Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Gnatcatcher]

Oh please, can you site a high profile case where something like this was said? I think not. IMO

Just wondering... was anybody bothered at the time that he said it? Or is it only bothering some people now, that the defense has filed a motion. Are proponents of this nonsense sitting around waiting for other people to point out things they now claim they are offended by and shouldn't have been said TWO YEARS AGO ?

Nonsense. This whole entire thing is sheer and utter nonsense. More finger pointing. More delays. More nonsense. This Casey Anthony person needs to have somebody sit her down and just yell right in her darn face STOP IT! JUST STOP IT, YOU HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE PERSON, YOU !! Ugh, I'm so infuriated.

:furious::furious::furious:

 

[sleutherontheside]

Actually the cached copies of the page have been deleted which makes it all the more suspicious. That takes extra effort. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[darnudes]

Response from Dave re timing of appearance on CFNews13.

http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/blogger-fires-back/

 

[magic-cat]

Here is the cached version from google:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...+soft+shoe+shufflers&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Title: Beware of soft shoe shufflers

 

[Gnatcatcher]

Just FYI....yes, there were quite a few who were bothered about it when it actually happened and those posts can be found in that hearing thread.....in fact, many forums were discussing it at the time, which caused MD to launch into one of his well documented tantrums....

Oh. Alright. Thanks. I'm still mad, but I'll reduce it to only 2 infuriated faces, rather than 3. Thank you for calming me down.

:furious::furious:

 

[darnudes]

Actually the cached copies of the page have been deleted which makes it all the more suspicious. That takes extra effort. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Dave has deleted quite a few articles for one reason or another and this has been going on for some time. Was there an article you were looking for in particular, as I may remember it?

 

[magic-cat]

Here is ONE interesting quote from his "article" if you can call it that:

"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."

Too late? What exactly did he get you say Dave ole buddy ole pal?:waitasec:

 

[magic-cat]

Another interesting thing he had to say in the DELETED article.
"Between you and me, Jerry Lyons said that John Allen is a bad cop. He’s got a ridiculous track record and he makes all police look bad. He’s dishonest and a liar. Did I agree with his sleazy critique? Of course not, and this is how he tricked me into opening up, by hitting below the belt and getting me to defend his targets, but there’s nowhere in that motion that any part of this conversation took place. 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;..."
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...+soft+shoe+shufflers&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[magic-cat]

Selectivey taped conversation huh Dave? THAT did not strike you as suspicious?
Whatever buddy...

 

[magic-cat]

This quote goes to show his self-important attitude toward the motion-
"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. No, I am not implying anything about the final outcome. "
Same link as previously provided.

 

[magic-cat]

Hmmmm.....

Channel 13 interviews MD hours BEFORE the motion is filed (and Dave was BLINDSIDED???)

Anyone else notice that the copy of the motion that Channel 13 is displaying on their site does NOT have the court stamp on it.......

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/0416 Motion To Disqualify Judge.pdf


which I would assume means they received a copy BEFORE it was filed late Friday afternoon......

WHICH I would assume means that Team Baez/Cheney released this to certain media BEFORE they went to the courthouse??

Do we feel manipulated yet? Is our attention deflected??? NOPE....

Whatever is coming must be BAD for the defense-VERY BAD!

 

[tlcya]

wow! I cannot believe the judge would be so dumb as to even allow himself into a position that could LOOK like he is impartial.

My bet. The judge WANTS off this case and finally just got that accomplished.

 

[Sparky]

Hmmmm.....

Channel 13 interviews MD hours BEFORE the motion is filed (and Dave was BLINDSIDED???)

Anyone else notice that the copy of the motion that Channel 13 is displaying on their site does NOT have the court stamp on it.......

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/0416 Motion To Disqualify Judge.pdf


which I would assume means they received a copy BEFORE it was filed late Friday afternoon......

WHICH I would assume means that Team Baez/Cheney released this to certain media BEFORE they went to the courthouse??

Do we feel manipulated yet? Is our attention deflected??? NOPE....

I posted the first two signatures on Friday, but after reviewing the Channel 13 posted motion you linked to I noticed this.

The 1st is KC signature on the back of AH check. The 2nd signature was from WFTV and the 3rd is from the motion posted on Channel 13.

 

[LambChop]

I would think because Orlando is such an entertainment capital it would draw the type of people who want their 15 minutes of fame. JMO

 

[LambChop]

Whatever is coming must be BAD for the defense-VERY BAD!

Lions and tigers and bears....oh my. Very bad, indeed!!!!! I'd say they are coming unglued. JMO

 

[magic-cat]

"Look, I’ll tell you something. I am not a trained goon like this professional PI. When he came knocking on my door, I looked at this as an opportunity, not a means to recuse a judge, for crying out loud..."

From the comments link provided above of all the comments on the Beware of Soft Shoe Shufflers articles, a comment by Dave...2nd page

So he saw it as an opportunity?
So was he blindsided or did he see it as an opportunity?
Which one was it again Dave?

 

[ZsaZsa]

So, if Judge Strickland chitchats to or goes out to dinner with NG when she's in town and pays her a compliment about her show is that also grounds for recusal? We all know what she thinks of the Anthonys, Baez et al.
Must he never speak to, or befriend anyone who has a negative opinion of Miss Anthony? Is he supposed to be kept isolated from public opinion?
What if he meets RHornsby or BSheaffer on the golf course, can he not exchange some pleasantries with them ... they are both pretty vocal about the case...

 

[notthatsmart]

Are there any facts to back up the "JS has had it out for JB all along" line? I have not seen that at all in any of the court hearings. When a defense team goes to court for a motions hearing about having their client declared indigent one would expect said defense team to be prepared for court with copies of where the money already spent went. However this defense team went to court completely unprepared. Judge Strickland did not say anything negative towards the defense team concerning this incident.

Perhaps a lawyer can weigh in here but could a judge hold the defense in contempt for some of the things that this defense team have done so far? For instance not handing over discovery to the SAs when a ruling had been made and the defense had been given a deadline and the defense ignored that deadline and did not turn over the discovery.

If I recall correctly Judge Strickland did not make a complaint to the bar against Baez because of something that Baez said. Wasn't it because of Baez making deals with media for payments for photos on Casey's behalf? Or was it because of the "improper" relationship between Baez and Casey? I seem to remember both of those being issues with which Judge Strickland felt that Baez was not behaving in the manner that he should be. Someone please tell me if my thoughts are confused.

I have seen Judge Strickland bend over backwards for Baez and the rest of the defense team when most other judges would have lost their patience with the defense's antics a long time ago.

I was just going by the motion at hand. The Judge reporting Jb to the bar for something Dc said. Those are the only facts I have. I am not aware of other reasons given to report him to the bar. I wonder if that is normal for a Judge to report a defense lawyer to the bar in a situation where he is on the same case.

It is my opinion that many in the majority are basing their opinion of the Judge being fair on what the Judge has not done. For instance, not holding Jb in contempt for not being prepared for a hearing. Jb brought back the material in camera and the Judge was satisfied. There are also some that claim Jb should be in trouble for the way he types up motions. I know of nothing in the constitution of the U.S. that requires you to have good writing skills. The Judge can be as angry as he wants, but he is still bound to look at Kc right to a fair trial. I don't want Kc to be convicted because the Judge is mad at Jb, lets get it right. I hope the Lawyers do weigh in about the patience issue. If a Judge loses his patience, how is that fair to KC?

 

[Sparky]

WOW....

Second was from WFTV for this particular motion?

So two sets of the same motion, two different signature styles???

Yes, WFTV. If you put the pages side by side you can clearly see they are not the same.

Wonder if CM or JB has KC power of atty?

 

[magic-cat]

I was just going by the motion at hand. The Judge reporting Jb to the bar for something Dc said. Those are the only facts I have. I am not aware of other reasons given to report him to the bar. I wonder if that is normal for a Judge to report a defense lawyer to the bar in a situation where he is on the same case.

It is my opinion that many in the majority are basing their opinion of the Judge being fair on what the Judge has not done. For instance, not holding Jb in contempt for not being prepared for a hearing. Jb brought back the material in camera and the Judge was satisfied. There are also some that claim Jb should be in trouble for the way he types up motions. I know of nothing in the constitution of the U.S. that requires you to have good writing skills. The Judge can be as angry as he wants, but he is still bound to look at Kc right to a fair trial. I don't want Kc to be convicted because the Judge is mad at Jb, lets get it right. I hope the Lawyers do weigh in about the patience issue. If a Judge loses his patience, how is that fair to KC?

The judge would be remiss in his duties if such a complaint were heard by him and he did not report it. That is his job as an officer of the court. The judge is hardly "mad" at KC. Judges do not operate that way. He has protected her rights at every turn and this is what he gets in return for his fair and just treatment of her, a woman completely lacking a moral compass. Hats off to His Honor. :angel: