How is the Defense Spending the Taxpayer's Money?

[nums24]

The attorney is required to file a motion seeking specific due process costs with service on JAC prior to the court considering the motion.
Moreover, any request for services in excess of the established rates must be clearly delineated in the motion for due process costs. JAC is entitled to reasonable notice of any hearing on a motion for due process costs typically at least five business days. The trial court is responsible for determining whether the requested costs should be authorized. The attorney has the burden to establish that the due process service costs are reasonable and necessary to the defense of the case. For experts, the attorney must also establish the particularized need for expert services. Absent exceptional circumstances, prior court approval should be obtained prior to any services being performed by due process providers such as experts or investigators.

http://www.justiceadmin.org/faq/Training Modules/Six Things Attorney IFC.pdf

Bold & Red by me - The defense has failed miserably. I bet the JAC pays more attention in the future.

I wonder what will happen, will the defense be required to refund the JAC when she's convicted?

 

[nums24]

The defense seems to have made the leap that all TES searchers are witnesses for purposes of invoices/billing. This seems a bit misleading to me, especially if they appear on no witness list.

Just like he's trying to get formerly listed defense experts reimbursed for travel, how can he demonstrate that need? How can he justify payment to someone that can't testify on behalf of ICA?

 

[LancelotLink]

This has probably already been discussed, but on page 5, PILyons visits Security Office and goes to Pershing Ave. May 25. Is this the Pie Hole place George was working at?

 

[jennyb]

http://www.justiceadmin.org/faq/Training Modules/Six Things Attorney IFC.pdf

Bold & Red by me - The defense has failed miserably. I bet the JAC pays more attention in the future.

I wonder what will happen, will the defense be required to refund the JAC when she's convicted?

Problem is, the Judge has basically over-ruled JAC's objections time and again. He continues to give the defense more hours. Even though at the last hearing the JAC didn't have all their ducks in order, they have, in the past, made strong objections and the judge has not followed their guidelines. Judge has the last word.

Hopefully, like you said, JAC is and WILL BE going over everything with that ole fine tooth comb we've heard so much about.

 

[Sun]

This is exactly what Exhibit A is. Thanks for finding it, Sun!

Thanks so much Muzikman for confirming! It is 26 pages, but I couldn't be absolutely sure it was the correct 26 pages included in their motion.

 

[The World According]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkPHDQ1Rlcc[/ame]

In the words of Jose Baez, "This is a huge waste of time that could have been solved by simple phone calls".

It is a waste of money, of biblical proportions.:banghead::furious:

If I could bill for taking an hour to read one document, I'd be on holiday, somewhere tropical and expensive!

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

JAC filing says Baez could be wasting taxpayer money
Updated: Wednesday, 29 Dec 2010, 6:52 PM EST
Published : Wednesday, 29 Dec 2010, 6:51 PM EST


By Shannon Butler
FOX 35 News
ORALNDO, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - Casey Anthony's defense team is under scrutiny, accused of wasting taxpayer dollars.

The Justice Administrative Commission is questioning the money spent by defense team, according to over eighty pages of documents filed on Wednesday. The report filed says Baez's lead investigator is already over his court budgeted hours.

Earlier this month, Chief Circuit Judge Bevin Perry told Casey Anthony's defense that they could have 100 plus more hours for investigative work.

"Mr. Baez, such things as picking up records, defense team meetings and a list for transcripts and such things and making request for public records... these are things that under guidelines for the JAC... they more than likely will not be reimbursable costs at tax payers," Judge Perry said on December 14th.

more
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/122910-anthony-defense-accused-of-wasting-money

The bolded portion of article..

His paralegals could have picked up those documents and not have the PI do it and waste precious dollars...I think JAC is totally on their game and will not provide funds for misspending...JMHO

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

JAC filing says Baez could be wasting taxpayer money
Updated: Wednesday, 29 Dec 2010, 6:52 PM EST
Published : Wednesday, 29 Dec 2010, 6:51 PM EST


By Shannon Butler
FOX 35 News
ORALNDO, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - Casey Anthony's defense team is under scrutiny, accused of wasting taxpayer dollars.

The Justice Administrative Commission is questioning the money spent by defense team, according to over eighty pages of documents filed on Wednesday. The report filed says Baez's lead investigator is already over his court budgeted hours.

Earlier this month, Chief Circuit Judge Bevin Perry told Casey Anthony's defense that they could have 100 plus more hours for investigative work.

"Mr. Baez, such things as picking up records, defense team meetings and a list for transcripts and such things and making request for public records... these are things that under guidelines for the JAC... they more than likely will not be reimbursable costs at tax payers," Judge Perry said on December 14th.

more
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/122910-anthony-defense-accused-of-wasting-money

The bolded portion of article..

His paralegals could have picked up those documents and not have the PI do it and waste precious dollars...I think JAC is totally on their game and will not provide funds for misspending...JMHO

. . . But they have already been reimbursed. At least that's the way I understand the JAC's Notice of Filing to read. Para 3 says, ". . .JAC is including, for informational purposes, the Jeremiah Lyons billings which have been paid (Exhibit C) as well as JAC's review of those in-state investigative billings (Exhibit D)."

So now what? How does this get corrected? And what new procedure are they going to implement to prevent this abuse from reoccurring?

 

[Sun]

. . . But they have already been reimbursed. At least that's the way I understand the JAC's Notice of Filing to read. Para 3 says, ". . .JAC is including, for informational purposes, the Jeremiah Lyons billings which have been paid (Exhibit C) as well as JAC's review of those in-state investigative billings (Exhibit D)."

So now what? How does this get corrected? And what new procedure are they going to implement to prevent this abuse from reoccurring?

I'm going to say that Judge Perry is going to put a stop to the JAC paying for things such as "attending defense meetings," and a few other things that he mentioned in an earlier hearing. I'm curious to know if he has the power to dive back into already paid invoices, and hold Baez responsible to pay the JAC back for hours that were improperly billed.

 

[Numbers]

I'm going to say that Judge Perry is going to put a stop to the JAC paying for things such as "attending defense meetings," and a few other things that he mentioned in an earlier hearing. I'm curious to know if he has the power to dive back into already paid invoices, and hold Baez responsible to pay the JAC back for hours that were improperly billed.

I've asked that question in the Verified Lawyers thread. Just waiting for AZ to wake up this morning.

I still can't believe the JAC pays first, *then* questions. Not a bright idea with Baez & Co.

 

[Sparky]

This has probably already been discussed, but on page 5, PILyons visits Security Office and goes to Pershing Ave. May 25. Is this the Pie Hole place George was working at?

I would say this is the place where River lives. There are 2 entrances with security and one of them is off of Pershing.

Also, Orlando PD has a substation on Pershing right around the corner and this is the one Cindy took KC to.

 

[Sun]

I've asked that question in the Verified Lawyers thread. Just waiting for AZ to wake up this morning.

I still can't believe the JAC pays first, *then* questions. Not a bright idea with Baez & Co.

I'm having thoughts of the JAC handing out rope, as much as Baez wants, all the while smiling and handing out more rope. It's the attorney's responsibility to comply with the JAC policies. I'm hoping that Baez's actions will cost him at the rate of $40 per hour.

 

[logicalgirl]

I've asked that question in the Verified Lawyers thread. Just waiting for AZ to wake up this morning.

I still can't believe the JAC pays first, *then* questions. Not a bright idea with Baez & Co.

I am still "huh" when realizing these queries are on what are apparently hours paid - is there something I'm not understanding here? So, are these hours that were submitted, without explanation of how they were used? Hours that HHJP approved so they were paid without explanation? THEN an explanation was demanded, and the defense submitted this "hot mess"?

So now the JAC has realized they've been "had"? Have I got this straight?

 

[Numbers]

I am still "huh" when realizing these queries are on what are apparently hours paid - is there something I'm not understanding here? So, are these hours that were submitted, without explanation of how they were used? Hours that HHJP approved so they were paid without explanation? THEN an explanation was demanded, and the defense submitted this "hot mess"?

So now the JAC has realized they've been "had"? Have I got this straight?

Yup, pretty much. You see what has been written on the invoices that were paid. Now the JAC is demanding more explanation, and saying that some should not have been paid (work secretaries/couriers/paralegals should have done).

Makes NO sense to me. Do they seriously expect Lyons or Baez to cut them a check for their mistakes?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68091997/20101228-JAC-Notice-of-Filing-and-Exhibit-B---Court-Orders

Page 1, paragraph 2: "... As of this filing, JAC has paid Jeremiah Lyons Investigations for 471 hours of service." [bold mine]

 

[faefrost]

Yup, pretty much. You see what has been written on the invoices that were paid. Now the JAC is demanding more explanation, and saying that some should not have been paid (work secretaries/couriers/paralegals should have done).

Makes NO sense to me. Do they seriously expect Lyons or Baez to cut them a check for their mistakes?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68091997/20101228-JAC-Notice-of-Filing-and-Exhibit-B---Court-Orders

Page 1, paragraph 2: "... As of this filing, JAC has paid Jeremiah Lyons Investigations for 471 hours of service." [bold mine]

Actually yes. This goes on with government contractors all of the time. It isn't a matter of law so much as a matter of how seemingly insanely government beuracracy works (at least to the rest of us). Typically a government will attempt to pay a vendor promptly so in most cases they just pay. But with the caveat that you have to give it back should subsequent review find that the charges, billings or accountings were inappropriate. The vendors go along with this because they know it is the only way to get paid in a reasonably prompt manner. Otherwsie at the speed of government they would wait months or years for all of their payment (and at reduced government rates.)

Besides it is fairly rare when the payment is reviewed or a return is asked. In most cases the vendors know how to document it to pass review, and really unless somebody is digging through it with a fine toothed comb such as a suspected problem or a deep level audit, the subject will never come up. In this case the JAC is obviously very concerned about financial improprieties and shenanigans so is keeping a watchful eye.

 

[logicalgirl]

Actually yes. This goes on with government contractors all of the time. It isn't a matter of law so much as a matter of how seemingly insanely government beuracracy works (at least to the rest of us). Typically a government will attempt to pay a vendor promptly so in most cases they just pay. But with the caveat that you have to give it back should subsequent review find that the charges, billings or accountings were inappropriate. The vendors go along with this because they know it is the only way to get paid in a reasonably prompt manner. Otherwsie at the speed of government they would wait months or years for all of their payment (and at reduced government rates.)

Besides it is fairly rare when the payment is reviewed or a return is asked. In most cases the vendors know how to document it to pass review, and really unless somebody is digging through it with a fine toothed comb such as a suspected problem or a deep level audit, the subject will never come up. In this case the JAC is obviously very concerned about financial improprieties and shenanigans so is keeping a watchful eye.

Okay, thank you FaeFrost - got it. It's a case of caveats and financial improprieties. Huh. Color me "not surprised".

 

[Numbers]

Sooooooooooo...... If I submit a random bill with a valid case number, I'll get paid?

 

[faefrost]

Sooooooooooo...... If I submit a random bill with a valid case number, I'll get paid?

In some government jurisdictions. Yes. And then a few months later they will demand the money back. This is partly why government are so expensive and inefficient to run. And why fraud can run so rampant for so long. They count on the ability to use their overbearing force in such matter should it become an issue. But in doing so tie up or waste a lot of money. The government will pay that bill and then spend more in enforcement actions to get the money back then they actually paid you. And count it as a win. Whereas we in the private sector would actually review the bill properly up front before paying anything.

 

[Sun]

Sooooooooooo...... If I submit a random bill with a valid case number, I'll get paid?

Are you working for Baez, and can you get him to sign on the paperwork?

 

[logicalgirl]

Are you working for Baez, and can you get him to sign on the paperwork?

Oh no - Numbers is a sub-contractor who is planning on studying a map Orlando while having some long long lunches.