Bankrupt Casey Anthony interviewed by KPHO CBS in Phoenix #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

?noanswer said:
I thought TES was a non-profit org. and as such doesn't pay taxes.

JMO
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. I'm not understanding this TES settlement. Actually, I'm not understanding this whole bankruptcy thing. She was ordered to pay taxes, court fees, fines, etc. doesn't that mean she has to pay them? The lawsuits against her weren't even settled but she declared them as debts. Baez said they were even when she was claiming she was indigent. I really don't understand. (I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly don't get it. Any of it.
 
Interim Report Period Ending 09/30/2013.
(Meininger, Stephen) (Entered: 10/25/2013)


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIM2V3VU9oRVZnU1E/edit?usp=sharing


Trustee reports as of Sept 30, 2013 – Casey has assets valuing $ 1,084.00

Casey’s attorney David L. Schrader paid the Trustee $ 25,000.00 on August 29, 2013, which the Trustee put into a bank account, and paid out $ 34.75 in bank fees.

[Nothing is stated about where Casey Anthony got $ 25,000.00]
 
Order on Defendant's Motion for Protective Order and Plaintiff's Response Thereto
Entered: 10/22/2013

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIRkhDM2hMZUh3Nm8/edit?usp=sharing

Court will defer ruling on the Casey’s Motion for Protective Order and Zenaida’s Response to Casey’s Motion for Protective Order, until the Court rules on Casey’s Corrected Motion to Dismiss Zenaida’s case, on Nov 5, 2013 [and Zenaida’s Response to Motion to Dismiss].

Parties are directed to conduct a Rule 26 Case Management and Discovery Conference within seven (7) days or on or before October 24, 2013.
Parties are to confer in good faith to resolve the issues in the Motion and the Response
 
Response to /in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Filed by Howard S. Marks on behalf of Plaintiff Roy Kronk
(Entered: 10/25/2013)


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpITnJhcjJVM0ItTVU/edit?usp=sharing


Casey, through her agents, made public comments to the media, outside of the courtroom, which defamed Kronk, accusing him of the murder among other things. There is no dispute that Defendant was well aware that Kronk was not involved in the murder of Defendant’s daughter.

Much of Casey’s Motion to Dismiss consists of ad hominem attacks against Kronk, the exact type of statements which led to this Complaint in the first place.

Casey’s Motion to Dismiss boils down to 3 distinct arguments.
1 – since the statements were made by agents, Kronk is legally barred from relief
2 – Kronk has not plead his allegations with sufficient particularity
3 – all the alleged defamatory statements are protected by the litigation privilege

No showing of malice is required where a statement is considered actionable per se.
A communication is actionable per se... if it imputes to another... a criminal offence amounting to a felony ... or conduct, characteristics or a condition imcompatible with the proper exercise of his lawful business, trade, profession or office...

It is well established that under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, the intentional tort of defamation may constitute “willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity”, as long as the Debtor knew the published statements were false.”

Kronk says that Casey authorized, adopted, and permitted her agents to make numerous defamatory and false statements, statements about Kronk, statements published to the media, statements alleging Kronk was guilty of a felony, and statements that damaged Kronk’s reputation. Kronk alleges, and the Criminal Trial made clear, that Casey knew all along that these statements were false.

...an attorney is an agent of a client whom he represents...
...a client can be liable for his attorney making defamatory statements ... to the news

Casey says she cannot be denied a discharge based on the alleged willful and malicious statements of an agent.
Kronk uses other law to say that Casey’s liability for those “willful and malicious” statements is still non-dischargeable, because Casey was aware of the actions, and the actions took place during the Casey-Baez as her agent relationship, and the actions were taken on Casey’s behalf, and Casey did nothing about the actions.

Kronk says Casey actively instructed, adopted, and permitted her agents [Baez and others] to make defamatory statements about Kronk even though Casey knew these statements were false.

...Kronk itemized twelve statements representing the gist of the false and defamatory statements, which were made to the media, including national television shows, and were broadcast and/or published across the country.

Statements made to the newspapers or press conferences are not part of a judicial proceeding. Statements made to the world at large through a website accusing a person of fraud and perpetrating a hoax on the public are not steps in the judicial process or part of a judicial proceeding.

If the judge is inclined to grant Casey’s Motion to Dismiss, Kronk requests the dismissal be without prejudice to Kronk’s ability to amend his Complaint.
 
Response to Debtor/Defendant's Corrected Motion to Dismiss
Filed by R Scott Shuker on behalf of Plaintiff Zenaida Gonzalez
(Entered: 10/25/2013)


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIZnpPMTI4NlUyZVE/edit?usp=sharing

Casey’s conclusory and misleading Motion to Dismiss makes a considerable effort to inappropriately portray Zenaida as one of many publicity seekers too uncouth to know her “fifteen minutes” has lapsed. It is a distraction meant to deflect attention to a very real issue: an injured Plaintiff with an actionable nondischargeability claim.

Casey said “When they went and interviewed that girl down in Kissimmee, they never showed me a picture of her”. Zenaida was the only “Zenaida Gonzalez” interviewed in Kissimmee, Florida. ... multiple news stories said Zenaida had not been cleared in the criminal investigation ...

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ... a court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.

As further stated by the eleventh Circuit, “[w]e hasten to add that this motion [to dismiss] is viewed with disfavor and rarely granted.”

Casey’s Motion to Dismiss must be denied since Casey is precluded from re-litigating an issue already decided in State Court...
The State Court in its Summary Judgment Order ruled the alleged defamatory statement... was subject to different interpretations, and therefore must be submitted to a jury.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits bankruptcy courts from reviewing the State Court ruling, even if it believes said ruling is erroneous.

A debtor “must will or desire harm, or believe injury is substantially certain to occur as a result of his behavior.”

Casey attempts to use distractions and obfuscation in confusing the requirements of a motion to dismiss. She makes generalized allegations and interpretations of Zenaida’s claim.

If Zenaida’s allegations are taken as true, she is entitled to relief under the Code in her dischargeability action.
 
ThinkTank
Thanks for posting the responses of both Kronk and Gonzalez to FCA's claims.
They both have great arguments for their cases.
I hope the Judge will rule favorably on both of them.
It's about time for the tide to finally change.
 
BANKRUPTCY HEARING Nov 5, 2013 11:00am in Tampa, FL

Issues to be heard by the Judge:

Zenaida
Parties [Casey and Zenaida] are directed to conduct a Rule 26 Case Management and Discovery Conference within seven (7) days or on or before October 24, 2013.
Parties are to confer in good faith to resolve the issues in the Motion and the Response

1 – Pretrial on Complaint by Zenaida Gonzalez against Casey Marie Anthony Nature of Suit: [68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)]

2 – Motion To Determine Non-Core Elements of Complaint Filed by R Scott Shuker on behalf of Plaintiff Zenaida Gonzalez

along with any Motion(s) to Dismiss and Response to any motion to dismiss

Kronk
1 – Pretrial on Complaint by Roy Kronk against Casey Marie Anthony
Nature of Suit: [68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)]

2 – Motion to Determine Whether Proceeding Core Filed by Michael Nardella on behalf of Plaintiff Roy Kronk

along with any Motion(s) to Dismiss and Response to any motion to dismiss
 
ThinkTank said:
Interim Report Period Ending 09/30/2013.
(Meininger, Stephen) (Entered: 10/25/2013)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIM2V3VU9oRVZnU1E/edit?usp=sharing

Trustee reports as of Sept 30, 2013 – Casey has assets valuing $ 1,084.00

Casey’s attorney David L. Schrader paid the Trustee $ 25,000.00 on August 29, 2013, which the Trustee put into a bank account, and paid out $ 34.75 in bank fees.

[Nothing is stated about where Casey Anthony got $ 25,000.00]
Click to expand...

Back on May 6, 2013 - SIX MONTHS AGO!
Casey's FREE attorneys filed a document telling the bankruptcy judge that Casey had NO MORE RESOURCES and some of her [many] attorneys could not afford to continue doing free legal work for her.
So -- if Casey has NO RESOURCES and her attorneys cannot afford more .... WHERE does she suddenly come up with $ 25,000 to pay the Trustee on August 29, 2013???

Response to Zenaida Gonzalez's Amended Motion for Extension of Time to File Complaint Objecting to Discharge
Filed by David L Schrader on behalf of Debtor Casey Marie Anthony (Entered: 05/06/2013)

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIeVpwZ01oay1TSHM/edit?usp=sharing

google docs: Page 12-13
paragraph G-
Ms. Anthony is out of Resources to continue to Fight Frivolous Lawsuits.
“As a result of the donated time of a team of attorneys and other professionals, Ms. Anthony has been able to fend off the claims of Gonzalez and others seeking to jump on the publicity bandwagon”.

Ms. Anthony has been able to continue the battle this long only because of the tireless efforts of a legal team which has contributed its own money and time to defend her.

However, the resources of the legal team have also been taxed to their limit and some of the members are otherwise no longer able to continue the fight.
 
Who's bank account is she draining now? She has a new candy man? Or woman? And oddly enough; why is the media protecting her address, and her location?

Why hasn't anyone outted her like she deserves? I mean it too; cames in palm trees. That's what we need. Fox, are you listening? Shake a Tree. See what falls out this time.
 
I asked this in the Lawyer questions thread.

Lawyers - what does this mean?
Why did Casey Anthony's bankruptcy attorney David Schrader take the extra step to file an official document stating that he is representing her "pro bono" in the Zenaida, Kronk, and TES cases?

He has been her attorney since the filing of bankruptcy on January 25, 2013, and has always been working "pro bono".

Why does he file this official document now, this late in the game?
What purpose does it serve?

Pro Bono Representation of Debtor by David L. Schrader
Filed by David L Schrader on behalf of Debtor Casey Marie Anthony.
(Schrader, David)
(Entered: 10/29/2013)

[no documents attached]

same entry posted in Zenaida and Kronk and TES Adversary Proceeding
 
These are the attorneys who appeared for Casey Anthony at the bankruptcy hearings.
Are all of them working for FREE/Pro Bono?

Why did only Casey’s attorney, David Schrader, file an official document telling the judge he is working pro bono, and not the other attorneys?

MEETING OF CREDITORS March 4, 2013
Charles Greene
David L. Schrader
3 more attorneys for Casey Anthony

HEARING April 9, 2013
David Schrader
Debra Fewerda
Andrew Chmelir

HEARING May 8, 2013
David Schrader
Debra Ferwerda
Andrew Chmelir

HEARING May 30, 2013
David Schrader
Debra Ferwerda
Andrew Chmelir

HEARING June 25, 2013
David Schrader

HEARING July 2, 2013
David Schrader

HEARING Sept 17, 2013
David Schrader

HEARING October 17, 2013
Debra Ferwerda
David Schrader

---------------------------------

Here are all of her attorneys – are all of them expecting NO PAYMENT — EVER?

Or, did she leave them off of her bankruptcy filing on purpose, so they would not be listed as Creditors, and she can give them money after the bankruptcy case is closed?
Except for Baez who will get a – $ 397, 431.78 tax write off in the bankruptcy case.

1 David L. Schrader – bankruptcy atty – office St. Petersburg, FL – [filed Notice of Appearance in bankruptcy case]

2 Charles M. Greene – Orlando, FL [with John G. DeGirolamo and Richard Solomon, and Richard Reinhart in recent photo of smiling Casey with attorneys]

3 Andrew J. Chmelir [Jacobson, McClean, Chmelir & Ferwerda, P.A. - works with Greene]

4 Debra Ferwerda [filed Notice of Appearance in bankruptcy case]

5 J. Cheney Mason – criminal case and Appeal

6 Lizbeth Fryer – criminal case and Appeal

7 Ann Finnel

8 Dorothy Sims

9 Jose Baez – $ 397, 431.78 tax write off

10 Andrea Lyon [DePaul Univ. College of Law]

11 Linda Kenney Baden
12 Todd Macaluso
13 Jose Luis Garcia [crush]
14 William Slabaugh
15 Michelle Medina
16 Jonathan B. Kasen
17 Tomasita D Crowell
18 Terry Lenamon
19 Michael & Michelle Walsh [wrote appeals to lower bond - helped jailmate Robyn Adams]
20 Gabriel E. Adam [long jail visits]
21 John G. DeGirolamo [with Charles M. Greene]
22 Juan Pablo Manterola [Baez Law Firm Case Manager - PR man]
23 Timothy Chinaris – Faulkner University in Alabama – Baez’ ethics attorney
 
http://www.wfla.com/story/21480329/casey-anthony-pleeds-her-case-today-in-a-tampa-court

Casey Anthony pleads her case today in a Tampa court
Posted: Mar 04, 2013 6:14 PM CDT
Updated: Apr 01, 2013 6:16 PM CST
By Jeff Patterson

clip
Shuker says he believes Anthony has a source of income that she isn’t revealing. ” From the smell test, it didn’t smell right. Any time you see an attorney at what is supposed to be a no asset case, being that active. More to the point, you have five attorney’s there, none of who are allegedly being paid, that’s odd.”, says Shuker. Anthony says also says she does not have any book or movie deals and no way to pay back her debts.
 
ThinkTank said:
http://www.wfla.com/story/21480329/casey-anthony-pleeds-her-case-today-in-a-tampa-court

Casey Anthony pleads her case today in a Tampa court
Posted: Mar 04, 2013 6:14 PM CDT
Updated: Apr 01, 2013 6:16 PM CST
By Jeff Patterson

clip
Shuker says he believes Anthony has a source of income that she isn’t revealing. ” From the smell test, it didn’t smell right. Any time you see an attorney at what is supposed to be a no asset case, being that active. More to the point, you have five attorney’s there, none of who are allegedly being paid, that’s odd.”, says Shuker. Anthony says also says she does not have any book or movie deals and no way to pay back her debts.
Click to expand...
Red BBM - I agree, it smells worse than those black tights Casey abandoned at the courthourse after she made her grand entrance with Cheney Mason. :drumroll:
 
For the sake of accuracy - I went back and highlighted which attorneys she DID list as a CREDITOR in her bankruptcy filing -- meaning all the rest of her attorneys were left off of her filing. Why were they left off?

Here are all of her attorneys – are all of them expecting NO PAYMENT — EVER?

Or, did she leave them off of her bankruptcy filing on purpose, so they would not be listed as Creditors, and she can give them money after the bankruptcy case is closed?

1 David L. Schrader – bankruptcy atty – office St. Petersburg, FL – [filed Notice of Appearance in bankruptcy case]

2 Charles M. Greene – Orlando, FL [with John G. DeGirolamo and Richard Solomon, and Richard Reinhart in recent photo of smiling Casey with attorneys]

3 Andrew J. Chmelir [Jacobson, McClean, Chmelir & Ferwerda, P.A. - works with Greene]

4 Debra Ferwerda [filed Notice of Appearance in bankruptcy case]

5 J. Cheney Mason – criminal case and Appeal

6 Lizbeth Fryer – criminal case and Appeal

7 Ann Finnel - listed as CREDITOR

8 Dorothy Sims

9 Jose Baez – $ 397, 431.78 tax write off - listed as CREDITOR

10 Andrea Lyon [DePaul Univ. College of Law] - listed as CREDITOR along with the Univ as a CREDITOR

11 Linda Kenney Baden

12 Todd Macaluso - listed as CREDITOR

13 Jose Luis Garcia [crush]

14 William Slabaugh

15 Michelle Medina

16 Jonathan B. Kasen - listed as CREDITOR

17 Tomasita D Crowell

18 Terry Lenamon - listed as CREDITOR

19 Michael & Michelle Walsh [wrote appeals to lower bond - helped jailmate Robyn Adams]

20 Gabriel E. Adam [long jail visits]

21 John G. DeGirolamo [with Charles M. Greene]

22 Juan Pablo Manterola [Baez Law Firm Case Manager - PR man] - listed as CREDITOR

23 Timothy Chinaris – Faulkner University in Alabama – Baez’ ethics attorney - handled Baez' Bar Complaints - listed as CREDITOR



Casey Anthony Bankruptcy Filing
January 25, 2013
60 pages PDF
Creditors starting at page 15, and addresses starting at page 49

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIMHZWMWI2ZkNIaGs/edit?pli=1
 
10/31/2013
Notice of Rule 7026 Showing of Good Faith
Filed by David L Schrader on behalf of Defendant Casey Marie Anthony

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIekxIR3BoeFJWaG8/edit?usp=sharing


Casey attorney David Schrader files emails showing their good faith efforts to resolve the discovery issues [Depo of Casey], as they stated in Casey’s Motion for Protective Order.

In the emails, Casey’s attorneys said that if the Zenaida case is not thrown out after the Hearing on Nov 5th, Casey’s attorneys will agree to set a date for the Depo within 30 days of the entry of the Order denying Casey’s Motion to Dismiss the Zenaida case.

After Hearing on Oct 17, 2013 regarding the Protective Order for the Depo of Casey, the Judge filed ORDER on Oct 22, 2013 telling Zenaida and Casey attorneys to conduct a Rule 26 Case Management and Discovery Conference on or before October 24, 2013, and confer in good faith to resolve the issues in the Motion for Protective Order and Response.

The judge will rule on the Protective Order for the Depo, AFTER the Hearing on Nov 5, 2013 to rule on Casey’s Motion to Dismiss the Zenaida and Kronk cases.

EMAILS regarding the Protective Order for Deposition of Casey

Oct 16, 2013 10:32am
Debra Ferwerda to Shuker
wants to postpone depo until after the Nov 5, 2013 Hearing at 11:00am, to avoid Hearing tomorrow Oct 17th at 11:00am, regarding the Protective Order on the Depo.
If the case is not thrown out after the Nov 5th Hearing, they will discuss the appropriate time and safeguards for a depo.

Oct 16, 2013 11:38am
Scott Shuker to Ferwerda
willing to have Depo after the Nov 5th Hearing but wants to set a date now for the Depo, and for the Depo to be in Shuker’s office.
he will discuss safeguards but he wants the date for depo now and the date put in the Order denying Ferwerda’s motion [for Protective Order]
if so, Shuker will agree not to seek fees [for his work re: the Motion for Protective Order]

Oct 16, 2013 1:16pm
Debra Ferwerda to Shuker
she can’t agree to set a date for Depo now
she does agree to set date for Depo within 30 days of a final Order on the Motion to Dismiss

Oct 16, 2013 1:36pm
Scott Shuker to Ferwerda
Not a final Order – just invites waiting for an appeal
If Ferwerda will agree to have date for Depo set within 30 days of entry of an Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, with Depo at Shuker’s office, and have both aspects put in Order Denying your motion [for Protective Order], Shuker is fine with such
Shuker needs to know by 2:30 so he can arrange to appear at Hearing tomorrow on Oct 17th, by phone

Oct 17, 2013 7:36am [Day of HEARING at 11:00am on Protective Order]
Debra Ferwerda to Shuker
They outlined their proposed precautions, for the Depo, on page 6 of their Motion for Protective Order
What is Shuker’s position?

Oct 17, 2013 8:05am – [Day of HEARING at 11:00am on Protective Order]
Scott Shuker to Ferwerda
happy to discuss precautions, for the Depo, after Ferwerda agrees to Shuker’s email of yesterday [wants date for Depo set within 30 days after entry of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, and Depo held at Shuker’s office – and wants these points put in Order Denying Motion for Protective Order].
Shuker wants his fees for travel paid by Casey attorneys because he had to drive over for a Hearing, on Oct 17th [re: Protective Order on Depo], that never should have happened.

10/4/2013
Motion for Protective Order
Filed by David L Schrader on behalf of Defendant Casey Marie Anthony.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIVUJHQ3BTaDExY1U/edit?usp=sharing

SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR DEPO

Oct 4, 2013 - Casey's attorneys file a MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - to stop the deposition set for Oct 9, 2013.
Zenaida has already deposed Casey; and if a deposition is allowed, Casey should have the same safety precautions that Judge Munyon ordered in State court [depo in disguise and remotely via video - not in person].

The attorneys say that Casey will again assert her Fifth Amendment rights in any deposition, related to Caylee's death and disappearance.

The attorneys do not want a video of any deposition made public.

They do not want the date and time and location of deposition made public even after the deposition is over.

They want only the parties and their attorneys to attend.

If the transcript of the deposition is filed in the Court file, Casey's attorneys want 2 business days notice so they can file a Motion to SEAL the deposition transcript.

They do not want Casey to have to disclose the names, addresses, dates and parties with whom she has lived since her release from jail in July 2011.

They want the video of the deposition SEALED, and NEVER disclosed to the public.
 
I remember when FCA was released after her jail time, JB made a comment about her holding her head high and walking right out the front door.

Now, there is all this secrecy about where she is hiding and how she is being supported. Why would that be necessary now?

Also, this deal with her attorneys wanting her to be in disguise and on video to take a depo is crazy. Why would they think it would be best for her to remain incognito? Everyone knows what she looks like. Are they trying to create a circus atmosphere to make her seem more mysterious?

It is almost like they all think she is some big diva. With all her peons waiting on her and attorneys serving all her wants and needs, FCA must believe so too.
 
The whole dang thing sickens me. :banghead:
 
ThinkTank said:
10/31/2013
Notice of Rule 7026 Showing of Good Faith
Filed by David L Schrader on behalf of Defendant Casey Marie Anthony

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIekxIR3BoeFJWaG8/edit?usp=sharing


Casey attorney David Schrader files emails showing their good faith efforts to resolve the discovery issues [Depo of Casey], as they stated in Casey’s Motion for Protective Order.

In the emails, Casey’s attorneys said that if the Zenaida case is not thrown out after the Hearing on Nov 5th, Casey’s attorneys will agree to set a date for the Depo within 30 days of the entry of the Order denying Casey’s Motion to Dismiss the Zenaida case.

After Hearing on Oct 17, 2013 regarding the Protective Order for the Depo of Casey, the Judge filed ORDER on Oct 22, 2013 telling Zenaida and Casey attorneys to conduct a Rule 26 Case Management and Discovery Conference on or before October 24, 2013, and confer in good faith to resolve the issues in the Motion for Protective Order and Response.

The judge will rule on the Protective Order for the Depo, AFTER the Hearing on Nov 5, 2013 to rule on Casey’s Motion to Dismiss the Zenaida and Kronk cases.

EMAILS regarding the Protective Order for Deposition of Casey

Oct 16, 2013 10:32am
Debra Ferwerda to Shuker
wants to postpone depo until after the Nov 5, 2013 Hearing at 11:00am, to avoid Hearing tomorrow Oct 17th at 11:00am, regarding the Protective Order on the Depo.
If the case is not thrown out after the Nov 5th Hearing, they will discuss the appropriate time and safeguards for a depo.

Oct 16, 2013 11:38am
Scott Shuker to Ferwerda
willing to have Depo after the Nov 5th Hearing but wants to set a date now for the Depo, and for the Depo to be in Shuker’s office.
he will discuss safeguards but he wants the date for depo now and the date put in the Order denying Ferwerda’s motion [for Protective Order]
if so, Shuker will agree not to seek fees [for his work re: the Motion for Protective Order]

Oct 16, 2013 1:16pm
Debra Ferwerda to Shuker
she can’t agree to set a date for Depo now
she does agree to set date for Depo within 30 days of a final Order on the Motion to Dismiss

Oct 16, 2013 1:36pm
Scott Shuker to Ferwerda
Not a final Order – just invites waiting for an appeal
If Ferwerda will agree to have date for Depo set within 30 days of entry of an Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, with Depo at Shuker’s office, and have both aspects put in Order Denying your motion [for Protective Order], Shuker is fine with such
Shuker needs to know by 2:30 so he can arrange to appear at Hearing tomorrow on Oct 17th, by phone

Oct 17, 2013 7:36am [Day of HEARING at 11:00am on Protective Order]
Debra Ferwerda to Shuker
They outlined their proposed precautions, for the Depo, on page 6 of their Motion for Protective Order
What is Shuker’s position?

Oct 17, 2013 8:05am – [Day of HEARING at 11:00am on Protective Order]
Scott Shuker to Ferwerda
happy to discuss precautions, for the Depo, after Ferwerda agrees to Shuker’s email of yesterday [wants date for Depo set within 30 days after entry of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, and Depo held at Shuker’s office – and wants these points put in Order Denying Motion for Protective Order].
Shuker wants his fees for travel paid by Casey attorneys because he had to drive over for a Hearing, on Oct 17th [re: Protective Order on Depo], that never should have happened.

10/4/2013
Motion for Protective Order
Filed by David L Schrader on behalf of Defendant Casey Marie Anthony.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIVUJHQ3BTaDExY1U/edit?usp=sharing

SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOR DEPO

Oct 4, 2013 - Casey's attorneys file a MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - to stop the deposition set for Oct 9, 2013.
Zenaida has already deposed Casey; and if a deposition is allowed, Casey should have the same safety precautions that Judge Munyon ordered in State court [depo in disguise and remotely via video - not in person].

The attorneys say that Casey will again assert her Fifth Amendment rights in any deposition, related to Caylee's death and disappearance.

The attorneys do not want a video of any deposition made public.

They do not want the date and time and location of deposition made public even after the deposition is over.

They want only the parties and their attorneys to attend.

If the transcript of the deposition is filed in the Court file, Casey's attorneys want 2 business days notice so they can file a Motion to SEAL the deposition transcript.

They do not want Casey to have to disclose the names, addresses, dates and parties with whom she has lived since her release from jail in July 2011.

They want the video of the deposition SEALED, and NEVER disclosed to the public.
Click to expand...

The "precaution" that gets me the most is the one about not making Casey disclose the names, addresses, dates, and parties with whom she has lived since she got out of jail in July 2011.

WHY?
Zenaida has a legal right to know about her finances.
What legal basis would Casey have to NOT disclose this financial information in a civil lawsuit deposition?

How has Casey lived since July 2011, who has paid ALL of her living expenses? That is a reasonable question to ask in a bankruptcy and civil lawsuit deposition, where she is claiming to be destitute.

WHO does not want the public to know that they have been financially supporting Casey Anthony? Afraid of public backlash?

It was said at one time that her own bankruptcy attorneys were/are supporting her financially. Guess they don't want the public to know about that.

And, if they insist that the depo video and transcript be SEALED, forever ... then why would it matter if Zenaida's attorney asks her who has been supporting her since she got out of jail - the public would never know.

Casey Anthony is NOT special, and should be made to answer all questions posed to her in the deposition, just like anyone else would have to do in such a situation. This is Zenaida's day in court -- not the Casey Anthony drama show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 59 more.
Total: 3,561 (members: 60, guests: 3,501)

Online statistics

Members online
60
Guests online
3,501
Total visitors
3,561
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,766
Messages
18,146,642
Members
231,530
Latest member
Painauchocolat2024
Back
Top