LIST Questions & Answers #8 LIST ONLY NO DISCUSSION

[beach]

Could it also be related to the State's Motion to Compel? Mr. Ashton's motion allowed for that: http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...2008-CF-015606-O_Anthony Motion to compel.doc

<snipped>
The State of Florida requests that any document referenced above to which any privilege is asserted by submitted to this court for in camera inspection and redactions as the courts deems fit. The State request that these documents be produced at a reasonable time but not later than five business days prior to the deposition of the expert.

Maybe, not sure since HHJP has already issued his Order denying parts and granting 2 others. :waitasec: I guess it would depend on how HHJP has decided to handle the State's most recent motion for clarification/to compel compliance with discovery. That very well could be the case. It is pretty time sensitive.

 

[lisalei321]

I need Mark NeJames email address....


Please?!

 

[nums24]

I need Mark NeJames email address....


Please?!

His email address is: NejameM@nejamelaw.com

it's on page 17 of this: http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ication for Subpoena Duces Tecum 8-9-2010.pdf

 

[GreenTurtleGirl]

I need Mark NeJames email address....


Please?!

I can tell you he is very good at answering his email and I called once about the TES stuff (as I was a searcher) because I was very upset. The answering people patched me through to him and we had a conversation concerning this. He is passionate about his work and his clients. Think you will find resolution to your issue when you make communication with him. Just my experience and JMO.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Maybe he is meeting with Ann Finnell. IIRC, he agreed to meet with her in camera regarding the witnesses from Ohio and I know she recently filed a motion in re. those witnesses. Or, it could be with JB & CM regarding the TES searchers they want to investigate further. Those are the only 2 things I can remember that referenced an in camera meeting.

RBBM, 'Beach. I missed this. Did someone ask for an in-camera on the TES volunteers at the last status hearing? Or was it on some other occasion? Is there a distinction between an in-camera hearing and an in-camera inspection? TIA to anyone who knows.

 

[beach]

RBBM, 'Beach. I missed this. Did someone ask for an in-camera on the TES volunteers at the last status hearing? Or was it on some other occasion? Is there a distinction between an in-camera hearing and an in-camera inspection? TIA to anyone who knows.

No, not at the last status hearing. I was referring to a comment HHJP made a while back when he first gave permission for the doc review. I recall him saying that the defense could bring the docs concerning the searchers they wished to investigate further AFTER the review. HHJP said he would review them and rule on each one separately.

I think I recall this correctly. If someone remembers it differently, please chime in!

 

[nums24]

No, not at the last status hearing. I was referring to a comment HHJP made a while back when he first gave permission for the doc review. I recall him saying that the defense could bring the docs concerning the searchers they wished to investigate further AFTER the review. HHJP said he would review them and rule on each one separately.

I think I recall this correctly. If someone remembers it differently, please chime in!

I think you were correct in an earlier round of this battle, I think that issue was in August? :waitasec:

But the final order doesn't say anything about an in-camera review:
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...cuments in Possession of Texas Equusearch.pdf

ETA: The in-camera review was in Judge Strickland's original order: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20582267/detail.html

Here is Judge Perry's Order re: in-camera from July 21, 2010: http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ior Rulings by Disqualified Judge 7-21-10.pdf

 

[beach]

RBBM, 'Beach. I missed this. Did someone ask for an in-camera on the TES volunteers at the last status hearing? Or was it on some other occasion? Is there a distinction between an in-camera hearing and an in-camera inspection? TIA to anyone who knows.

RBBM

Sorry, EU. I forgot to address the question I bolded. It is pretty much what it sounds like. In fact, the word "inspection" is what reminded me of the comment HHJP made to the defense about the TES docs. It could be anything. Or just a matter of semantics. However, when counsel files a doc and calls it an "inspection", I am led to believe they are going to be inspecting SOMETHING and not just yapping.

That said, I try not to assume too much in this case....especially if Baez titled the motion.

 

[beach]

I think you were correct in an earlier round of this battle, I think that issue was in August? :waitasec:

But the final order doesn't say anything about an in-camera review:
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...cuments in Possession of Texas Equusearch.pdf

ETA: The in-camera review was in Judge Strickland's original order: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20582267/detail.html

Here is Judge Perry's Order re: in-camera from July 21, 2010: http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ior Rulings by Disqualified Judge 7-21-10.pdf

BBM

See paragraph 5 of Judge Perry's Order.

That is what I recall during the hearing. I am supposed to be studying for a final exam and finishing a term paper due tomorrow angel or I would go find the hearing video and rewatch it to refresh my memory. Lord knows I don't need another excuse to procrastinate, so I will wait until tomorrow. LOL

 

[nums24]

BBM

See paragraph 5 of Judge Perry's Order.

That is what I recall during the hearing. I am supposed to be studying for a final exam and finishing a term paper due tomorrow angel or I would go find the hearing video and rewatch it to refresh my memory. Lord knows I don't need another excuse to procrastinate, so I will wait until tomorrow. LOL

No procrastinating! Besides the September order supercedes all the others right, wouldn't it be moot?

 

[nums24]

Maybe, not sure since HHJP has already issued his Order denying parts and granting 2 others. :waitasec: I guess it would depend on how HHJP has decided to handle the State's most recent motion for clarification/to compel compliance with discovery. That very well could be the case. It is pretty time sensitive.

I got you this time LOL :truce: The in-camera was for the defense notes!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/65688076/20101207-Defense-Notice-of-In-Camera-Inspection