Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[ohiogirl]

Here's a question......why does he feel the need to retain an attorney? I read about that somewhere yesterday, but for the life of me I can't remember where. Is there something he could be charged with?

Maybe he will be the next one the Anthony's try to accuse of harming Kaylee? JK

 

[AZlawyer]

Maybe to release one to the media before filing the 'real' one with the clerk? :innocent:


I thought I read where someone noticed that the media copy was not file-stamped. :waitasec:

But again, why do you need an original to give to the media? A copy should do fine.

 

[AZlawyer]

I know from my paper work that I often times have 5 signed "original" copies. One for Raleigh, one for the states regional office, one for my office, one for the County office, and one additional "original" for various purposes. Especially when it deals with budgets, program agreements, provider contracts, and RFP's (requests for proposal).

So having multiple signed originals doesn't seem to out of place to me....then again maybe I missed something in the 40 plus pages of discussion.

For some purposes, you would need multiple originals. But for a motion, you only need one--for the court.

 

[beach]

But again, why do you need an original to give to the media? A copy should do fine.

You're right. They could have just copied the original even before it was file-stamped and given that to the media. In fact, that would've been a smarter move because at least the signatures would have matched.

I have no idea why they wanted multiple originals. :waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

VERY interesting and now a question for you....

As I now understand this motion, when considering it, JS must consider the allegations of actual conversation and alleged phone call as FACT, without debating the issue, correct?

So for this motion, JS cannot deny it based on his claim none of this happened, right?

SO...

If this motion is DENIED, and the issue reappears under appeal, under THAT process, will JS be able to respond to the allegations???

No. The appellate court will also presume that all the allegations are true.

 

[magic-cat]

I know the solution. We will just let Jose BE the Judge and Cheney can be the jury and hey, maybe KC can just be the baliff, huh? It should all go how they expect then, don't you think?

I am apalled that a motion like this one even is allowed to exist with His Honors name on it. May God, and all the forces of truth and justice bless that mans heart and soul and guide him in his decision.

 

[beach]

Imo, the defense has nothing and anticipates a conviction.. They aren't trying to defend her. They're working on her appeal.

--respectfully snipped for emphasis

BINGO!

 

[Numbers]

No legal problem with having 2 originals--but why would they do this?? :waitasec:

It would NOT NOT NOT have been OK for Baez or any POA to sign an affidavit for Casey, or for a notary to notarize "her" signature if she didn't actually sign it.

But it does look like her "new" signature. So the question again is, why did she sign 2 copies? :waitasec:

It would be OK to have your client sign before you attached the exhibits described in the motion, but not OK to have your client sign before the motion was completed.

The only possible reason I can think of for having Casey sign this document twice is if the page she signed on had to be changed in some minor way before filing--maybe a citation was corrected or an exhibit number changed??

Is it possible that Baez keeps a supply of pre-signed pages, and just grabs one when he needs it? Would save him trotting up to the jail every 15 minutes.

 

[Muzikman]

OK, a quick skim thru both the CFN 13 version (not time stamped) and the WFTV version (Clerk Time Stamped) shows a difference that seems a little odd to me.

The CFN 13 version has Jeremiah's 5-page affidavit at the very END, as part of the exhibits. It says "EXHIBIT D" at the bottom of each page.

The WFTV version, filed with the clerk, the same 5-page affidavit is NOT an exhibit, the "Exhibit D" is taken off, and comes right after the main motion and before the Memo of Law.

So, apparently, they had to re-work this motion for some reason. Haven't had time to go through word-for-word and see if there are other changes.

But this does seem to explain why there are 2 originals - although I have no guesses why they changed JL affidavit from Exhibit D to not an exhibit.

 

[Marina2]

VERY interesting and now a question for you....

As I now understand this motion, when considering it, JS must consider the allegations of actual conversation and alleged phone call as FACT, without debating the issue, correct?

So for this motion, JS cannot deny it based on his claim none of this happened, right?

SO...

If this motion is DENIED, and the issue reappears under appeal, under THAT process, will JS be able to respond to the allegations???

The appeals court will not consider the truth of the allegations only whether a reasonably prudent person would feel the judge was biased.

 

[logicalgirl]

Dear Dave,

Please step away from the keyboard. The microphone too, while you're at it.

One of the most wonderful features of the internet is that you can disappear and reinvent yourself.

You might want to consider a vacation. I hear Antarctica is nice in the spring.

Sincerely,
Beach

:bow:

:gold_star::gold_star::gold_star:

 

[Muzikman]

No. The appellate court will also presume that all the allegations are true.

I don't get it. This seems to go against the grain of what our court systems are all about.

This means that anybody could make false allegations about a judge, and they will not even be investigated as to the truth?


Slightly O/T - saw on several news stations this morning that Chief Judge Belvin Perry removed some other judge from the bench this weekend, did not catch what it was all about. But interesting that it happened this weekend, of all weekends!

 

[logicalgirl]

I know from my paper work that I often times have 5 signed "original" copies. One for Raleigh, one for the states regional office, one for my office, one for the County office, and one additional "original" for various purposes. Especially when it deals with budgets, program agreements, provider contracts, and RFP's (requests for proposal).

So having multiple signed originals doesn't seem to out of place to me....then again maybe I missed something in the 40 plus pages of discussion.

Somehow Marspiter I think your originals would all be identical though, would they not?
These originals seem to differ.

 

[USARDOG]

I guess writing well is important. Lol but is it a requirment by law? Many have complained about the poorly written motions in this case. I am just curious. Is it required by law? If the point gets across, does the Judge acknowledge it? Of course he does. If he cant understand it, he will send it back and ask for clarification. People should be able to represent themselves even without a lawyer or good writing skills. IMO

An attorney with poor writing or speaking skills... Reminds me a bit of a brain surgeon with shaky hands, or a fireman who is afraid of fire.

Something's are just basic requirements of a job.

 

[AZlawyer]

I don't get it. This seems to go against the grain of what our court systems are all about.

This means that anybody could make false allegations about a judge, and they will not even be investigated as to the truth?


Slightly O/T - saw on several news stations this morning that Chief Judge Belvin Perry removed some other judge from the bench this weekend, did not catch what it was all about. But interesting that it happened this weekend, of all weekends!

Apparently so, at least the first time. If you file a second motion to disqualify, it is more strictly scrutinized.

Believe me, I'm not defending this rule. In AZ, we get one "free pass" to get rid of a judge also, but we have to do it before they rule on anything, so we don't know whose side they're on. And we don't have to allege any bias or prejudice for that one "free pass."

I have a vague nagging recollection in the back of my mind about the previous rule in AZ (long long ago) being like this one and people deciding it was not such a great rule...

ETA: Yep. Looks like we fixed that rule in AZ in 1971.

 

[beach]

I don't get it. This seems to go against the grain of what our court systems are all about.

This means that anybody could make false allegations about a judge, and they will not even be investigated as to the truth?

And, THAT my friend, is exactly why I have had a headache for 3 days now. I feel like I spent my entire weekend spinning on a bad fair ride.

It is mind-boggling. Fair warning, that is a deep hole you are about to fall in to when you start trying to make sense of that Rule.

 

[LancelotLink]

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.

I swear I think Jose signed her name.

 

[magic-cat]

On page 2 the following is cited as meeting the 10 day stipulation:



http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23176762/detail.html

They saw Marinade go up to the judge in court that day. He was sitting right behind the defense (2 rows back) with Holly, Brad, George, Cindy and the Anthonys pet Media Rep...can't recall his name. He had previously given Jose his business card and thereby introduced himself at a PREVIOUS hearing. He was friendly enough with the family to shake hands and chit chat with them, and to offer something to Brad Conway that he had received from a "private source". The defense cannot expect a REASONABLE person to believe they were unaware of Dave Knechel before this motion/interview. They were WELL aware of him and what he does and they SAW with their own eyes him walk up and talk to the judge. So...I guess they can try it, but they are not fooling me for an instant.

More and more I believe the defense filed this motion in hopes it will be denied. There's really no reason for JS to be disqualified and they know it. The only benefit I see for the defense is if JS denies the motion and stays on. This would give KC an excellent chance of having her conviction overturned on appeal. As written and taken as fact, I think a reasonable person would feel the judge is partial to the prosecution. It's likely an appeals court would feel this way, too.

Imo, the defense has nothing and anticipates a conviction.. They aren't trying to defend her. They're working on her appeal.

If it WERE overturned, if he DID recuse himself, would it THEN be appropriate for the motion to recuse and its reasons to be re-addressed in consideration of the appeal? I mean, would the appeal open a pathway into dialogue about the actual contents and beliefs stated within the motion and the reality of what actually happened? Or is that motion to recuse a closed book once he WOULD step down. What I mean is could his stepping down and the reasons be discussed by the court in the event of a NEW trial?:waitasec:

 

[LancelotLink]

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...

Excellent point!

 

[RainyGirl]

I guess writing well is important. Lol but is it a requirment by law? Many have complained about the poorly written motions in this case. I am just curious. Is it required by law? If the point gets across, does the Judge acknowledge it? Of course he does. If he cant understand it, he will send it back and ask for clarification. People should be able to represent themselves even without a lawyer or good writing skills. IMO

It is only legally required if you want to win your motions. Judges do not generally "ask for clarification." If you can't write clearly enough to convince the judge, you will lose.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Thank you, AZlawyer for making that point!!
Personally, I know of one law professor here who has printed out THREE "infamous" Baez motions to use as examples of POORLY WRITTEN legal paperwork. I happen to be a certificated teacher (both General and Special Education) and I believe in high standards. The professor I am referring to is not going to give any student a "pass" for using sloppy, 'cut-and-paste', poorly-written and just plain lazy language. After all, is it not unfair to the client if their representative cannot draft (or even re-edit/correct) a motion??