2011.01.06 Baez Slapped with Formal Sanction

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am beginning to seriously think that they need to add another section to the Jury selection process.

As well as the candidates predisposition towards ICA and her guilt I think that they need to determine the candidates predisposition towards JB and his (ab)use of Florida tax payer money, resources, etc.
 
His request for the check not to be cashed shows utter disrespect and disregard for the obscene and unnecessary amount of money being wasted on this trial. It is disgusting the way some attorneys behave in this regard. It's as if they do not know or care about the value of a dollar because they are above it all. Something should be done by the Bar about this.

Reminds me of the old saying, "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine." They sure act that way.

They think they are entitled to the JAC money, but when it's Baez's money -- hoo. Can't part with a measly $600. No, no, that's *his* money.
 
I wanted to clarify that yesterday's deadline was for the touch dna report, page 3, section 3: http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...tional Discovery & Other Dicovery Matters.pdf

The mitigation expert was to be named by January 1, 2011. (page 3, sec 5 - same link)

ETA: It was the defense that had to name their mitigation expert.

I just read the deadline for Finnell to name her mitigation expert - in the Order it says January 1, 2011 ...
In the Hearing on Nov 29, 2010, the Judge gave them a Deadline of January 1st ... (I thought it was "Jan 31st") to list their mitigation expert.

However, Finnell has asked for an extension of penalty phase mental mitigation experts, in her Penalty Phase Discovery filing.
"DEFENDANT'S INITIAL PENALTY PHASE DISCOVERY RESPONSE" and posted it on docstoc
MuzikMan says: “The motion was filed in open court on 11/29/2010, but was just unsealed last week. “ [Jan 7, 2011 Order signed to UNSEAL List]
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6947242...ial-Penalty-Phase-Discovery-Response-Redacted

Finnell wrote: "Investigation regarding witnesses to potential mental mitigation, including expert witnesses, is not complete at this time and Defendant specifically requests an extension of time to list those witnesses ..."
 
I am beginning to seriously think that they need to add another section to the Jury selection process.

As well as the candidates predisposition towards ICA and her guilt I think that they need to determine the candidates predisposition towards JB and his (ab)use of Florida tax payer money, resources, etc.

I'm going to start referring to her as inmate X7016. She doesn't even deserve THAT!
 
I have a feeling they won't be filing any reports and will challenge the judge's ruling that he can compel the defense to produce any reports. I think Mason feels he complied with his idiotic summary in his motion for reconsideration.
 
Probably major accidents also that involved the carrier ~ you know the kind that send you to the hospital....someone has to run to your home for insurance info, then back again......
Contact your family, hold your hand, and then return you the next day cause the ER missed a major slash behind his ear.

We'll hear the "rest of the Paul Harvey Story" in one of the next silly filings or motions.
Just sit back and wait for it....you know it's coming.
They can't help themselves.:floorlaugh:

Well if the carrier is driving a silver ford focus and develops concussion complications resulting in her friends having to keep vigil at the hospital instead of taking their children home, that'll raise a red flag.:crazy:
 
I believe I read that the next status hearing is Feb 4.

Do you know where you found that date for a Hearing?

I did not see a Notice of Hearing for Feb 4th on the Clerk's docket?
It only shows the next Hearing(s) to be two days in March:

01/07/2011 Notice of Hearing 3/2/11 and 3/3/11
 
Good question there? Hopefully one of the lawyerly types can answer it. Would another option for the defense simply be to strike the witness from the defense expert list? if the witness is absolutely not going to testify there is no reason for reports?

The only official removal of an Expert from the Defense Witness List, was filed Dec 13, 2010, by "Amended Defense Witness List", to officially remove - Michael J. O'Kelly (cell towers and phones), and Larry Daniels (Digital Forensics), from the Defense Witness List.

Mason stated in his Motion for Reconsideration (of Sanctions), filed Jan 11, 2011, that their Expert, Dr. Michael Freeman, (Epidemiologist) "is not going to be called as a witness in this case and, accordingly, no further disclosures are necessary." But, the Defense has not officially filed an "Amended Defense Witness List" to officially REMOVE Dr. Freeman from the Defense Witness List.
 
Was the defense team due to turn over 2 of the expert witness statements today? Or, am I mistaken?
IIRC, 2 were due within 10 days and the rest in 20 days?

The original .... extended .... deadline was December 14, 2010 at 12:00 noon, to turn over info on Bock and Fairgrieve. This was filed the next day, Dec. 15th.

Deadlines for all other Expert info "was" Dec. 23, 2010, at 3:00pm.

Next Deadline imposed was 10 days from Jan 6, 2011 [Jan 18th because of MLK holiday] - to turn over Furton info.

And Jan 26, 2011 - 20 days from Jan 6, 2011 - to turn over all other Expert info

Mason filed "additional" Expert info on the Defense Experts, in his Motion for Reconsideration (of Sanctions), on January 11, 2011, when he also provided the Sanctions check to the State.
 
I have a feeling they won't be filing any reports and will challenge the judge's ruling that he can compel the defense to produce any reports. I think Mason feels he complied with his idiotic summary in his motion for reconsideration.

What happens next if that is what they are trying to do?
 
Originally Posted by JSR
I have a feeling they won't be filing any reports and will challenge the judge's ruling that he can compel the defense to produce any reports. I think Mason feels he complied with his idiotic summary in his motion for reconsideration.

What happens next if that is what they are trying to do?

Jan 14, 2011 Hearing notes:
Judge - experts - defense on schedule?
Ashton - 2 (depo) scheduled this week, 1 after - continuation of depo previously heard - not schedule until receive reports - deadline is Sunday - set depo shortly after receive reports - based on supplemental info in motion for reconsideration - depo should be very short

Judge - Baez?

Baez - Furton due in 10 days - have it this weekend [Jan 15-16, 2011] - have it ready for Ashton

Judge - Ashton in last Hearing you made request for more status hearings - propose some times

Ashton - not done that - my fault - I will pursue that to see if we need more - wait to see how progression goes based on new Order [Order granting Sanctions and setting new deadlines of Jan. 18th and Jan 26th]

My interpretation of Ashton's statements to the Judge on Jan. 14, 2011, is that Ashton does not accept Mason's "additional info" in his Motion for Reconsideration (filed Jan 11, 2011), to be the "REPORTS" on the Experts which are due on Jan 18th and Jan 26th, and Ashton is waiting to set depositions, until after these Expert Reports are actually provided by the Defense.
 
Do you know where you found that date for a Hearing?

I did not see a Notice of Hearing for Feb 4th on the Clerk's docket?
It only shows the next Hearing(s) to be two days in March:

01/07/2011 Notice of Hearing 3/2/11 and 3/3/11

It's on here (Page 3):

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...tion and Hearing Deadlines and Trial Date.pdf

And here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?month=2&year=2011&c=4&do=displaymonth

and here:

9th Judicial Circuit
JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, JR. / DIVISION 02
------------------- Schedule for Friday, February 04, 2011 -------------------
1:30 pm 30 min Case: 48-2008-CF-15606-O- Motion: STATUS CONFERENCE
STATE OF FLORIDA

LINDA DRANE-BURDICK vs. CASEY MARIE ANTHONY

JOSE BAEZ


Notes: COURTROOM 23A
http://www.ninja9.org/jacsatt/attdocketframe.asp
 
So, ThinkTank, because Jeff Ashton did not accept Mason's additional info. Will sanctions be forthcoming for failing to produce what was due January 18th?

It's odd that there are no filings regarding this ...seeing as it's past due.
 
So, ThinkTank, because Jeff Ashton did not accept Mason's additional info. Will sanctions be forthcoming for failing to produce what was due January 18th?

It's odd that there are no filings regarding this ...seeing as it's past due.

I do not know?? The public does not know what Baez filed on Furton ... IF he filed any Expert Report by the due date of Jan. 18th?
I imagine the State would have to file another Motion (for additional sanctions?), if the State believes that the 300 pages of information on the Experts, that the Defense provided a day late, on December 15th, is still not in compliance with the Judge's Order.

Mason says in his Motion for Reconsideration, filed Jan 11, 2011, that the Defense has complied with the Judge's Order. And Mason seems to think that because many of the Defense Experts may not testify, that they are not required to provide Reports from those Experts.

But, Ashton said on Jan 14, 2011 that he is still waiting for the Expert Reports.

I would think the Defense would be required to file an Amended Defense Witness List, to officially REMOVE any Experts from the Defense Witness List, or else the Experts will remain obligated to be deposed by the State, and the Expert Reports will still be necessary. But, I'm not a lawyer ....
 
The Court ordered these 5 things on the Experts:
1 - Curiculum Vitae or qualifications
2 - field of expertise or medical specialty
3 - statement of specific subjects expert will testify about and offer opinions
4 - substance of facts which expert will testify about
5 - summary of expert's opinions and the grounds for each of the opinions

In his Motion for Reconsideration, filed Jan 11, 2011, Mason says:

- Bock - State has her Report - Defense ratifies prior disclosures from her - gave her photos and "Affidavit" to State

- Fairgrieve - Defense ratifies their prior response about him - no additional report has been provided by Dr. Fairgrieve by affidavit, notes, or otherwise, and the State has already deposed him.

- Dr. Lee - Defense already in substantial compliance about him - it is highly unlikely that Dr. Lee would be called upon or deemed necessary to testify in this case

- Dr. Werner Spitz - Defense ratifies their prior disclosure about him - photographs of the findings of Dr. Spitz have previously been turned over to the prosecution confirming his observations

- Dr. Kathy Reichs - Defense already substantially complied with 5 provisions of Court Order - her C.V. was delivered with the rest of the discovery (Dec. 15th)

- Dr. Tim Huntington - Defense reaffirms their prior response to 5 items about him - State has deposed him - he agreed and is imminently going to provide a report (as of Jan 11, 2011)

- Dr. Kenneth Furton - Defense reaffirms their responses to 5 things in Court Order about him - Report due Jan 18, 2011 - there will be a Frye Hearing about Oak Ridge Lab and decomp odors being scientifically determined

- Dr. Barry Logan - Defense reaffirms their responses in 5 items about him - will be Frye Hearings on odor and air sampling

- Dr. John Leeson - he is a consultant to the Defense on computer related analysis - unlikely that he will be called to testify - not anticipated that he will be testifying

- Dr. William Rodriguez - Defense already provided responses to 5 requests of the Court - he is primarily a consultant to the Defense in forensic area and is not likely to testify

- Richard Eikenlenboom - Defense already gave responses - all his photos have been produced in discovery - he is available for depo by Skype

- Dr. Michael Freeman - he is not going to be called as a witness
 
I imagine they did, in the normal course of business, it did not sit on anyone's desk as a trophy, it was handled the way any other would have been. We know this because the clerk secretary had it with the letter and that is when the reporter got it.
Someone said Jeff (Mr. Ashton) told Cheney in the recent hearing, sorry, that check is cashed. I didn't hear it, but I never get to see the pre hearing banter as that doesn't wind up on the recorded hearing.

Mr. Ashton is not going to effectively set aside the judge's order just because Cheney Mason asks him to. The judge ruled, everyone else is just following through. I am offended that Mason even asked that, it was an asenine request, imo. and in the words of Mark Nejame, "I am being overly generous in my characterization".

I liken it to you or I mailing in our federal tax payment with a note to the receptionist who opens our envelope, hi friend, please do me a favor, don't cash it.

The check was not made out to Jeff and Linda go to Cancun, it was made out to the State of Florida. You bet your life that check was cashed.

that is my opinion

By the way, not cashing the check would not have effectuated any removal from Jose Baez's professional record that he was sanctioned. He was. That is now part of his history. The nominal fee is the least of his worries.

My little four year old niece came out of Pre-K very sad one day, barely looking up at me as she walked. What is wrong, being merely an Aunt I thought it was something major for her to be sullen. She normally runs to me, full speed and takes this huge leap into my arms as if I were Santa.
"Balloon down", she said.
I looked at the pre K teacher, "Miss Davis, balloon down?" View attachment 13379

Oh, she and her best buddy Ivan were talking and when I need to correct the students, I have them go to the board and remove their balloons. When they behave again, they get to put their balloon back up on the board with the others. It seems to mean quite a lot to them at this age and I find it to be an effective tool, Mrs. Davis explained to Aunt Julia, me.


Well, guess what Mr. Mason, you do not get Jose's balloon back up. Teacher said balloon down and balloon down it is. Jose Baez was sanctioned. It is on the record. It is public. It was a rebuke. It is now part of his history.
For God's sake, be a man, be the elder, teach him how to make sure it never happens again and do the right thing, rather than show feigned shock when you know very well why he was in the wrong, and explain it to him instructively, constructively, so he will learn something.
You are not, NOT serving him well to have 40 years of experience and keep it tucked in your back pocket. You are supposed to share your knowledge with him, show him the way, lead him to success and a better understanding.
If that weren't the case, managers and team coaches wouldn't get paid the big bucks, everyone would be equal, every man for himself. Right?
I am wholly offended that the sanction wasn't against you. It was you too who stood in court and said that the defense is under NO obligation to provide a sript of what the experts will say, so it was also you saying to the judge on the record, no we wont be doing that.

I blame Jose Baez, he is not an intern, but I damn straight am offended that Cheney Mason wrote that letter when he too KNOWS BETTER!

Balloon down , hide your face from the light, and yeah, they cashed the check. MOO Now try to do better from now on, just like everyone else that ever makes a mistake professionally, ( God knows I have! ) suck it up, and DO BETTER!!!!

I think "Balloon Down" should be our new code for "the defense is having a very bad day".I love it!
 
- Dr. Kenneth Furton - Defense reaffirms their responses to 5 things in Court Order about him - Report due Jan 18, 2011 - there will be a Frye Hearing about Oak Ridge Lab and decomp odors being scientifically determined (respectfully snipped from ThinkTanks post above)

Was this supposed to be filed with the court on the 18th, or can the defense simply fax it over to the SA, and still be in compliance?
 
- Dr. Kenneth Furton - Defense reaffirms their responses to 5 things in Court Order about him - Report due Jan 18, 2011 - there will be a Frye Hearing about Oak Ridge Lab and decomp odors being scientifically determined (respectfully snipped from ThinkTanks post above)

Was this supposed to be filed with the court on the 18th, or can the defense simply fax it over to the SA, and still be in compliance?

Didn't the judge already come down hard on them for faxing/e-mailing and casually distributing things instead of actually filing them. I thought they were clearly left with the impression that "if you don't file it, it does not count!"
 
Yep, I feel another "thwarted" excuse coming up, lol!


Hear ye, hear ye......One and all from here to there and everywhere.

It shall hereby be stated and ruled, stamped and approved, that all filings from now on coming from the Defense Office will be referred to as......."THE NEWEST THWART-REPORT.

Be assured that each page will be filled with fun flipping page after page of frivilous and frilly flippant falala's.

Bedazzeled and bejewelled in bewilderment and.....well..........booze.:woohoo::woohoo:

{I imagine the dream team making fisties every day that they don't have Dr. Suess on their side}
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
1,549
Total visitors
1,652

Forum statistics

Threads
606,054
Messages
18,197,481
Members
233,715
Latest member
Ljenkins18
Back
Top