**all things zfg lawsuit merged **

[TotallyObsessed]

I have not been in court rooms a lot but is it normal for the judge to make arguments for and against motions, etc like this judge does?

Is it normal for them to interrupt the lawyers to state his opinion instead of hearing the lawyers out first?

I bet there are many lawyers that hate it when they find out that they pulled this particular judge.

He spent more time talking than the lawyers did and then still didn't rule on anything at all.

In my experience, all judges are different. But the judge I work for knows not to bring up or ask certain questions of matters that haven't been put before her BECAUSE there may be some underlying reason NOT to bring that particular issue up. She will talk with the attorneys - not interrupt them during their argument - but she doesn't state her opinion ever unless she is making a ruling.

 

[magic-cat]

Judge says' he may having been wrong when he denied the orginal motion to stay, OH NO!

awww...Judge says he probably made a mistake before.....fundamental fairness to KC, unfairness to ZFG is no biggie.

His honor goes on later to explain that he did not SAY he WAS wrong in his initial assessment...he says he is TESTING as he is called to do and he is clear that he did not state he was wrong...

I am not hearing what everyone else is hearing so perhaps I am impaired...but I do not think the judge is going to dismiss this case and neither do I believe he is going to stay it. I believe he was stirring the waters enough so that every argument possible could be presented and "tested" but in the end, I do not think he will stay this for years while Casey awaits her day in court...he may delay for a time but there is just no way legally that I can see he will stay this...

 

[lisalei321]

Real World is screaming at me...I'll catch up later.

I think this Judge wants to make sure that anything he decides, can't be overturned later

 

[Manny]

I don't understand what ZG lawyers think they will win. KC has no money. She will be in jail for life or dead. What is the purpose of this whole legal snafu?

 

[aafromaa]

no wonder the wheels of justice move so slowly

it should not take a month to rule on this motion - I understand that a judge might want to do a little additional research before issuing a ruling but a month (give or take a week) is way too long and yes I understand he may have other cases ongoing as well but a month to rule...I would be upset if I was either party...wait a minute...I'm not even involved in the case and I'm upset...

sure hope he reconsiders and issues his ruling sooner - I would think that a week would be more appropriate

 

[LaLaw2000]

Man!

I had audio and video but turned it off because I literally cannot bear that this judge interrupts all the time!!!!

I agree with the poster that stated this judge is full of himself. He likes to hear his own voice, IMO. I got the feeling from watching him another time that he is all too aware of the camera.

Shades of Judge Ito, IMO. GRRRRRRR

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I don't know how Florida works, but seems to me the best thing to do for ZFG (not best for us her on WS!!!) would be to send this case to a mediator/arbitrator. It would then be a closed, private matter. It most likely would settle out. But, I don't think that is the ultimate goal of M&M.

 

[100%Agave]

In my experience, all judges are different. But the judge I work for knows not to bring up or ask certain questions of matters that haven't been put before her BECAUSE there may be some underlying reason NOT to bring that particular issue up. She will talk with the attorneys - not interrupt them during their argument - but she doesn't state her opinion ever unless she is making a ruling.

I was wondering about that. I don't think that I have ever seen a judge tell the lawyers that they have not brought arguments before him that he thinks should be brought. He at least didn't tell them what they were but I am sure that the lawyers have taken the time to decide what points they want to bring up and which ones they want to avoid.

I also couldn't believe it when I heard the judge say something about some of the judges making ruling were basically coasting until mandatory retirement and what I got from the statement was that there rulings might not have been thought out as well because of it. Did I hear that right or was I in a state of unconsiousness brought on by constantly chanting "Shut up and let the lawyers talk, shut up and let the lawyers talk, shut up and let the lawyers talk....?

 

[Spangle]

His honor goes on later to explain that he did not SAY he WAS wrong in his initial assessment...he says he is TESTING as he is called to do and he is clear that he did not state he was wrong...

I am not hearing what everyone else is hearing so perhaps I am impaired...but I do not think the judge is going to dismiss this case and neither do I believe he is going to stay it. I believe he was stirring the waters enough so that every argument possible could be presented and "tested" but in the end, I do not think he will stay this for years while Casey awaits her day in court...he may delay for a time but there is just no way legally that I can see he will stay this...

And I think that was pretty much pointed out, that in order to 'stay' this case in fairness to the DP, it would have to be put off for years. There are always appeals in DP cases. Tons of them. Years of them. Hence, it wouldn't be fair to this case. And since this case can not be held in limbo that long, what is the point of delaying it at all????

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I was wondering about that. I don't think that I have ever seen a judge tell the lawyers that they have not brought arguments before him that he thinks should be brought. He at least didn't tell them what they were but I am sure that the lawyers have taken the time to decide what points they want to bring up and which ones they want to avoid.

I also couldn't believe it when I heard the judge say something about some of the judges making ruling were basically coasting until mandatory retirement and what I got from the statement was that there rulings might not have been thought out as well because of it. Did I hear that right or was I in a state of unconsiousness brought on by constantly chanting "Shut up and let the lawyers talk, shut up and let the lawyers talk, shut up and let the lawyers talk....?

I didn't hear that part...real life must have called! He likes to hear himself talk, and wants to make darn tootin he sounds good in the media too!

 

[spiderlady]

Could ZFG come back and sue that Ant family for proceeds made off of their granddaughters death?

 

[Spangle]

I don't see how it's a conflict to KC. It was mentioned that the SA would be setting in the courtroom taking notes. The Judge said they wouldn't have to, since the media was there doing it for them.

But that brings up an issue.. Truth is truth. Unless the defense is planning on lying, what is the issue? Do they REALLY think they are going to learn something in this case, to use against her in the DP.. they couldn't come up with on their own?

The issues here would be all about the Name of the Nanny and where she might have gotten that name. Which would be all the apartment stuff, etc.

If it's not going to fly with a jury, it might be best if the defense did a test run of the offical 'story.'

 

[100%Agave]

I didn't hear that part...real life must have called! He likes to hear himself talk, and wants to make darn tootin he sounds good in the media too!

Hopefully it will be posted soon (if it isn't already) so that I can listen to that part again but I am almost positive that he said something about lawyers close to mandatory retirement and something else about not trusting their rulings and something else about him not knowing if their rulings were made because they were close the MR or not.

I wish I had listened closer but I was getting tired of listening to the judge talk and interrupt the lawyers arguments.

 

[magic-cat]

And I think that was pretty much pointed out, that in order to 'stay' this case in fairness to the DP, it would have to be put off for years. There are always appeals in DP cases. Tons of them. Years of them. Hence, it wouldn't be fair to this case. And since this case can not be held in limbo that long, what is the point of delaying it at all????

No point at all which is what I believe his honor will come to decide...

 

[nssherlock]

His honor goes on later to explain that he did not SAY he WAS wrong in his initial assessment...he says he is TESTING as he is called to do and he is clear that he did not state he was wrong...

I am not hearing what everyone else is hearing so perhaps I am impaired...but I do not think the judge is going to dismiss this case and neither do I believe he is going to stay it. I believe he was stirring the waters enough so that every argument possible could be presented and "tested" but in the end, I do not think he will stay this for years while Casey awaits her day in court...he may delay for a time but there is just no way legally that I can see he will stay this...

One can only hope....

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS

I got to watch the last part of this, my link wasn't working or something. And, I can't wait to read what you guys post so some of this makes sense to me...

But I had to ask: isn't the reason for the civil suit (this ZG) is bringing...to prove she was defamed? I mean they might not be able to prove this woman was defamed, right? We don't really know if she was defamed and that is why we have to go to court...is my understanding. So, I am confused what they are arguing.

Can the judge throw out (this ZG's) case? If he does not think she was defamed?

Were they arguing that there should be a case at all...or is the judge deciding when this civil matter will be held(the date), being before or after Casey's trial for the death of Caylee?

TIA

...jmo...

 

[The World According]

Hello WS

I got to watch the last part of this, my link wasn't working or something. And, I can't wait to read what you guys post so some of this makes sense to me...

can someone post a link to ther hearing?
But I had to ask: isn't the reason for the civil suit (this ZG) is bringing...to prove she was defamed? I mean they might not be able to prove this woman was defamed, right? We don't really know if she was defamed and that is why we have to go to court...is my understanding. So, I am confused what they are arguing.

Can the judge throw out (this ZG's) case? If he does not think she was defamed?

Were they arguing that there should be a case at all...or is the judge deciding when this civil matter will be held(the date), being before or after Casey's trial for the death of Caylee?

TIA

...jmo...

Can someone post the link to the video, I missed the live hearing?

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS

Hello The World According...

I don't even remember how I got to the link I did to watch that. Is it something that can be watched again, right away? Do you have to wait to see it after it is not live is what I am wondering. I am not sure there is a link? But, I really don't know. I would like to see the first half I missed so I'm waiting for that link too...

TIA

...jmo...

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Hello WS

I got to watch the last part of this, my link wasn't working or something. And, I can't wait to read what you guys post so some of this makes sense to me...

But I had to ask: isn't the reason for the civil suit (this ZG) is bringing...to prove she was defamed? I mean they might not be able to prove this woman was defamed, right? We don't really know if she was defamed and that is why we have to go to court...is my understanding. So, I am confused what they are arguing.

Can the judge throw out (this ZG's) case? If he does not think she was defamed? Were they arguing that there should be a case at all...or is the judge deciding when this civil matter will be held(the date), being before or after Casey's trial for the death of Caylee?

TIA

...jmo...

If the other side files a summary judgment motion, depending on the merits, the case can be thrown out before trial.

 

[100%Agave]

Hello WS

Hello The World According...

I don't even remember how I got to the link I did to watch that. Is it something that can be watched again, right away? Do you have to wait to see it after it is not live is what I am wondering. I am not sure there is a link? But, I really don't know. I would like to see the first half I missed so I'm waiting for that link too...

TIA

...jmo...

I am looking for a link, too. I wanted to listen again to something that I thought I heard during the proceedings today.