Discussions on Formal Sentencing Hearing - Jodi Arias #8

[FelicityLemon]

You would only see them if she retweeted them or if you do a Twitter search of her @ name and select "all tweets."

Thank you I'm twitter-ignorant. I keep trying to navigate, but get frustrated and leave, lol! I think I'll just continue to rely on you all here

 

[daisydomino]

No, if what she says is true there's no event in which HIPPA would come into play. If it's a lie, it's a lie about Arias, but doesn't directly address a HIPPA event, since it denies it happened. Arpiao's answer to me indicates something happened, since he didn't deny it, but cited HIPPA would not allow him to comment further. This indicates there was an event covered by HIPPA.

Hm. Or it indicates he cannot confirm, deny, or comment on her health or mental health.

 

[Koshka]

IMO
If there is any truth to the multiple accounts it is most likely due to trying to keep the funds under a certain limit in any 1 account to avoid getting red-flagged.

There are strict rules on bank accounts and certain reporting and other things begin to occur when balance or deposits exceed a certain amount.

And I think there is a strict rule that if money is being shifted around to avoid that balance and avoid the red-flagging, then that would be serious financial fraudulant activity IMO.

If any of that is true, then the taxes may be the least of their worries. There could be federal offenses related to financial fraud activities.

All JMO

I think you're thinking of the Bank Secrecy Act. It requires banks or any financial institution to file reports on transactions of $10K or more. It isn't an account balance that triggers the reporting requirement, it's the transaction amount. And its not illegal to have a transaction of 10K or more, just that the Bank must report it. It's a law from the 70s originally meant to combat money laundering. Banks would get in trouble for violating it, so I don't see that it would apply to any account holder as has been discussed here.

 

[Nancy_Drew]

Here is the PayPal info about reporting to the IRS;

https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/irs6050w

What is Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6050W?

Under the legislation, we'll report to the IRS the total payment volume received by US account holders whose payments exceed both of these levels in a calendar year:

- US$20,000 in gross payment volume from sales of goods or services in a single year
- 200 separate payments for goods or services in the same year

IRC Section 6050W applies to all payment processors, including PayPal. Our goal is to help PayPal sellers understand and comply with the new requirements.

Are non-profit organizations affected by IRC Section 6050W?

For purposes of IRC Section 6050W, non-profit organizations are treated the same as for-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations may be required to submit their Tax Identification Number (TIN). A Form 1099-K will be sent to non-profit organizations that exceed the thresholds for sales of goods or services.

** keep in mind that a businesses still have to comply with the IRS as well **

 

[Endora27]

Ok, so what have I missed? I'm completely exhausted and going to bed in a minute. I haven't had time to catch up and don't think I will be able to for a few days. Hoping one of you can post everything in one large post if possible. Basically just curious as to what the new news is about MDLR. I don't really care about what #17 had to say in her rehearsed interview as it was all nothing but a bunch of lies. Ok, I will try and check in tomorrow during lunch and see what the latest is regarding the financial scoop of chacha.

 

[flyerguy77]

MDLR told Troy Hayden that she did not read the Christine Beswick site, she just heard about it. I don't believe her, if it was about me I would be reading it not calling a reporter to deny it. I would read it and if it was a lie I would call my lawyer and sue for libel, but she didn't do that so I think it is true or enough of the truth to start a fire. Remember in the article it said MDLR got someone named webber to send that cease and desist letter, which was a fraud. MDLR is in this up to her neck. She closed that twitter account for another reason and I do believe the bank records were seized for examination. The J4JA facebook account is claiming the JAII site is the ones that have caused all the trouble and hurt JA from the start, with the body bag and everything else. But on the J4J site they are claiming DT found 60,000 child *advertiser censored* sites on TA's computer and that is a LIE. They also say Tashia spent a lot of time in prison. I haven't heard that anywhere else. They say the Alexander's were not a family and hardly knew each other. That is not true from all the pictures they have. They spent Christmas's together, so another LIE. Can't the Alexander's sue them for Libel? Before Donovan Bering goes back to jail I think she will talk to the police, if she knows anything about the money, but I don't think she does. JA kept that with the Greeks and her family. But if no one paid any taxes on that money then some people are in trouble. JA has been spending a lot of money in that jail for seven years plus the money to keep her family in AZ and to travel from CA to AZ. That is not tax free money. Donating money for appeals is not tax free money.:notgood::naughty:

I have one thing to say if J4JA SITE said Tashia, Travis' sister, thats totally lie!! I think she used to worked for for local police dept in the Inland Empire, where Riverside is located.. I might be thinking of other sister.

 

[Zuri]

It's been my experience that you get polite questions if it's over 5000 now. When we take cash for a vacation or something and it's 5000 or more they always ask what our plans are. They may just be being friendly, but it seems snoopy to me.

Would you mind elaborating? What do the banks do? Do they call you or send you a letter? Very interesting as I have never had an inquiry with deposits into my account over $10,000.00. Thank you.

 

[Zuri]

I have one thing to say if J4JA SITE said Tashia, Travis' sister, thats totally lie!! I think she used to worked for for local police dept in the Inland Empire, where Riverside is located.. I might be thinking of other sister.

Samantha is a police officer. Tanisha is who they were referring to.

 

[FelicityLemon]

It depends if either of them are married. Speaking of which, does anyone find it suspicious that they've been so silent through all of this? What are they trying to hide?

Good advice from a lawyer, I'm guessing. :scared:

 

[concernedmother]

So what happens if Jodi goes on a hunger strike ?

 

[kolokolo]

I read today they are on the mainland, not Hawaii. I'm pretty sure it was while I was scanning down a lot of tweets and replies at @juanstie.

I thought they were in Ohio?

 

[Steve44]

I just explained to my husband what happened today and he said it sounds like the soap opera from hell.

Close. It's about the convict on her way there.

 

[Koshka]

Here is the PayPal info about reporting to the IRS;

https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/irs6050w

What is Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6050W?

Under the legislation, we'll report to the IRS the total payment volume received by US account holders whose payments exceed both of these levels in a calendar year:

- US$20,000 in gross payment volume from sales of goods or services in a single year
- 200 separate payments for goods or services in the same year

IRC Section 6050W applies to all payment processors, including PayPal. Our goal is to help PayPal sellers understand and comply with the new requirements.

Are non-profit organizations affected by IRC Section 6050W?

For purposes of IRC Section 6050W, non-profit organizations are treated the same as for-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations may be required to submit their Tax Identification Number (TIN). A Form 1099-K will be sent to non-profit organizations that exceed the thresholds for sales of goods or services.

** keep in mind that a businesses still have to comply with the IRS as well **

Just as with the Bank Secrecy Act I referred to upthread, this applies to the financial institutions, not their customers. The reporting requirement is on the financial institutions and they would be the ones in trouble for violating it.

 

[FelicityLemon]

I think you are correct, and I think that amount is under 10,000

I also think that by having it in multiple accounts they think they're protected to an extent. Hoping that if accounts are discovered, maybe all the accounts won't be found and it would leave them some money at least.

 

[GigiG]

OBE, I looked up some info on the juror in the Peterson case who was said by the press (IIRC) to have been dismissed for failure to deliberate. (He was the second juror to be Juror #5, the doctor/lawyer.) That seems to have been misleading information. Here's how the defense team described the situation in their Motion for New Trial (I don't think I can provide links as these docs are from a pro-SP site):

During deliberations, on November 10, the Court received a strange note from two of the jurors:
...

"A juror has had a conversation outside the jury deliberation room that may constitute a violation of the admonition. Does the Court wish to hear more? Should we continue to deliberate?"

...

Shortly thereafter, about five minutes thereafter, [the Court] received another note. ...

"I, Juror Number 5, approached Juror Number 6 regarding a question raised in the jury deliberation room. I changed my position on the question based on the conversation." [Second paragraph from Juror #6:] "When I, Juror Number 6, was approached by Juror Number 5, I was under the impression that he was concerned about having potentially upset me regarding a difference of opinion. I was not upset, and I did not go into any further details regarding the topic brought up."

...

The Court examined Juror 5. Juror 5 expressed a desire to be removed from the jury and reported some alarming things. He believed that the jury's attitude changed "based on something which happened outside of the jury room." He said that he felt physically threatened based on statements made by others, "There have been comments made to me personally -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here." The Court failed to investigate this troubling report, instead focusing on a vague and innocuous exchange between Juror 5 and Juror 6, the new jury foreman:

The Court: You tell me what happened, doctor.

Juror 5: On Monday afternoon, that day, we had a discussion, a round-table discussion regarding the conflicting opinions between Dr. DeVore and Doctor March; and Doctor Galloway was included. That discussion was far-ranging, and I had some certain opinions and thoughts on it. And, in fact, was at the easel making some drawings. Others had different opinions as to what they heard. We had a discussion on that. And that was, I think, toward the conclusion of the day. And I think we resolved to table that issue at some point. And on the way home I was sitting with Juror Number 6, and he had brought up what I thought were some opinions that I didn't understand.

The Court: In the jury room?

Juror 5: In the jury room. And I -- and he also brought up points which I thought were quite meaningful and ones I hadn't understood --

The Court: In the jury room?

Juror 5: In the jury room.... I questioned him about those opinions.

The Court: On the bus?

Juror 5: On the bus. And because -- well, I mean the reasons are probably irrelevant. But it was a good discussion and an interesting discussion. And I continued to want to pursue this line of discussion. He had had the points -- we were sitting together. I raised the question. He responded in answering my questions. And I wasn't thinking at the time. But we did go back and forth a little bit on the bus. And when I wrote in the second note there that I changed my opinion based on the conversations on the bus, that's true. What he told me with regard to his thoughts on what Doctore Devore was saying at a particular time. I did find pertinent and relevant. And my position or opinion changed. And the weight that I was giving those two experts did change as a result of that conversation.
Now, yesterday there was obviously change in jurors based on something which happened outside of the jury room. Last night I recalled this conversation and felt that I needed to bring it up. And it's created some extraordinary consternation, frustration, hostility in the jury room. Everything from the fact that Cap is now the new Foreperson, and I'm trying to take him down, and I've wanted off the jury now for quite some time. There is just an enormous amount of hostility now focused at me because of this.

The Court: Okay. Now, let me ask you a couple of questions. Is this -- when you said you changed your opinion after this conversation, was it based on what he said, or was it also including things that were discussed in the jury room?

Juror 5: It's based on what he said.....

The Court: Okay. What about this hostility in there now? Did you think that it's going to be impossible for this jury to deliberate further because of this alleged animosity between maybe you and the rest of the jurors?

Juror 5: I think it's going to be impossible -- well, I think it would be infinitely better if I were not the focus of some of this hostility. And, as I say, my motives have been impugned. And there are other issues. I'm not sure that my safety is even not --

The Court: What's troubling me, is this degenerating into some pettiness between the jurors, rather than -- to me, it's more a dispute about the process rather than getting into the merit of this case. Is that what's going on in there?

Juror 5: No, sir. I think that if I weren't there this jury would buckle down in a substantive way. We made substantial progress. We changed Forepersons. We took everything off the wall. We started again. The new Foreperson is doing an excellent job. Issues are up on the white board, the easel is being prepared. Then this issue with regard to Juror Number 7 yesterday came up. I had this fit of conscience, or whatever. And now we're back to frustration again. But, to answer your question, I think that the jury is very focused when it's -- when the time is appropriate, and people are focused. I think they are doing a terrific job.

The Court: But it's not -- I don't think it's a good idea for me to substitute you out as a juror just because you can't get along, or some people have some animus toward you. If I have to bring every juror back in here, I'm going to tell them that, you know, they are supposed to be concentrating on the facts and the jury instructions in this case in arriving at a decision.

Juror 5: Your Honor, I think they can do that. I'm not sure I can do that at this point.

The Court: Well --

Juror 5: As I say, there have been comments made to me personally that -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here.

The Court: You have been threatened bodily?

Juror 5: I have not been threatened bodily, but the comments, the looks --

The Court: Who is responsible for these comments?

Juror 5: Your Honor, I prefer not to do that, or go there, except to say that I have tried mightily. I think I'm at an end of what I can do reasonably with this jury to weigh this evidence fairly. I don't think I can weigh it fairly any longer.

The defense moved for a mistrial based on the jury's processes degenerating to the point where the jury was not deliberating on the evidence, but had resorted to implicitly threatening other jurors.

The Court examined the new foreman, Juror Number 6, and falsely stated that Juror 5 had characterized himself as a "cancer in that jury room." Juror Number 6 claimed ignorance:

The Court: Okay. Now Number 5 is having some problems. He's expressed the opinion that he should be excused because he feels that he is a cancer in that jury room. Can you explain what's been going on with Juror Number 5?

Juror 6: I can't really explain why he feels that way, other than speculation, where he wants to talk a lot more than other people. And we're trying to give people fair and equitable time to voice their thoughts, and everything else. And he tends to take a very long time. But, other than that, everybody gets a certain amount of time, they get cut off. So they take a certain amount of time to make their point and then they get cut off. That's the only thing that I can think of.... This hit me this morning out of the blue. I have no idea where it came from.

The Court examined Juror Number 5 again, and elicited an explanation for why the rest of the jury, including the new foreman, would not be forthcoming with the truth of how they were reaching their verdict--they were not basing their deliberations on the evidence, but what they believed the public wanted:

The Court: As you sit there now, do you feel, if you were to continue to deliberate in this case, that you could be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

Juror 5: No.

The Court: If you deliberated further, do you feel you would be able to follow the jury's instructions and reach a just verdict in this case?

Juror 5: No.

The Court: Okay. We'll put you back outside. One other question. Can you give me the reason for that, why you feel that way?

Juror 5: When I took the oath, I understood it to mean that I needed to be able to weigh both sides fairly, openly. And given what's transpired, my individual ability to do that I think has been compromised to a degree that I would never know personally whether or not I was giving the community's verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might, I don't know, produce the best book. I'm not going to speak to the media. I don't ever want to personally profit from this case in any way, directly or indirectly. I think I'm going to get on an airplane if you grant relief, literally.... But, your Honor, I did my level best.

Juror 5 praised the efficiency with which the jury was deliberating. The Court, however, never pressed Juror 5 to explain his report that he was being pressed to come to a verdict to please public opinion. He refused to answer a direct question on that point, and the Court did not demand an answer:

The Court: Just a couple other questions. You mentioned the word community's verdict. Are you suggesting that the jury is result-driven, that they are all trying to drive this toward a certain verdict when you talk about community?

Juror 5: I can't -- I'm unable to speak for all the jurors, or other jurors.

The Court: You don't know what the other jurors are thinking, correct?

Juror 5: I know that there are jurors who have made up their minds.

The Court: Some jurors have certain opinions?

Juror 5: Exactly.

The Court: Other jurors have other opinions?

Juror 5: That's unclear.

The Court removed Juror Number 5 -- again without articulating a finding of good cause -- and denied the defense's motion for a mistrial:

The Court: Juror Number 5 wanted to get off this case from the second day [of deliberations]. Remember he talked about, it was hostility toward him in the second day already. And I brought him in, and I instructed him on the 1.00 and 17.40 and 17.41. Apparently hasn't done any good. I don't know what's going on in here, but there is a real problem with this one particular juror now. He says, he cannot be a fair and impartial juror for whatever reason. If this is -- I don't know if these -- I think he's suggesting that the deliberations are result-driven.

Mr. Geragos: Exactly what he's suggesting. And he is suggesting that there is result driven to meet with the community's passion.

Mr. Distaso: But that's, of course, not -- that's slightly in conflict from the Juror Number 6 who says that the jury is progressing exactly as juries are supposed to progress.

Mr. Geragos: Well, no. He says said that they are making progress towards getting a community verdict. And if they do, that's not what he said -- 6 said at all. 6 says they are making progress getting to where they want to be. If they eliminate him, then they will get to where they want to be.

The Court: Well, you know, Mr. Geragos, I'm going to bite the bullet again as I have been doing for the last five and a half months. I'm going to excuse Number 5. I'm going to gag him. If he wants to get on an airplane and fly to Bangkok, go ahead. You have your record here. And if there is a conviction, we'll see what happens.

Shortly thereafter, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.

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

The prosecution, in response (I can't cut and paste from that one), basically said that removal was required under the circumstances, because the juror flat-out said he could no longer be fair or follow the jury instructions. Which is a good point.

Wow! Thanks AZL for taking the time and effort to put all this out there. I watched the trial and this is all new to me. Puts things in a different perspective, but also begs the question: Did all this behind-the-scenes stuff make a a successful appeal more likely?

 

[Koshka]

Would you mind elaborating? What do the banks do? Do they call you or send you a letter? Very interesting as I have never had an inquiry with deposits into my account over $10,000.00. Thank you.

Google bank secrecy act. That is what applies. It is a reporting requirement for banks for transactions over 10K.

 

[ShadyLady]

As far as JA's money....she was spending between $4800 to $7200 a year on candies so where did that money come from? And who is paying for Arias family expenses in AZ? Must be adding up. What's the payoff?

 

[smeck]

Done with the greeting "shaka, brah" I love Hawaii, but it's way too expensive.

My daughter and my 3 grandbabies live in Honolulu. ....her husband too lol. We live in Chicago so it's about a 9hr flight and around $800 for one airfare.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Kiefer's ok for Arias, but she wants someone believable when it's about her reputation.

:drumroll:

lol

 

[Steve44]

Hm. Or it indicates he cannot confirm, deny, or comment on her health or mental health.

I know, and I don't remember exactly what he said, but I found it interesting that it didn't sound that neutral to me. It seemed to me reading it at the time he was confirming it while staying within HIPPA guidelines. That may have been only my own impression.