Cindy's Deposition #3 *UPDATED* MOTION FILED

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
THEMIS and CHESHIRE :blowkiss: I would like to hear from you two.

Thank you for sharing all of your legal knowledge.
I respect what you are sharing and appreciate what you offer.
I am still baffled by: MY QUESTION IN RED, below, but first look at this.

It is a good article and it says many things.
<<<SNIP>>>
John Morgan may be conducting depositions in a defamation suit -- his client Zenaida Gonzalez is suing Casey Anthony. But he told reporters today he has another mission."If it seems like John Morgan is conducting a homicide investigation, he admits he is," WKMG-Channel 6's Mike DeForest said.
<<<SNIP>>>
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...hes-conducting-a-homicide-investigation-.html

How on earth can Morgan conduct Homicide Investigation in a Civil Court?
AND how can a judge from a civil court have jurisdiction in a criminal court case?

I have no problem with the "A"s having to answer many questions that belong in the Criminal court.
I think it should be done in the right arena.
IMHO his job is to clear ZG and it is not to go looking for Criminals.
He keeps saying that if he finds the criminal that means it is not ZG.
(I do not recall ever seeing an attorney go looking for criminals)
He has a different agenda and it is nothing to do with ZG. JMHO

His kind of questions are designed to throw people under the bus, and aggravate;
not designed to clear ZG who is in the clear - it is only formality to get her stamped CLEAR.
JMO

I appreciate your knowledge and all your posts :blowkiss:

So far all I seem to read between the lines is that the "A"s are not likable, not willing to reply, and he will make them see that it is not going to go their way.
TRUE they are not likable, it is true they did not reply.
It is also true that we have a civil court house and we have a Criminal court house and they do not do the same things.
 
There are times I think Caylee's room was staged to show the world Caylee was loved. Unfortunately, all it proves is how much they value things and appearance.

Off the topic of this thread- But I completely agree with you. I looked at the photos and many things jumped out at me. I didn't know if I should start it's own thread or not though...
 
<<<SNIP>>>
John Morgan may be conducting depositions in a defamation suit -- his client Zenaida Gonzalez is suing Casey Anthony. But he told reporters today he has another mission."If it seems like John Morgan is conducting a homicide investigation, he admits he is," WKMG-Channel 6's Mike DeForest said.
<<<SNIP>>>
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...hes-conducting-a-homicide-investigation-.html

How on earth can Morgan conduct Homicide Investigation in a Civil Court?
AND how can a judge from a civil court have jurisdiction in a criminal court case?

Morgan's case is about proving that what Casey said about his client (the ZG who was at Sawgrass) is false. What she said was that the ZG who was at Sawgrass kidnapped her daughter (and presumably later killed her). If Morgan can prove that CASEY killed her own daughter and NEVER dropped her off with any ZG at Sawgrass, mission accomplished. There are LOTS of times in civil cases that you end up having to or wanting to prove something that is also a criminal violation--forgery of a document, for example. In some wrongful death cases (which are civil, not criminal), you have to prove murder. In some probate cases, you might want to prove murder--e.g., you represent Son #2 and want to prove that Son #1 killed his father and therefore should not inherit.

The fact that criminal acts are involved does not transform a civil case into a criminal case. The same rules still apply in the civil case as in any other civil case.

I'm not sure what you mean about the judge. The civil judge does not have any jurisdiction over the criminal court case. Did he do something that made it seem like he did?
 
well you could see the anger in her depo.......

I could not find a link on the internet...
I did find this OT
How do you handle anger when arguing with your spouse?
My husband and I argue a normal amount, no more than other couples. I have a temper issue. When we argue, I feel he is purposely pushing my buttons. But, whether he is or not, I have a problem getting too angry and saying things I don't mean. When I don't say them, I am still extremely anger. How can I not be so aggressive?

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
I'll tell what I do when I have to argue with my wife. Have a mouthful of chewing gum and start showing my anger on the chewing gum.
 
Morgan's case is about proving that what Casey said about his client (the ZG who was at Sawgrass) is false. What she said was that the ZG who was at Sawgrass kidnapped her daughter (and presumably later killed her). If Morgan can prove that CASEY killed her own daughter and NEVER dropped her off with any ZG at Sawgrass, mission accomplished. There are LOTS of times in civil cases that you end up having to or wanting to prove something that is also a criminal violation--forgery of a document, for example. In some wrongful death cases (which are civil, not criminal), you have to prove murder. In some probate cases, you might want to prove murder--e.g., you represent Son #2 and want to prove that Son #1 killed his father and therefore should not inherit.

The fact that criminal acts are involved does not transform a civil case into a criminal case. The same rules still apply in the civil case as in any other civil case.

I'm not sure what you mean about the judge. The civil judge does not have any jurisdiction over the criminal court case. Did he do something that made it seem like he did?

I am only replying to the bold. seems a judge OK'd Mrogan to ask away.
I would want to know if he can actually do that being the questions belong in the Criminal arena.
as for the rest of your post. THANK YOU I appriciate your reply and I hope the legal minds can let us all know if it can be done in a civil court.
 
He just needs one question to make his point and get her to change her attitude. He could do many depos with her, so he will continue with depos on that day and any other day until he gets what he needs.

So if I understand you correctly, although JM filed a motion to compel CA to answer the question about the credit cards, if the judge upholds the motion, JM will be entitled to resume the depo....and ask CA other questions as well???

If the answer is yes, I hope the judge personally makes that very very clear to Cindy. LOL If he doesn't, I'll wager the next depo will last less than 5 minutes--just long enough for Cindy to say untruthfully, "I always allowed KC to use my credit cards. All I asked was that she tell me how much she'd spent so I didn't accidently use the same cards and put them over the maximum."

She will then refuse to answer further questions because no other questions were listed in the Motion to Compel, and then she will remove her mike and leave. Want to bet a cookie?
 
SNIPPED: "THEMIS and CHESHIRE :blowkiss: I would like to hear from you two.... John Morgan may be conducting depositions in a defamation suit -- his client Zenaida Gonzalez is suing Casey Anthony. But he told reporters today he has another mission."If it seems like John Morgan is conducting a homicide investigation, he admits he is," WKMG-Channel 6's Mike DeForest said.
<<<SNIP>>>
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...hes-conducting-a-homicide-investigation-.html

How on earth can Morgan conduct Homicide Investigation in a Civil Court?
AND how can a judge from a civil court have jurisdiction in a criminal court case?

I have no problem with the "A"s having to answer many questions that belong in the Criminal court.
I think it should be done in the right arena.
IMHO his job is to clear ZG and it is not to go looking for Criminals.
He keeps saying that if he finds the criminal that means it is not ZG.
(I do not recall ever seeing an attorney go looking for criminals)
He has a different agenda and it is nothing to do with ZG. JMHO[/COLOR]..."
Hiyah Songline,
My response, following up on what AZlawyer posted, is simply this: Mr. Morgan's client is entitled to "discover" any and every thing that is in any way, shape or form relevant to her civil case against Casey, which necessarily involves any information regarding who actually did what to Caylee. The civil judge's ruling will govern only that which is asked and answered in the civil matter - but he will allow all relevant questions, which is why Mr. Morgan gets to "ask away." The degree of relevance that something has to the civil suit is not measured in any way by its degree of relevance to a separate criminal suit. The two suits can co-exist at the same time. As AZlawyer says, if Mr. Morgan can prove that Casey, who claimed that she left Caylee with a sitter named Zanny, actually murdered Caylee, then it's easy to prove that Casey told a lie - which is an element of a defamation suit (i.e., that the defendant must have said something that was not true.)
 
Legal Eagles,
Can Morgan use statements from the criminal case and media statements to prove GA and CA are perjuring themselves? Do you think he will have them charged with perjury?
 
I hope the judge makes her answer the question! Cindy just cannot bear to not be in control. Remember when she sat there and refused to 'mike up'? She just could not believe that she could actually be made to do something, IMO. She has some hard lessons to learn.

Yep- that made me laugh out LOUD ... "I am not gonna mike up", "you can't make me mike up".... (cut to next scene)...SHE'S MIKED UP!!! haaaa I watched that a couple of times and giggled hysterically~!

:woohoo::rolleyes:
 
Legal Eagles,
Can Morgan use statements from the criminal case and media statements to prove GA and CA are perjuring themselves? Do you think he will have them charged with perjury?

It is the basis of the Civil Suit that the statements the Anthonys made in the LE interviews and their multitude of public appearances either on talk shows or giving impromptu interviews with the media swarm have implicated this particular woman again and again and again, even though they are now asserting that SHE is not the ZG they spoke about. Their continued defense of their daughter, when she herself WILL NOT GO ON RECORD as saying this is not the ZG she left her daughter with, not answering any deposition questions that would clear it all up, and leaving her parents to take the heat for her (as always) which they will do by lying and being obstinate.

IF the statements they choose to make in their deposition to his office conflict with statements they made to LE or in the public eye, then absolutely Morgan can use those statements to demonstrate perjurous content. And he will.
 
Yep- that made me laugh out LOUD ... "I am not gonna mike up", "you can't make me mike up".... (cut to next scene)...SHE'S MIKED UP!!! haaaa I watched that a couple of times and giggled hysterically~!

:woohoo::rolleyes:

I must confess...that was one of my favorite parts also. And when she told them that if anyone touched her she would file a lawsuit ( or something to that effect), I wanted them to say "I wouldn't want to".
 
with You know what...It shouldn't matter what the A's say about ZFG now. The fact of the matter is that THIS ZFG was put through hell through all of last summer and fall (still is) because Casey used her name and her connection to SawGrass and implicated her as the kidnapper/and now murderer of her child. The name is too unusual to mix up too many people. This woman was put through interrogation, name/privacy blasted on TV, and became infamously famous and much more. She Has Been Slandered and should win her lawsuit. All facts of the Casey case are totally relevant to the ZFG because that is the whole point..... who in the hell would EVER want to be associated with/connected to Casey and the A's for their rest of their lives like this poor woman will? She should have sought millions, imo.
 
Legal Eagles,
Can Morgan use statements from the criminal case and media statements to prove GA and CA are perjuring themselves? Do you think he will have them charged with perjury?
...I see it as a matter of timing myself. No one can "have" someone charged with perjury, they can only go to the SA or LE and provide the incriminating information (not that LE doesn't have some of this already. LOL) It is up to LE whether or not to book, and it is up to the SA whether or not to prosecute. Though I am not a mindreader, I don't think that the SA would want George or Cindy being charged until after their daughter's trial, even if there were sufficient evidence for perjury.
 
...I see it as a matter of timing myself. No one can "have" someone charged with perjury, they can only go to the SA or LE and provide the incriminating information (not that LE doesn't have some of this already. LOL) It is up to LE whether or not to book, and it is up to the SA whether or not to prosecute. Though I am not a mindreader, I don't think that the SA would want George or Cindy being charged until after their daughter's trial, even if there were sufficient evidence for perjury.
That's how I understand it as well. If LE charges them before the trial, they have the right to plead the fifth (and not answer questions) during KC's trial. If not, then they MUST answer questions. LE will likely wait until KC's trial is over to charge them. I'm hoping this is what is going on...And I'm looking forward to the "aftertrial aftermath"!

MOO
 
Some charges by their nature tend to come at the end of things, if that makes sense, and add that a lot of discretion is involved. With perjury, it's sort of not over until it's over. There is always the chance to recant and set the record straight, or "cure" the perjury. The law would like to have the truth and avoid having a case go wrong because someone won't tell it. It's a bit difficult to prove, too. At the end of a civil case, for example, a judge could bring suspected perjury to the attention of the criminal authorities -- LE or a prosecutor. Here the criminal case also needs to finish.
 
OT
I once read a study that ANGER or angry people use GUM often.
When you watch how they chew you can see how angry they really are.
some people will tell you it keeps a dry mouth moist.
but the study said you can use candy to keep moist.
this was many years ago - no link :)

Veeery interesting. I can believe that. :) I wonder f CA is embarrassed when she sees herself?
 
Legal Eagles,
Can Morgan use statements from the criminal case and media statements to prove GA and CA are perjuring themselves? Do you think he will have them charged with perjury?
Don't forget only the DA or SA charge people, others do not. For example, Shirely can't file charges against KC for stealing money. She can file a report with LE and the SA can choose to file against her if they think they have a case, but Shirley or us regular joes can't file charges against anyone.
 
Don't forget only the DA or SA charge people, others do not. For example, Shirely can't file charges against KC for stealing money. She can file a report with LE and the SA can choose to file against her if they think they have a case, but Shirley or us regular joes can't file charges against anyone.


Da Queen Beaner is back in town.:woohoo:Love it JBean! Glad to see her back:blowkiss:
 
Yes there is also a study that claims it alleviates stress.
NO - I did not do a study on gum LOL :)
but I did do a study on anger many years ago.
Some people are anal and some people are oral. I am not at all anal but I am totally oral, so I chew gum all the time. I just do it with style :)
Boy I can hear the oral -anal jokes now LOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
167
Guests online
2,332
Total visitors
2,499

Forum statistics

Threads
601,956
Messages
18,132,502
Members
231,194
Latest member
curiousXladybug99
Back
Top