Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[darnudes]

Oh, I hope so!

Yeah, me too but that self satisfied smug grin he had going before the hearing made me think, not quite yet. Damn him.

Maybe one day, And by the by, do you think that was his daughter or one of his relatives who was minding all his docs today?.....Something going on there. ( not in that way) just have never seen that girl before.

 

[darnudes]

Is it okay to give RHornsby a plug?

Hi Mods, please remove if this is inappropriate. Just wanted to give a shout out to Richard and plug his ad cos it's actually pretty good....lol

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhAgmzJJ4ME&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[butterfly1978]

Seriously, I just didn't think the hearing was that interesting. Status conferences generally aren't lol. I will say that someone obviously told Casey to quit making expressions, pursuant to JP's order re: complying with court decorum rules.



There would be no difference between paid or pro bono attorneys, but what do you mean by "removed"?

I am sorry it is my fault. I am not articulate at all, because I have been trying to ask this same question and can not seem to get it out right LOL, I really do apologize. My question if the defense continues to stall, not do depositions, continue to file frivolous motions and do nothing to actually build a case or defend KC, and the judge sees this can he remove her defense team, one or all of them to avoid an appeal issue of ineffective counsel, and appoint her an attorney, even if these are working pro bono, or does it interfere with her constitutional right to counsel of her choice?



One more thing I have been thinking about. It has been said that KC is indigent but not asking for attorneys fees, but technically if she had a public defender, she would have had the money to fund her defense with the 250,000 dollars, so how can they say that legally. She had the money to fund her defense had Baez and Co been being paid at public defender salary, so how are they getting past that?

PS>AZ, I would like you to know how very much we all appreciate you and all you do for us here.

 

[AZlawyer]

I am sorry it is my fault. I am not articulate at all, because I have been trying to ask this same question and can not seem to get it out right LOL, I really do apologize. My question if the defense continues to stall, not do depositions, continue to file frivolous motions and do nothing to actually build a case or defend KC, and the judge sees this can he remove her defense team, one or all of them to avoid an appeal issue of ineffective counsel, and appoint her an attorney, even if these are working pro bono, or does it interfere with her constitutional right to counsel of her choice?

One more thing I have been thinking about. It has been said that KC is indigent but not asking for attorneys fees, but technically if she had a public defender, she would have had the money to fund her defense with the 250,000 dollars, so how can they say that legally. She had the money to fund her defense had Baez and Co been being paid at public defender salary, so how are they getting past that?

PS>AZ, I would like you to know how very much we all appreciate you and all you do for us here.

The judge will not remove her retained counsel. He will do his darndest, though, to make them work harder, and he kicked off that process this morning.

If she had $250,000, she couldn't have gotten a PD appointed and then spent her own money on the other costs of defense, because then it would have been perfectly apparent that she wasn't indigent and thus did not qualify for a PD in the first place. So...if she had money (which she did), she was obligated to use her own money to pay for counsel and costs until she had no more money. Then, since her lawyers apparently are willing to work pro bono, she was entitled to the state's assistance in funding her other costs of defense.

 

[QB.]

There has been some discussion on the indegency thread about whether or not JB will be paid for his time. The order from JS seems to say that only costs are covered but not lawyer fees. Is JB seeking payment, was this addressed at all during the hearing or is he now working pro bono for the rest of the case?
Thanks AZ

 

[sumbunny]

What does a "joint continuance" mean? Can a lawyer file this at the last hour? (re:inmate anthony civil trial today)

 

[AZlawyer]

There has been some discussion on the indegency thread about whether or not JB will be paid for his time. The order from JS seems to say that only costs are covered but not lawyer fees. Is JB seeking payment, was this addressed at all during the hearing or is he now working pro bono for the rest of the case?
Thanks AZ

My understanding is that the State is paying for costs only, and JB is working pro bono.

What does a "joint continuance" mean? Can a lawyer file this at the last hour? (re:inmate anthony civil trial today)

A joint request for continuance can be filed at the last minute, although then you ought to get verbal confirmation from the judge's staff that the request is approved. Just not showing up is normally frowned upon.

 

[Purple Iris]

Not sure if this has been asked within this thread topic or not, so I'll pose the question again since it involves the civil hearing for this afternoon.

We know that Casey filed and was approved for state funds for the murder trial.

Since she is broke by Baez's accounts, how would she be paying for the civil trial?
I know that ZFG is the one that initially filed this, with Casey counter sueing, etc.

But, obviously, there are costs involved in this case as well.
Can she file for indengcy for this case, like she has for the murder trial?
TIA ~

 

[AZlawyer]

Not sure if this has been asked within this thread topic or not, so I'll pose the question again since it involves the civil hearing for this afternoon.

We know that Casey filed and was approved for state funds for the murder trial.

Since she is broke by Baez's accounts, how would she be paying for the civil trial?
I know that ZFG is the one that initially filed this, with Casey counter sueing, etc.

But, obviously, there are costs involved in this case as well.
Can she file for indengcy for this case, like she has for the murder trial?
TIA ~

No, the State would not pay for the defense of a civil case. Generally, if you run out of money to defend a civil case, you end up losing.

 

[AZlawyer]

Here are some statutes explaining how it works.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...indigent+and+civil+case&URL=CH0057/Sec082.HTM

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...indigent and civil case&URL=Ch0057/Sec081.HTM

Thanks for pointing these out. Yes, I forgot you can get court costs waived in civil cases, which would include fees for court-appointed counsel in cases where people are entitled to appointment of such counsel (like termination of parental rights, which is a non-criminal action but involves constitutional rights justifying court-appointed counsel). But the defendant in a civil defamation case should not be eligible for court-appointed counsel.

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS VERIFIED Lawyers

Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

This question is about the defense team in general. From my understanding of this case, the defense has used less than ethical tactics(some may even be against the law) while working on this case.

Here is the question: how can those that represent the law do these things in front of the law? Why aren't they in trouble?

Please excuse the ignorant way I am asking this question. I don't know how else to put it except in kindergarten terms. I don't want to come on this thread and waste anyone's time with a silly question so I hope the depth of what I am asking comes through.

(I really think following this case has fried my brain. And, if I ever had a big head about the amount of information I could retain and process: I lost it being a member of WS. )

I :blowkiss: Websleuths

TIA. Thank you for your time.

ETA: I thought of another question and didn't want to post a separate post. Can't a judge rule that no one can make money off of this case? Can't something be done to take the money factor out of this case?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hello WS VERIFIED Lawyers

Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

This question is about the defense team in general. From my understanding of this case, the defense has used less than ethical tactics(some may even be against the law) while working on this case.

Here is the question: how can those that represent the law do these things in front of the law? Why aren't they in trouble?

Please excuse the ignorant way I am asking this question. I don't know how else to put it except in kindergarten terms. I don't want to come on this thread and waste anyone's time with a silly question so I hope the depth of what I am asking comes through.

(I really think following this case has fried my brain. And, if I ever had a big head about the amount of information I could retain and process: I lost it being a member of WS. )

I :blowkiss: Websleuths

TIA. Thank you for your time.

ETA: I thought of another question and didn't want to post a separate post. Can't a judge rule that no one can make money off of this case? Can't something be done to take the money factor out of this case?

There are some potential ethics issues, but not many. Most of the problems with the defense team stem from poor judgment.

Any real ethics issues will probably be submitted to the Bar at some point, and perhaps already have been. Unless there are leaks, we would not necessarily know about this until and unless the complaints are resolved.

Issues like sending a copy service over to copy documents that you were only permitted to inspect and tag are normally handled by the judge getting pi$$ed. For most attorneys, this works and they stop fooling around.

The judge cannot rule that no one can make any money off the case, and there would be no basis for such a ruling. The problem is not that people are getting paid (in fact, it looks like almost no one is getting paid at the moment). The problem is that people are acting like idiots. IMO, the new judge will put the brakes on that kind of behavior.

 

[LambChop]

Obviously the civil attorneys are waiting for something to ask for a continuance. Will the financial information that comes out from the JAC hearing be something they will be interested in? If KC overpaid her attorney (say for the fraud trial) to keep ZFG from getting any money can Morgan go after JB? Seems there is a lot of money unaccounted for????

 

[AZlawyer]

Obviously the civil attorneys are waiting for something to ask for a continuance. Will the financial information that comes out from the JAC hearing be something they will be interested in? If KC overpaid her attorney (say for the fraud trial) to keep ZFG from getting any money can Morgan go after JB? Seems there is a lot of money unaccounted for????

KC's use of her assets would not be a reason to delay the trial, as Morgan can't investigate or do much about her assets until after he gets a judgment anyway.

I don't think it's obvious that the civil attorneys are waiting for something. I think it's obvious that the parties are not remotely ready for trial and need more time.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Obviously the civil attorneys are waiting for something to ask for a continuance. Will the financial information that comes out from the JAC hearing be something they will be interested in? If KC overpaid her attorney (say for the fraud trial) to keep ZFG from getting any money can Morgan go after JB? Seems there is a lot of money unaccounted for????

FWIW_ WFTV's- K Belich report today states that the delay is so that Morgan et al can explore the statements contained in her letters from jail ( Z didn't do it etc).

 

[okiedokietoo]

Legal questions for our VERIFIED lawyers
Question about the new Defense Motion:
to Seal All Justice Administration Commission Documents
Since the Judge said in court last Friday that the JAC Hearing would be in open court, is this just a way for the Defense to get it on record?
And what are the chances that JAC will approve the 2nd motion filed today:
Amended Motion for Justice Administration Commission (JAC) Hearing & Motion for Approval of Out of State Mitigation Specialist & Expert WItnesses

Thank You in advance

 

[Muzikman]

KC's use of her assets would not be a reason to delay the trial, as Morgan can't investigate or do much about her assets until after he gets a judgment anyway.

I don't think it's obvious that the civil attorneys are waiting for something. I think it's obvious that the parties are not remotely ready for trial and need more time.

So if Morgan wins and gets a judgement, can he investigate where Baez spent all of that money? No A/C protection?

That's my hope.... :crazy:

 

[AZlawyer]

Legal questions for our VERIFIED lawyers
Question about the new Defense Motion:
to Seal All Justice Administration Commission Documents
Since the Judge said in court last Friday that the JAC Hearing would be in open court, is this just a way for the Defense to get it on record?
And what are the chances that JAC will approve the 2nd motion filed today:
Amended Motion for Justice Administration Commission (JAC) Hearing & Motion for Approval of Out of State Mitigation Specialist & Expert WItnesses

Thank You in advance

Do we have a link to the actual motion, or just the name of the motion? If it is what it looks like from the name, it is not a request for the hearing to be held in private but rather for the documents to be sealed.

On the second motion, again, I haven't seen the actual motion, just the name of the motion. I would think approval of out-of-state people would depend upon whether Florida experts are reasonably available.

So if Morgan wins and gets a judgement, can he investigate where Baez spent all of that money? No A/C protection?

That's my hope.... :crazy:

I doubt it. Too far afield from the question of "does KC have any assets we can collect on?" But let's not jump ahead to Morgan getting a judgment just yet.

ETA: Incidentally, where a lawyer spends his client's money is not attorney-client privileged information.

 

[beach]

Do we have a link to the actual motion, or just the name of the motion? If it is what it looks like from the name, it is not a request for the hearing to be held in private but rather for the documents to be sealed.

I don't think we have links to the motions yet. I've been looking 'cause I was curious to read them.

 

[denjet]

Can the defense (down the road) use the fact that Judge Perry is up for re-election as Chief Judge as a reason to attempt to prove bias and/or argue the case schedule if it does get moved up for a date sooner than May?
I'm remembering some posturing around the Grand Jury indictment about SA Jeff Ashton's election and bias to please the public ...