State files motion to proceed with check fraudUPDATE CASE TO BE SCHEDULED

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

shotzie said:
Alright I just read the Bank of America letter ...so they are saying they aren't excepting this money order in lieu, due to the criminal charges, meaning it has no effect Right..

an also who paid Amy back the $700.00 cash Casey took?

Gee I hope Strickland denies this motion. Let's just get on with this PLEASE..
Click to expand...



I hope they don't accept the money. Their endorsement would settle their claim and future legal actions. My understanding is anytime their is fraud, the merchant or bank that accepted the payment is out the money, because they failed to obtain proper identification.
 
Well if he paid back the money isn't that acknowledging his client's responsibility for taking it?
If he really wants things to go better for Casey he better just plead guilty on this one, or face looking ridiculous now he has paid up.....
 
milliac said:
I hope they don't accept the money. Their endorsement would settle their claim and future legal actions. My understanding is anytime their is fraud, the merchant or bank that accepted the payment is out the money, because they failed to obtain proper identification.
Click to expand...

Thia isn't actually the case. The bank did in fact have to give Amy H her money back. That makes the bank a victim and does have a claim to press charges. However, this in NO WAY, settles their claim. I also believe Target is a victim too. They more than likely also had to reimburse someone for the check their clerk allowed to be written.

As for Baez paying the money. I am sure it is KC's money from the photo's and video they have sold. It is illegal for an attorney to pay bail or other monies for a client. So, as of now, I'm sure KC has an escrow account with some money left in it that he used to pay that money back. Or at least, that will be HIS CLAIM! LOL!
 
IMO, paying the money indicates their intention to plead this out but as was repeated in the ridiculous farce of pleadings, they want to wait until after the murder trial so that KC goes into the penalty phase with a clean record. I cannot believe they made a point of writing that in their briefs. AL is a much better lawyer than JB, unquestionably. Her pleadings actually make some sort of sense and she tries to find a legal basis. She fails, imo, for the most part, but she tries. Unfortunately for her, she has the same facts to work with as JB, no doubt much to her chagrin. It is what it is, as they say. And the most brilliant legal minds in the country, (who all post at WS, btw ;) ), can't change the facts of this case; the insurmountable evidence against KC; and her arrogance in committing these crimes. Her actions and inactions go beyond stupid and can only be explained by complete narcissism, imo.
 
PS: That they're this worried about the penalty phase, that they cannot stand the thought of her even having the check fraud on her record, seems to indicate a great lack of confidence in avoiding the penalty phase, imho. Meaning as opposed to the 'mother of the year' assertions, etc. hmmmm....
 
Just Jayla said:
AL has a lot of nerve saying she needs more time to prepare herself to help JB on the fraud charges, because she is so busy with the discovery, etc. from the murder case.....Hello?! Didn't she ask the judge for a certain schedule because she had to go teach back in Chicago? She can make time for that, but not to prepare for KC's fraud case?
Please someone, correct me if I am wrong....
Click to expand...


If they didn't spend so much time fighting to suppress things (even though JB says they prove nothing), like the Video of her watching the tv coverage of Caylee's discover, the autopsy report, LP's coversations with the family, etc. They would have plenty of time to go to trial on both the Check fraud and the Murder charge.
 
MarleneM said:
So, if I "borrow" $700 from a bank by writing a stolen check, I'm ok as long as I pay it all back to them within a year's time? No need for any legal "formalities" on moot charges like forgery or theft. As long as the bank eventually gets their money back and they pay back the person I ripped off via insurance or whatever, then everything's cool right?
Click to expand...

ohh, you would be shocked.. it's sad the things people get away with!
 
Is it true that Baez stated a change of venue would also be necessary for these fraud charges ? Just wanted to confirm that I read that right.
 
From WESH:

Document: Casey Anthony Repaid Allegedly Stolen Money
Anthony Is Accused Of Fraud, Homicide
POSTED: 3:31 pm EDT July 21, 2009
UPDATED: 4:31 pm EDT July 21, 2009

"In a court document filed by Jose Baez last week, Bank of America acknowledged a $664 check received from Baez's office in reference to the Amy Huzeinga case. Baez denies he's the one who cut the check, but he would neither confirm nor deny that the check came from Anthony."

The bank told Baez "it is to be noted that Bank of America did not take this payment in lieu of criminal prosecution."

I'm confused, JB denied he "cut the check", but it came from his office. Does it matter who actually cut the check, if it came from him/his office?

In any case, thankfully Bank of America was smart enough to not endorse it.
 
BOA wants this to go to court so they can get a judgement against KC as well as collecting interest on the amount.

JB should know that because he sent BOA a certified check that this wouldn't just go "poof" away. Was this "check" sent unsolicited by JB? Or is there correspondence from BOA to KC in care of JB with attempts to collect?

:deal: is wishful thinking on his part, again.
 
Capri said:
From WESH:

Document: Casey Anthony Repaid Allegedly Stolen Money
Anthony Is Accused Of Fraud, Homicide
POSTED: 3:31 pm EDT July 21, 2009
UPDATED: 4:31 pm EDT July 21, 2009

"In a court document filed by Jose Baez last week, Bank of America acknowledged a $664 check received from Baez's office in reference to the Amy Huzeinga case. Baez denies he's the one who cut the check, but he would neither confirm nor deny that the check came from Anthony."

The bank told Baez "it is to be noted that Bank of America did not take this payment in lieu of criminal prosecution."

I'm confused, JB denied he "cut the check", but it came from his office. Does it matter who actually cut the check, if it came from him/his office?

In any case, thankfully Bank of America was smart enough to not endorse it.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they didn't endorse it? I think they were just saying, "Thanks for the payment, but we're still going to cooperate with the criminal prosecution." The payment doesn't undo the crime.
 
Capri said:
From WESH:

Document: Casey Anthony Repaid Allegedly Stolen Money
Anthony Is Accused Of Fraud, Homicide
POSTED: 3:31 pm EDT July 21, 2009
UPDATED: 4:31 pm EDT July 21, 2009

"In a court document filed by Jose Baez last week, Bank of America acknowledged a $664 check received from Baez's office in reference to the Amy Huzeinga case. Baez denies he's the one who cut the check, but he would neither confirm nor deny that the check came from Anthony."

The bank told Baez "it is to be noted that Bank of America did not take this payment in lieu of criminal prosecution."

I'm confused, JB denied he "cut the check", but it came from his office. Does it matter who actually cut the check, if it came from him/his office?

In any case, thankfully Bank of America was smart enough to not endorse it.
Click to expand...

Quoting my own post, but according to this news report (thanks Musikman)
a "money order" was sent, thus no one "cut a check". Minor technicality, but it still came from Baez' office.

http://www.clickorlando.com/video/20135377/index.html
 
Capri said:
Quoting my own post, but according to this news report (thanks Musikman)
a "money order" was sent, thus no one "cut a check". Minor technicality, but it still came from Baez' office.

http://www.clickorlando.com/video/20135377/index.html
Click to expand...

This is extremely weird. What would the reason be for denying that the check (or money order) came from Baez's office? Is there a legal advantage to it not coming from his office?
 
Tuffy said:
This is extremely weird. What would the reason be for denying that the check (or money order) came from Baez's office? Is there a legal advantage to it not coming from his office?
Click to expand...

They don't seem to be denying it was mailed from the Baez office, only that Baez didn't "cut a check." I'm guessing that a money order is able to appear as if it came from KC, not Baez, thus no impropriety, ie. him paying her debts. Just a guess. I believe it may be illegal for him to pay her debts, but maybe one of our legal eagles can confirm that.
 
Capri said:
They don't seem to be denying it was mailed from the Baez office, only that Baez didn't "cut a check." I'm guessing that a money order is able to appear as if it came from KC, not Baez, thus no impropriety, ie. him paying her debts. Just a guess. I believe it may be illegal for him to pay her debts, but maybe one of our legal eagles can confirm that.
Click to expand...

Hmm! I wonder if JB's denial of paying this has anything to do with the news about the pros asking for the sidebar transcript? :rolleyes:
 
My question is "why now?" Why,almost a whole year later, do they want to repay the $$? The date the MO was received was July 10, 2009...
 
I would like to know if there was a note with the money order explaining what it was for and what was on the return address of the envelope that made BOA write a letter back to JB instead of KC? I hope I'm making sense...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 140 more.
Total: 1,921 (members: 141, guests: 1,780)

Online statistics

Members online
141
Guests online
1,780
Total visitors
1,921
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,441
Messages
18,124,569
Members
231,052
Latest member
Megaera
Back
Top