Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Dignity4Victims]

I know you directed your question to AZLawyer, but I'll sound in too.
As AZLawyer stated, Judge Strickland has to look at all the allegations in the motion as facts (JS called him at the hospital, summoned him to the bench, said MD's blog was "the best" etc. etc.) If the motion had alleged that JS had winked at MD and pulled a Casey Anthony voodoo doll out from under his robe, JS would have to accept that allegation was a fact too. That's how the rule operates.

The legal sufficiency is determined by contemplating whether the facts alleged were "reasonably sufficient" to cause a "reasonably prudent" party (in this case, Casey Anthony) to believe she won't receive a "fair and impartial" hearing/trial before that judge.

A subjective fear of bias is not legally sufficient. The judge's history of issuing adverse rulings against the moving party is not legally sufficient.

IMO the facts alleged in the motion aren't sufficient to withstand the reasonableness/objective fear test, whereas the winking/voodoo doll brandishing hypothetical would be legally sufficient, if that offers any clarity?

This is an outstanding, easy-to-comprehend explanation!

The thank-you button just wasn't enough for this one. :clap:

Now, that being said, I know you have already voiced your opinion that JS will not step down, but is that opinion solely based on the legal finding that it is not sufficient, or, do you feel that knowing the personality/character of JS, he may just go ahead and step down anyway, to suffice the Defense and save the waters from being further muddied down the road, as in, every ruling he makes, the Defense raising a, "See, I told you he was partial!"

I guess my question is, which one do you feel JS will stand for, what is legally in-sufficient, (meaning he would say, "screw you" and remain), or be the "nice guy" and bow out anyway?

 

[denjet]

I know you directed your question to AZLawyer, but I'll sound in too.
As AZLawyer stated, Judge Strickland has to look at all the allegations in the motion as facts (JS called him at the hospital, summoned him to the bench, said MD's blog was "the best" etc. etc.) If the motion had alleged that JS had winked at MD and pulled a Casey Anthony voodoo doll out from under his robe, JS would have to accept that allegation was a fact too. That's how the rule operates.

The legal sufficiency is determined by contemplating whether the facts alleged were "reasonably sufficient" to cause a "reasonably prudent" party (in this case, Casey Anthony) to believe she won't receive a "fair and impartial" hearing/trial before that judge.

A subjective fear of bias is not legally sufficient. The judge's history of issuing adverse rulings against the moving party is not legally sufficient.

IMO the facts alleged in the motion aren't sufficient to withstand the reasonableness/objective fear test, whereas the winking/voodoo doll brandishing hypothetical would be legally sufficient, if that offers any clarity?

Thanks, Nancy ... yes it does (sort of) ... after reading it twice!
I will be reading this again no doubt ... it's almost like reading a foreign language to me ...

 

[denjet]

These are very excellent points. That's why these motions shouldn't be filed so capriciously. I posted in another thread about how the FL Judicial Ethics Committee is actually contemplating issues like those you've posed and may change the rules for considering such motions in the future.

Thanks again for replying, I really appreciate it ... perhaps the JEC could use THIS case as an example of how the rules should be changed to prevent abuse of these types of filings especially in high profile cases ...

 

[magic-cat]

The points he raised sound like backpedalling. He is not convincing to me at all. Don't believe he was 'tricked'. I think he sounds embarrassed and his points in that blog are self serving.

Unfortunately, I am sad to say that I agree, because of this wee little tiny line (quoting from his blog) :
"To say I was blindsided by this defense is an absolute understatement and I never really got to see the motion until after all of the interviews were done."

He didn't REALLY get to see it until after? What???? Huh? That word REALLY there...hinky.

And this one: "Does anyone really believe this is how I would like to be remembered? The guy who took out a judge who I have nothing but complete respect and admiration for? This motion is eating me up inside because I will forever be remembered as the defense’s scapegoat. Knechel trumped Kronk and I’m not directly involved whatsoever. Instead of proving Casey is not guilty, it will be about how a blogger inadvertently changed the course due to a legal technicality."

There is a bold confidence in this particular statement that he now goes down in history as the one who derailed the case. He does say he is not predicting an outcome, but all the above tells me differently.

This kind of makes me upset.

I have to go smoke. :banghead:

 

[magic-cat]

I don't think the notary/signature thing is any big deal. First of all, I'm sure that's Casey's signature. She's just a nutcase and has changed the way her signature looks. She probably practices it 10 hours a day. CM would not risk his reputation to notarize a false signature. Second, CM does have a current notary license; he just picked up the wrong stamp (should have thrown away the old one). It's a technical deficiency but so easy to fix that I doubt anyone would care.

His stamp died in November 2009. Doesn't THAT make a difference? It is not officially notarized if the date is dead, is it? :waitasec:

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

This portion of the rule is quoted by both AZlawyer in her post #352 and in the motion itself:

"(e) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling. . ."

I would like to know exactly what (and when) is "discovery of the facts." Is it when anyone in the defense team first heard or read about the chat or is it, as they claim in their motion, when the interview confirms the facts?

After all, it did happen way back in Oct of last year. But didn't do any fact checking until last Sunday. What if they had knowledge that it occurred early on but didn't look into it until months later? At what exact time does that 10-day clock start ticking?

 

[magic-cat]

After he made his comment about Kc and the truth are strangers , I knew his true colors would end up shining at some point. He is not impartial. He has ruled accordingly. The defense has nothing to lose by doing this. IMO

Hey Not!
Gotta disagree with ya again pal...:croc:
Judge Stan Stricklands true colors are beautiful, like a rainbow.
His comment was based on FACTS that were supported to him in the form of her written and recorded statements. That IS acceptable for him to recognize FACTS...don't you think? He is a good man. He is a good Judge. This is all nonsense and smoke and mirrors...that's all it ever was...and all that it will be.

 

[ZsaZsa]

To me the only impropriety would be if he signed on to the blog, posted an opinion of the case.. If NG was in his courtroom and he complimented her on her shows and her fairness in reporting, exchanged some pleasantries - no problem - if he appears as one of her experts or calls in- big problem..
Dave = minor celebrity in Orlando blogdom.
Nancy = major celebrity in Crime reporting shows.

 

[denjet]

Unfortunately, I am sad to say that I agree, because of this wee little tiny line (quoting from his blog) :
"To say I was blindsided by this defense is an absolute understatement and I never really got to see the motion until after all of the interviews were done."

He didn't REALLY get to see it until after? What????

And this one: "Does anyone really believe this is how I would like to be remembered? The guy who took out a judge who I have nothing but complete respect and admiration for? This motion is eating me up inside because I will forever be remembered as the defense’s scapegoat. Knechel trumped Kronk and I’m not directly involved whatsoever. Instead of proving Casey is not guilty, it will be about how a blogger inadvertently changed the course due to a legal technicality."

There is a bold confidence in this particular statement that he now goes down in history as the one who derailed the case. He does say he is not predicting an outcome, but all the above tells me differently.

This kind of makes me upset.

I have to go smoke. :banghead:

Some people never ever learn to just shut it! Everytime he opens his mouth he makes it worse, please for the love of God, just keep your mouth shut and your fingers still until we see how this pans out ... what is wrong with this guy ??

On the bright side, he doesn't exactly come across as being credible or maybe even rational so maybe that's a good thing ... I mean does anyone still think Joy Wrey is credible ?

So I wonder if Dave will be attending any more hearings ?

 

[magic-cat]

The reason I posted the info and link to his blog was to offer some support to the theories that:

The interview was heavily edited.
There was another perspective to consider.
The defense may utilize legal but morally unethical tactics.

That said.......I am not supporting MD's blog entry as fact, nor am I citing him as a media reference. BUT.....as MD is a party that has been referenced in the defense motion, I think it only fair to point out that..... It appears to be a standard practice of the defense investigative team, to interview, video, record, and transcribe their personal interviews with people without any formal "swearing in" or final transcript approval by the interviewees.

Is it illegal to attach an edited transcript as part of a motion? No it is not. But I have to wonder........why go through the trouble of an interview and the expense of transcription and video.....if it can't be VALIDATED?

And again...I will remind people not to use this thread to dissect MD. This thread is about the motion.......and while we are allowed to discuss the points raised by MD.......the thread is not about MD. We are above the sites that resort to trash and bash. Use this new info to fuel constructive discussion not criticism. Consider it like your own personal "energy bar". Power on my friends.

Hi SOS! With complete and utter and ALL due respect, as I do admire you greatly, I must say that it is not necessarily accurate to describe the dissecting of Dave's Blog response to all of this as "trash and bash". His RELATIONSHIP with the judge is at question here, and the motion is ABOUT him and his blog and that same relationship. Therefore, if we discuss the particulars it is only a necessary evil, and does, IMO relate absolutely to this motion. It is the very THING that brought the motion, and his public explanation is certainly a valid point that we can weave in to this thread, I would think.

Okay, well I do have a valid point that I think should be discussed. (Well, at least I think it is valid. )

I have a real problem with the 'breaks' in the motion - why does Cheney Mason get to decide what is relevant to include/exclude. I realize it is HIS motion, but it reeks of dishonesty. The odor is so rauncy I can smell it 1,000 miles away. If you want to use the 'interview' to back up your motion, use ALL OF IT or NOTHING.

Also, why just include the inflammatory TITLES of Dave's post with absolutely nothing substantial that alludes to the content, which was more often than not PRO-DEFENSE?!? It is more than misleading...it is DISHONEST.

I have a MAJOR problem with those two things, in particular. Personally, I think JS should go back to sitting on his rainbow, say "Motion DENIED. Do we have any other business to take care of today?"

Hi beach!
There was a copy of the articles included with the motion...

 

[magic-cat]

To me the only impropriety would be if he signed on to the blog, posted an opinion of the case.. If NG was in his courtroom and he complimented her on her shows and her fairness in reporting, exchanged some pleasantries - no problem - if he appears as one of her experts or calls in- big problem..
Dave = minor celebrity in Orlando blogdom.
Nancy = major celebrity in Crime reporting shows.

Yeah, I got to thinking about it, and all the big news/media outlets have a LEGAL presence in the court system and in the court room, via their attorneys. Marinade is a one man show, so therefore, likely having no attorney as his media representitive, the only way that he would ever enjoy any discourse WITH the court, as ALL other media agencies are privy to, would be directly...:waitasec:

I don't see it as an act impropriety, however, the way the motion is set forth, I just don't know what the outcome will be...Just hoping for the best and JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE!!! instead of all these silly nilly mind numbing GAMES that this defense, so called, is playing. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[ZsaZsa]

After he made his comment about Kc and the truth are strangers , I knew his true colors would end up shining at some point. He is not impartial. He has ruled accordingly. The defense has nothing to lose by doing this. IMO

'The truth and Miss Anthony are strangers'.
Was he making a factual statement or not?

 

[magic-cat]

'The truth and Miss Anthony are strangers'.
Was he making a factual statement or not?

Yes mam...I do believe he was...

 

[sleutherontheside]

Hi SOS! With complete and utter and ALL due respect, as I do admire you greatly, I must say that it is not necessarily accurate to describe the dissecting of Dave's Blog response to all of this as "trash and bash". His RELATIONSHIP with the judge is at question here, and the motion is ABOUT him and his blog and that same relationship. Therefore, if we discuss the particulars it is only a necessary evil, and does, IMO relate absolutely to this motion. It is the very THING that brought the motion, and his public explanation is certainly a valid point that we can weave in to this thread, I would think.

Hi beach!
There was a copy of the articles included with the motion...

BBM.....Magic I wasn't referring to the current discussion as "trash and bash"......My intent was to remind everyone that WS does NOT trash and bash like other forums, and to get it out there BEFORE our thread discussion got derailed and start resembling "those forums". I apologize if my post gave you the impression that I was accusing anyone of "trashing and bashing". (That sounds like a very bad country song title) I also like to reinforce the fact that WS is different in that we do not "trash and bash" because we have a significant number of guests at any time.

 

[Virtual Truth]

Haven't chimed in here in a while, but this has my complete attention. I agree with Botwin that the motion will not stand on substance.

However, I think the defense has a hidden agenda in this motion.....to erase the words of former attorney TM! If all we go in reverse to hear again those motions, he will not be present to address the court, thus new words will be crafted by CM for that motion!! They still have not offered up the "proof" that TM promised and JS asked them to provide to the court. JMO.>>>

 

[Aedrys]

Unfortunately, I am sad to say that I agree, because of this wee little tiny line (quoting from his blog) :
"To say I was blindsided by this defense is an absolute understatement and I never really got to see the motion until after all of the interviews were done."

He didn't REALLY get to see it until after? What????

And this one: "Does anyone really believe this is how I would like to be remembered? The guy who took out a judge who I have nothing but complete respect and admiration for? This motion is eating me up inside because I will forever be remembered as the defense’s scapegoat. Knechel trumped Kronk and I’m not directly involved whatsoever. Instead of proving Casey is not guilty, it will be about how a blogger inadvertently changed the course due to a legal technicality."

There is a bold confidence in this particular statement that he now goes down in history as the one who derailed the case. He does say he is not predicting an outcome, but all the above tells me differently.

This kind of makes me upset.

I have to go smoke. :banghead:

I don't exactly love the guy, and he has a habit of going way overboard in being nice to the A's. That being said, I don't think he's a bad guy. I think he got caught up in this case, and to have Judge Strickland single him out really inflated his ego. I may not agree with everything he says, but he has done some good reporting and I have found interesting things on his blog. He seems like a decent guy that has gotten in way over his head in this case.

But I am partially irritated. I mean come on, a Casey defense PI visits you and you're not suspicious from the get go? I know he has seen how many people the defense has thrown under the bus. It seems like he thought he was untouchable for some reason, or at the very least, he thought the defense wouldn't bother with him. He is, after all, just another blogger reporting on this case. HE was the one who was starstruck about Judge Strickland, NOT the other way around. But IMO, he should have known better than to open his mouth AT ALL to anyone associated with the defense. especially their neverending supply of PI's!

Now he knows that anyone that was near Orlando, or in the state of Florida for that matter, may be interviewed and thrown under the bus by the defense. I feel sorry for him in that I don't think he's a big a celebrity as they're making him out to be, and just like everyone else the defense has tainted, he didn't deserve to be dragged into this case and under the wheels of the defense bus (that thing must be as big as a lear jet!), especially to make someone fair and unbiased as Judge Strickland look bad. I doubt MD ever intended or wanted to do something like that.

It also kind of makes me worry because who's next? Valhall or anyone that comments on her blog, The Hinky Meter? Express or anyone else at ? The dozens of other bloggers out there who blog specifically about the Caylee Anthony Case? or God forbid, the mods or any posters at Websleuths? I don't want the defense to start going through blogs to find people to drag into this case to make someone else look bad, or to just complain that people hate Casey. Sheesh. They shouldn't be able to do nasty things like that and get away with it.

This whole motion is just very upsetting. A great, legendary judge is being tarnished by a defense that isn't worthy enough to spit on his Honor's shoes. And the defense just keeps sinking lower and lower, losing more and more credibility. I really hoped Mason would clean things up, but no! He's just sitting back and watching Baez drive this into the ground. And Baez couldn't get what he wanted with the TES searchers, so now he's eyeing the bloggers, like he's going to find a gold mine there. Cripes, can't you just do depostions and get on with the freaking case already, Baez?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Whereas JS has been chastised for the statement...."The truth and Miss Anthony are strangers"........let's remember that in that first 24 hours after the 911 call she led them to Universal Studios where she admitted to LE that she was lying about having a job, gave them addresses that did not pan out, and offered names of people that did not exist in the context that she gave them.

JS did not make a comment based on his opinion....it was based on facts.

And this was right in the beginning of the case, when everyone assumed a mother would try to help find a missing child, instead of, as you pointed out, intentionally lying and misleading law enforcement. When JS made that statement it was in line with his statement about her mental state being beyond description - it was seriously a huge wtf moment for everyone - in context I agree he was just summing up the situation...

 

[elementary]

With Tricia's permission I am linking to Marinade Dave's Blog. His latest post responding to the motion regarding Judge Strickland is not only explosive, but thought provoking. http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/

A snip with all credit to MD. Please visit his blog for the rest of the story and comments.

When private investigator Jerry Lyons came calling last Sunday, I had no idea of the tack the defense would ultimately take. The guy was as smooth as butter. To be truthful, he was exactly like a car salesman who loads you up with all the options without you knowing it and before long, you pay a huge price. First, he plied me with compliments about my blog. Then, he asked me whether Casey could get a fair trial in Orlando. He questioned my friendship with police, especially Sgt. John Allen of OCSO. He segued into the judge and before I knew what he was doing, he got me to talk. Mind you, as soon as I realized what he was up to, I told him the defense would be stupid, stupid, stupid for going after Judge Strickland and I stopped. But it was too late.


Clearly, it was a pick and choose edit intended to do one thing and one thing only: nail the judge to a cross. How naive I was, but did I purposely help the defense? Not in your life. Did I think this selectively taped conversation would work against the judge? No, not initially, and I only spoke to him to begin with because I felt there was nothing to hide; that the state, law enforcement and the judge were on solid ground.

Had the defense cited ALL of my posts, it would see there is a fair and open-minded balance of views, to which my loyal readers will attest. How dare an unrefined, wet-behind-the-ear lawyer and an over-the-hill windbag attorney write such drivel. Ask my critics whether I am an Anthony lover or not and see what response you get.

Always beware flattery. And the fact is, this guy from the looks of it inserted himself into the case and was hoist with his own petard (I haven't read that blog). Does the defence play dirty? Hell, yeah! And the PI was no fool either; he had an agenda and knew how to manipulate. One would also think that anyone who has followed this from the beginning with a critical eye, would know better than to give the defence anything without a lawyer present. It's hard to understand such naivete.

What is thought-provoking is that any "journalist" worth their salt would not be caught with their pants down. Just proves to me that this fellow is not a journalist, just a naive blogger who is being misrepresented as a professional in the motion. Frankly, I'm speechless at the level of interference by people who have nothing to do with the case. JMO. I had no idea there were crime groupies. :waitasec:

Overall no one put a gun to his head and made him talk. His words, in the end, are all that matter and belong to him.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I don't exactly love the guy, and he has a habit of going way overboard in being nice to the A's. That being said, I don't think he's a bad guy. I think he got caught up in this case, and to have Judge Strickland single him out really inflated his ego. I may not agree with everything he says, but he has done some good reporting and I have found interesting things on his blog. He seems like a decent guy that has gotten in way over his head in this case.

But I am partially irritated. I mean come on, a Casey defense PI visits you and you're not suspicious from the get go? I know he has seen how many people the defense has thrown under the bus. It seems like he thought he was untouchable for some reason, or at the very least, he thought the defense wouldn't bother with him. He is, after all, just another blogger reporting on this case. HE was the one who was starstruck about Judge Strickland, NOT the other way around. But IMO, he should have known better than to open his mouth AT ALL to anyone associated with the defense. especially their neverending supply of PI's!

Now he knows that anyone that was near Orlando, or in the state of Florida for that matter, may be interviewed and thrown under the bus by the defense. I feel sorry for him in that I don't think he's a big a celebrity as they're making him out to be, and just like everyone else the defense has tainted, he didn't deserve to be dragged into this case and under the wheels of the defense bus (that thing must be as big as a lear jet!), especially to make someone fair and unbiased as Judge Strickland look bad. I doubt MD ever intended or wanted to do something like that.

It also kind of makes me worry because who's next? Valhall or anyone that comments on her blog, The Hinky Meter? Express or anyone else at ? The dozens of other bloggers out there who blog specifically about the Caylee Anthony Case? or God forbid, the mods or any posters at Websleuths? I don't want the defense to start going through blogs to find people to drag into this case to make someone else look bad, or to just complain that people hate Casey. Sheesh. They shouldn't be able to do nasty things like that and get away with it.

This whole motion is just very upsetting. A great, legendary judge is being tarnished by a defense that isn't worthy enough to spit on his Honor's shoes. And the defense just keeps sinking lower and lower, losing more and more credibility. I really hoped Mason would clean things up, but no! He's just sitting back and watching Baez drive this into the ground. And Baez couldn't get what he wanted with the TES searchers, so now he's eyeing the bloggers, like he's going to find a gold mine there. Cripes, can't you just do depostions and get one with the freaking case already, Baez?

The precedents the defense are trying to set are dangerous and not congruent with society as it is today - I mean if this stuff is allowed, you would have anyone finding a corpse as being a suspect simply for the convenience of getting a defendant off - the privacy violation and harassment of searchers, sending out PI's to harass people, taking statements from people and publicizing them when they're not under oath, and trying t extrapolate the slightest most miniscule irregularity into being a conspiracy or painting people as corrupt just for convenience. It is utterly disgusting and should be stopped. I really hope the entire defense team is ruined over this.

Yes she deserves a defense. Let's see it! No more strategies to use technical nonsense and unsupported claims to throw the case. Let's get to trial! lol is this considered practicing law? If things come up they should be dealt with, but the defense is just searching and stretching the truth to try to create problems where none exist.

I have to wonder what exactly Baez needs to do in order to be investigated if he isn't already...

 

[butterfly1978]

I have only read the first two pages, but OMG, JB just opened a can, he might not be able to put a lid back on. Does he realize that JS has yet to file a complainet against JB for bringing contraband into the jail per JB own client. Does this idiot not realize that JS has put up with more $h!t from Biaz than anyone I can think of. The next Judge probably will not put up with JB crap and then what? This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard of... Okay done with my rant back to reading.