said the check and letter are not going to be released as Public Record BUT when the Court Admin received it, he said they gave him(reporter) a copy.

Waiting for Link to be posted on WESH...
Click to expand...

And why would they not cash it? Makes you wonder about the check. Did KC sign it??????
 
Muzikman said:
FYI, the timestamp on the Motion for Reconsideration is 1/11/2011 @ 4:42 PM. It wasn't on the ones put up by the media, I think.

MM :rocker:
Click to expand...

Thanks MM! You would think it would have been first thing in the morning, huh? I mean, they almost didn't get it filed on the 11th too ! What a bunch of liars !:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 100 more.
Total: 394 (members: 101, guests: 293)

Online statistics

Members online
101
Guests online
293
Total visitors
394
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,902
Messages
18,247,505
Members
234,498
Latest member
hanjging
Back
Top