Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

[jane the dood]

While we're having our little time out, let's gaze at this beautiful face and remember why we are still here. For sweet Caylee. Of blessed memory.
P.S. I :heartbeat::websleuther:

 

[atthelake]

I'm waiting for the FedEx. :woohoo:

Great news AZ! Question, when you let us know where/ when they are uploaded can you also have an idea/recommendation as where we should put our discussions as I would hate for our discussuions to go into oblivion and no longer are archived anywhere like happened to sidebar #six^ and #seven sidebar threads from February fifthteenth through May thirtyfirst when the sidebar was last shutdown.

 

[logicalgirl]

Hi AZLawyer - I have a "Consumer" question. One of our members mentioned that IBooks had only five star reviews of Baez's Tome - "presumed guilty" and I am a member of ITunes and IBooks so off I went to post a review.

The first one was an honest one, perhaps more 'expressive" than they liked at one star, quickly deleted. Then I posted a 2 star in reasonable language-deleted. Then I posted a 3 star even suggesting it was an interesting look at Baez's personality :what:- and was pleasant waitasec and quickly deleted.

How is it legal under consumer affairs laws to rig comments so obviously to only show five star reviews?

Yes, I know, not earth shattering but still annoying!

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZLawyer - I have a "Consumer" question. One of our members mentioned that IBooks had only five star reviews of Baez's Tome - "presumed guilty" and I am a member of ITunes and IBooks so off I went to post a review.

The first one was an honest one, perhaps more 'expressive" than they liked at one star, quickly deleted. Then I posted a 2 star in reasonable language-deleted. Then I posted a 3 star even suggesting it was an interesting look at Baez's personality :what:- and was pleasant waitasec and quickly deleted.

How is it legal under consumer affairs laws to rig comments so obviously to only show five star reviews?

Yes, I know, not earth shattering but still annoying!

I don't think deleting consumer reviews would be directly covered under any consumer protection law. However, if I had a paying client I would be willing to do a few hours of research to see if maintaining a 5-star customer review listing on the pretense that all ratings were welcome might be squeezed into the definition of some wrongful act.

 

[shotzy]

Hi AZlawyer, How hard is it to prove jury tampering? How much evidence would you need? I found it odd that JB had to bring up the fact in his book that fca couldn't afford to pay the jury off. Coincidence that the jury foreman's house was in foreclosure and as soon as the jury was seated approx 5 days later his foreclosure is dismissed? Also, there was another name on the deed who just happened to be an attorney.
If there was jury tampering could fca be tried again?

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZlawyer, How hard is it to prove jury tampering? How much evidence would you need? I found it odd that JB had to bring up the fact in his book that fca couldn't afford to pay the jury off. Coincidence that the jury foreman's house was in foreclosure and as soon as the jury was seated approx 5 days later his foreclosure is dismissed? Also, there was another name on the deed who just happened to be an attorney.
If there was jury tampering could fca be tried again?

It is very hard to prove. You would need a "smoking gun"--i.e., indisputable evidence--to get anywhere with such a claim.

The fact is, jury tampering is EXTREMELY rare. IMO there is no way it happened in this case. Too many experienced attorneys on the defense side who cared about their reputations, too much close media attention, sequestered jury...nope. Did. Not. Happen.

 

[shotzy]

It is very hard to prove. You would need a "smoking gun"--i.e., indisputable evidence--to get anywhere with such a claim.

The fact is, jury tampering is EXTREMELY rare. IMO there is no way it happened in this case. Too many experienced attorneys on the defense side who cared about their reputations, too much close media attention, sequestered jury...nope. Did. Not. Happen.

Thank you AZlawyer! You have set my mind at ease. Even though it's extremely rare, if it did happen, could a case be reopened after an acquittal? Just curious.

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you AZlawyer! You have set my mind at ease. Even though it's extremely rare, if it did happen, could a case be reopened after an acquittal? Just curious.

Yes, if the jurors were actually paid off, the verdict could be vacated.

FYI, I just looked into the situation you mentioned.

The jury foreman bought the property in 2008 as tenants in common with the "lawyer on the deed" you mentioned, who was probably his girlfriend. She is a young lawyer and doesn't do criminal law BTW (and there are about 94,000 lawyers in Florida, so we certainly can't assume they all know each other).

The Complaint that began the foreclosure proceedings was filed April 25, 2011. The jury foreman and his girlfriend sold the house on April 27, 2011. Presumably the mortgage was paid off as part of that sale, because it was released by the bank for full payment on May 16, 2011.

ALL of these dates were before the jury was selected in Casey's case (May 21). Moreover, the sale of the property provides an obvious and totally innocent explanation for the payment of the mortgage.

ETA: The May 26/27 date people are throwing around online is the date that the bank finally got around to recording the release of its "lis pendens." It had already signed the mortgage release (May 16), recorded the mortgage release (May 23), and filed the release of lis pendens in court (May 24).

 

[shotzy]

Yes, if the jurors were actually paid off, the verdict could be vacated.

FYI, I just looked into the situation you mentioned.

The jury foreman bought the property in 2008 as tenants in common with the "lawyer on the deed" you mentioned, who was probably his girlfriend. She is a young lawyer and doesn't do criminal law BTW (and there are about 94,000 lawyers in Florida, so we certainly can't assume they all know each other).

The Complaint that began the foreclosure proceedings was filed April 25, 2011. The jury foreman and his girlfriend sold the house on April 27, 2011. Presumably the mortgage was paid off as part of that sale, because it was released by the bank for full payment on May 16, 2011.

ALL of these dates were before the jury was selected in Casey's case (May 21). Moreover, the sale of the property provides an obvious and totally innocent explanation for the payment of the mortgage.

ETA: The May 26/27 date people are throwing around online is the date that the bank finally got around to recording the release of its "lis pendens." It had already signed the mortgage release (May 16), recorded the mortgage release (May 23), and filed the release of lis pendens in court (May 24).

Aha....I didn't realize the house had been sold. So the time line I got on the internet was wrong:gasp: Next time I will check public records before I make any assumptions. 94,000 lawyers in Florida....I have to confess I was assuming they all knew each other:floorlaugh:

Thank you very much AZlawyer for taking the time to check the facts!!! VERY MUCH APPRECIATED!!!!

 

[logicalgirl]

Hi AZLawyer..:seeya: In the Sidebar thread today we are discussing the ruling in the ZG/FCA case that FCA will have to testify or have her lawyers provide proof of her income during her probation.

They want to know if she received monies from the Anthony foundation set up for Caylee/grandparents rights (I'm a bit fuzzy on the purpose).

FCA did say in one of her videos that she has a computer and camera "all her own" and we can see she has new blonde hair, a haircut and piercings, plus new glasses. So my question is, how detailed can their questions be about her income and expenses..are you able to give some insight?

Thanks in advance..

 

[AZlawyer]

Hi AZLawyer..:seeya: In the Sidebar thread today we are discussing the ruling in the ZG/FCA case that FCA will have to testify or have her lawyers provide proof of her income during her probation.

They want to know if she received monies from the Anthony foundation set up for Caylee/grandparents rights (I'm a bit fuzzy on the purpose).

FCA did say in one of her videos that she has a computer and camera "all her own" and we can see she has new blonde hair, a haircut and piercings, plus new glasses. So my question is, how detailed can their questions be about her income and expenses..are you able to give some insight?

Thanks in advance..

I think ZG's attorneys have already asked the questions--didn't this ruling arise out of written interrogatories (questions) that they asked? So the questions they get to ask are the ones they already asked. They might get to ask follow-up questions, though, depending on the answers.

What they are allowed to explore is Casey's "net worth," because that's relevant to punitive damages. The judge has apparently made it clear that they can inquire into income. I would think that they would not care about or ask about expenses--except if Casey just denies having any income at all, in which case they would want to know how that can possibly be true given her obvious expenses (hair, glasses, piercings, food, etc.). In other words, they might be able to inquire into expenses to impeach her answer about income.

 

[AZlawyer]

Other random legal stuff based on posts in the other thread:

1. You don't have to report gifts to the IRS. Even big ones. The only person who ever has to pay a gift tax is the person who gives the gift. And there are no limits on how much you can give someone in cash--as long as you (the giver) pay any gift tax.

2. For a settlement offer from Casey to trigger a potential penalty against ZG if she loses the case or doesn't win as much as the offer, it would have to be a formal "Offer of Judgment" (which would show up on the docket) rather than just, e.g., a letter from one attorney to the other offering a settlement.

 

[zippitydoda]

Other random legal stuff based on posts in the other thread:

1. You don't have to report gifts to the IRS. Even big ones. The only person who ever has to pay a gift tax is the person who gives the gift. And there are no limits on how much you can give someone in cash--as long as you (the giver) pay any gift tax.

2. For a settlement offer from Casey to trigger a potential penalty against ZG if she loses the case or doesn't win as much as the offer, it would have to be a formal "Offer of Judgment" (which would show up on the docket) rather than just, e.g., a letter from one attorney to the other offering a settlement.

Thank you AZ

for # 2 - is an "offer of judgement" the norm? Would you expect one to be presented in this type of case?

 

[logicalgirl]

I think ZG's attorneys have already asked the questions--didn't this ruling arise out of written interrogatories (questions) that they asked? So the questions they get to ask are the ones they already asked. They might get to ask follow-up questions, though, depending on the answers.

What they are allowed to explore is Casey's "net worth," because that's relevant to punitive damages. The judge has apparently made it clear that they can inquire into income. I would think that they would not care about or ask about expenses--except if Casey just denies having any income at all, in which case they would want to know how that can possibly be true given her obvious expenses (hair, glasses, piercings, food, etc.). In other words, they might be able to inquire into expenses to impeach her answer about income.

Thanks for those answers AZLawyer - interesting to think about the different "paths" these questions could take. And sometimes for me the word "impeach" has such a nice ring to it.

Okay, one more question please. FCA consistently reported no income on her probation reports. Is it possible the DOC allowed her to do this despite income for some kind of security measure? Thanks.:seeya:
How cool is it to have our own AZ - a lawyer to keep us straight!! I love it!! We love ya AZ...

 

[AZlawyer]

Thank you AZ

for # 2 - is an "offer of judgement" the norm? Would you expect one to be presented in this type of case?

I wouldn't really expect one in a case like this. Normally you would file one if you think you are quite likely to lose on one part of the case, for which the damages are easily calculable, but not on other parts of the case. Here, it's pretty much an all-or-nothing case, and the damages are not obvious.

Thanks for those answers AZLawyer - interesting to think about the different "paths" these questions could take. And sometimes for me the word "impeach" has such a nice ring to it.

Okay, one more question please. FCA consistently reported no income on her probation reports. Is it possible the DOC allowed her to do this despite income for some kind of security measure? Thanks.:seeya:
How cool is it to have our own AZ - a lawyer to keep us straight!! I love it!! We love ya AZ...

I think she reported no employment, right? That's different from no income.

 

[logicalgirl]

I wouldn't really expect one in a case like this. Normally you would file one if you think you are quite likely to lose on one part of the case, for which the damages are easily calculable, but not on other parts of the case. Here, it's pretty much an all-or-nothing case, and the damages are not obvious.



I think she reported no employment, right? That's different from no income.

Oh right!! I see......those pesky details again.....:banghead:

 

[ZsaZsa]

I found this article interesting -
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/p...d-dr-phil-give-600000-to-anthony-charity.html

I would like to know if she has received funds intended for this dubious charity, now defunct. Is the Atty General for Florida the person to write to about this? Does his office have oversight of these 'foundations' and are
their accounts open to the public?

 

[KarmaGet'em]

I wouldn't really expect one in a case like this. Normally you would file one if you think you are quite likely to lose on one part of the case, for which the damages are easily calculable, but not on other parts of the case. Here, it's pretty much an all-or-nothing case, and the damages are not obvious.



I think she reported no employment, right? That's different from no income.

She did report "Unemployed". Though the part she filled that in on the probation report read "If not working, give reason and source of income".

The PO, it seems, looked the other way on the "source of income" part not being answered. Says to me that she is claiming "no income". What say you AZ?

 

[Dcstew]

She did report "Unemployed". Though the part she filled that in on the probation report read "If not working, give reason and source of income".

The PO, it seems, looked the other way on the "source of income" part not being answered. Says to me that she is claiming "no income". What say you AZ?

KarmaGet'em, I was just research this and came to report. You are correct it states on the form, "If not working, give reason and source of income". This is the reason I believe CM was going on about having JPM sign something that Casey completed her probation. He doesn't want this money to come back and bit her.JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

I found this article interesting -
http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/p...d-dr-phil-give-600000-to-anthony-charity.html

I would like to know if she has received funds intended for this dubious charity, now defunct. Is the Atty General for Florida the person to write to about this? Does his office have oversight of these 'foundations' and are
their accounts open to the public?

I don't know if Florida has any requirements for state-registered non-profits. IIRC the Foundation claimed to be registered with the IRS as a 501(c)(3) corporation, so some (no doubt sanitized and vagued-up) info should be available through a public records request for the Foundation's IRS Form 990, but I think Morgan & Morgan will get the info you really want faster than you can.

She did report "Unemployed". Though the part she filled that in on the probation report read "If not working, give reason and source of income".

The PO, it seems, looked the other way on the "source of income" part not being answered. Says to me that she is claiming "no income". What say you AZ?

Sounds like it. So my guess is (1) Casey lied (I know, I know, you're shocked), (2) nothing will ever be done about that now that her probation is over, even if Morgan gets a notarized admission from Casey written in her own blood, because absolutely no one except us no-life bloggers with 9 cats each cares about this issue lol.