Tony Padilla Q&A

[AZlawyer]

I kind of skimmed through the last 15 or so pages of this thread, so I hope this hasn't been discussed already.

After Tony said he never signed the agreement presented by JB, but instead signed a separate agreement, I checked the language at the beginning of the document, in which the parties are identified.

Normally you would say _____;_____;____;___ (Parties of the First Part) and ___;___;___;___ (Parties of the Second Part). This one says "The Baez Law Firm, ("The Firm"; "Party of The First Part") and Leonard Padilla, Bounty Hunter; and Tony Padilla, Tony Padilla Bail Bonds, Sole Proprietor; Tracy McL*******; and Robert D***; ("Parties of the Second Part); (collectively the "parties").

Bold added by me.

So why does Tony's name have an "and" in front of it? It's almost like he had a separate agreement (between The Baez Law Firm and Tony Padilla) and someone cut and pasted the two agreements to make one agreement.

That said, I think the best evidence that there was NOT any forgery/alteration of the document is that the purportedly altered document is so unhelpful to Baez's argument! If you were going to risk your bar card to create a fraudulent document, why wouldn't you at least create one that said what you needed it to say???

 

[Brini]

Maybe I'm just jaded or something (not) but I am like most people watching TV at that point who when they heard LP and TP were going to bond her out, said WHAAAAT are you serious? Remember Lenny was all over the news/Nancy Grace show saying he would get the truth out of her once she was home, he didn't believe she would harm her child, although he was at a loss to explain all her lies and deception,yadayada....
It took him a couple of hours at close quarters to see that he had been bamboozled by one of the best. She has been doing it all her life.

If she had been a 21 yr old black guy from the 'hood they would not have touched this case with a ten foot pole.

"Something off"- now that's funny - that deserves the award for understatement of the year...lol

Some people on this w/s have also read and seen everything, and believe that KC is innocent.

We debate them, but we don't rip into them. We don't post, "I can't believe you can think that!"

TP is ALSO a member. We owe him the same courtesy.

 

[Brini]

Well his first clue on meeting Casey, might have been that because he was bailing her out on a charge of Child Neglect and filing false statements in the investigation of her child's "disappearance" there was a good chance that she was not a very nice person! You think? . She was the only suspect in the Police investigation, video of her lying to Police was all over the news and talk shows, to saturation point, and it seems everyone but Tony and Lenny had at that stage made a fairly accurate assessment of the character of not only Casey but the entire family. Soon after release, Lenny saw this girl for the sociopath she was and started to regret the bond. Now TP says she was just a charming girl who made him dinner and pleasantries... Oh, you mean to say she was not distressed? - not desperate to find her child? -not grieving for her? - not sending out searchers for her? not contacting Equusearch to mount a search?- what she was doing was making mac n cheese and chit chatting. What would that tell ANY reasonable person about the personality of this girl?

He's a bail bondsman. Being a "nice person" isn't necessarily a quality of bonding out. He has to be able to ensure that the case will show up for court.

 

[Brini]

not defending what tp was saying about his impression of kc for the two hours he spent with her......by-the-way have you actually seen tp. He's an attractive guy. Kc may have been really nice to him because he is exactly that, an attractive guy. I don't think it is up to the bondsman to make a determination as to whether their client is guilty or innocent, just whether or not they think this person will flee. Not everyone bonded out by bondsman are guilty and i would imagine some who are guilty could be quite nasty but tp's observation of kc for those couple of hours is that she was very respectful to him. If he said otherwise and it was not true he would be no more credible than the person he bailed out of jail. And if i remember correctly there were quite a few people on this thread at the time kc was bailed out who thought she may have been innocent. Jmo

bingo!

 

[Brini]

(snipped, bbm) Excellent question. :thumb:

arrot:

He's a bail bondsman. He prolly tries not to make moral or legal judgements. He has to ensure that the person gets to court.

Now, again, if you asked, say, a medical professional how they could treat a rotter-- it has nothing to do with anything. it's about the treatment.

 

[weasel]

<<He's also in the middle of a very nasty, sticky, highly publicized, soon-to-be-enacted- on- the- national- stage trial. Soon, EVERYBODY is gonna be watching or talking about that trial. >>

bold by me

Into which he inserted himself. In no way am I trying to be snarky. It's just that when TP and LP came all the way from Cali to bail her out, I was floored. What possible motive, other than publicity, could they possibly have for this? This is just my personal opinion, but at the time I kind of thought they were undermining LE. I wonder if, had Casey been allowed to stew for awhile, if things would be different now? Just one more thing, the arrival of LP kind of turned the whole thing into a bit of a "circus" atmosphere. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[MissJames]

Maybe the fuss is because it took some publicity hunting bailbondsmen from Cali to come all the way to FL to help the damsel in distress...because no Florida bondsmen would touch her with a ten foot pole. Only after they got here and were "duped" as they claim by JB who would not let his client sing like a canary, did they decide oops, we need a do over. Not that she would have sang anyway. IIRC, TP was on his way back to Cali right along with LP when they decided to jump ship. If he thought KC was such a great person, he could have posted the bond on his own, with out LP.

I am not trying to be snarky at all. I just truly, truly do not get TP and his high regards for all of the As and KC.

BBM
I don't think it was that the Bondsmen in FL wouldn't touch it,it was because no one would put up the security money.The family was broke and didn't have it.That's where LP came in.He put up the $50,000 dollars and his nephew ,TP,who IS the Bail bondsman acted as such . LP is a Bounty Hunter,not a bail bondsman.

 

[whiteangora]

Maybe the fuss is because it took some publicity hunting bailbondsmen from Cali to come all the way to FL to help the damsel in distress...because no Florida bondsmen would touch her with a ten foot pole.

snipped &bbm

We do not know which FL Bondsmen would have been willing to assist in getting her out because her Family was Broke and their house was mortgaged to the hilt! There was nobody in her immediate circle that had 50 grand in their pockets. The Padillas had the cash and the high hopes she would talk once freed.
It's over and done, no changing it, if TP wants to say she was she treated him nice that's his right.

 

[whiteangora]

BBM
I don't think it was that the Bondsmen in FL wouldn't touch it,it was because no one would put up the security money.The family was broke and didn't have it.That's where LP came in.He put up the $50,000 dollars and his nephew ,TP,who IS the Bail bondsman acted as such . LP is a Bounty Hunter,not a bail bondsman.

HA! Your message wasn't here when I hit submit

 

[Numbers]

While I don't know that I agree with Zsa Zsa's take on this, I was one of those that heartily disagreed with TP and LP bailing her out of jail in the first place and questioned (or tried to) why, with the information in the public at that time), they had come to a completely opposite conclusion of her direct involvement in this case than most of the general public following the case.

LP, at least, felt she was innocent of any wrong doing and TP went along with him to post her bail.

Both, to me, should have been better at reading the evidence at that time and the personalities. I am sure that both have dealt with their fair share of whatever KC is (psycopath, sociopath, narsisist, all of the above, whatever). It is TPs job to be able to decide if people are worthy of bonding out and trustworthy enough to not skip on the bail. LPs job is to track down those that do skip.

It is true that a bail bonds persons job is simply to bail people out of jail and make sure that they show up to court. So TP could have bailed her out regardless of what anyone else thought about the case. Since no one else was stepping up to post her bond, he had every right to do so as long as someone else put up the 10% even if it turned out to be a bad move on his part.

LP (who I have come to really like even when I think he is FOS) put up money that could not be secured by the As and I would have expected him to do his homework more fully before putting that kind of money on the line. So to me he was hotdogging it from the first but that is LP.

Bailing her out so that they could find Caylee, turned out to be a big mistake (IMO) and added nothing to this case whatsoever. Of course, simply being the person who bailed her out would have had the same effect without the drama.

So to make a very long post short......I do think that LP and TP should have been able to see KC for what she was from the first. It is their job to be able to read people and go with their gut instincts. Short of that, then a little research on the case before putting up the money would have been advisable.

One last comment, if anyone else had put up the bail money and not had someone like LP standing over her all the time, I think that she would have fled and the As would have helped her. edited to add before someone tells me that someone else did bond her out.....I believe that by then JB had convinced her that she could win and would go free so she wasn't going anywhere.

Edited one more time to add....my gut instincts told me that she was responsible for Caylee's disappearance the first time I saw this on TV. I am not psychic or a bail bondsman or bounty hunter and I knew. I could look at her and tell. They should have better instincts than I have since this is their job. IMO of course.

Sorry so long and sorry also for rambling.

Not to mention that by the time the *next* person bailed her out, she had that fashionable piece of jewelry on her ankle.

Other than that, I agree. LP and TP come across as naive and gullible in this matter. At least at the beginning.

 

[Numbers]

I kind of skimmed through the last 15 or so pages of this thread, so I hope this hasn't been discussed already.

After Tony said he never signed the agreement presented by JB, but instead signed a separate agreement, I checked the language at the beginning of the document, in which the parties are identified.

Normally you would say _____;_____;____;___ (Parties of the First Part) and ___;___;___;___ (Parties of the Second Part). This one says "The Baez Law Firm, ("The Firm"; "Party of The First Part") and Leonard Padilla, Bounty Hunter; and Tony Padilla, Tony Padilla Bail Bonds, Sole Proprietor; Tracy McL*******; and Robert D***; ("Parties of the Second Part); (collectively the "parties").

Bold added by me.

So why does Tony's name have an "and" in front of it? It's almost like he had a separate agreement (between The Baez Law Firm and Tony Padilla) and someone cut and pasted the two agreements to make one agreement.

That said, I think the best evidence that there was NOT any forgery/alteration of the document is that the purportedly altered document is so unhelpful to Baez's argument! If you were going to risk your bar card to create a fraudulent document, why wouldn't you at least create one that said what you needed it to say???

Methinks you are overestimating Jose's legal skills and ability to think past the end of his sneering lips.

We've seen his finest work in all his motions. It comes as no surprise to me at all that this opus also sinks to that general level.

 

[AZlawyer]

Methinks you are overestimating Jose's legal skills and ability to think past the end of his sneering lips.

We've seen his finest work in all his motions. It comes as no surprise to me at all that this opus also sinks to that general level.

Well, OK, but wouldn't even the most minimally adequate unethical lawyer know not to put things in a fraudulent agreement that are the OPPOSITE of what he wants the agreement to show? :twocents:

I admit I am inexperienced in the area of fabricating evidence, so perhaps I am mistaken.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Some people on this w/s have also read and seen everything, and believe that KC is innocent.

We debate them, but we don't rip into them. We don't post, "I can't believe you can think that!"

TP is ALSO a member. We owe him the same courtesy.

I was referring to hearing on the News/Nancy Grace that she was being bonded out. I believe Nancy said the exact same thing- say whaaat? Ditto for the Police spokesman..
I was not directing that comment to anyone on this board.
I have not seen any disrespectful comment towards TP- incredulity maybe but where do you see the disrespect, because I was shocked at their actions?

 

[SleuthyMama]

The State prosecutor asked the Court for the Original document, and in response Baez acted insulted that he was being accused of submitting a fake "copy", and mumbled something about being able to present the Original, he just didn't have it in Court that day .....

I know this is going to sound ridiculously simple but it just hit me reading the above how idiotic this is. For this man to go to court with no original....that means THERE IS NO ORIGINAL to the document he is trying to pass off to the court!

I mean, come on, what person in his right mind wouldn't bring an original with them? I work in the public sector....that's the first thing you do when organizing any sort of transaction. Where's the original? That's the first question you start with!

This doesn't bode well for JB and crew as far as I'm concerned.

And thank you, Tony for your willingness to share with us. It is much appreciated and offers a very unique view into this case.

 

[Friday]

Questions re bail and bail bondsmen.

To keep it simple, let's say a family member is arrested and bail is set at $100,000. Let's also say that I have no property to put up as collateral, but I have some cash so I hire a bail bondsman. If I understand the way this works, I have to give the bondsman $10,000, and then he puts up the remaining $90,000. Right so far?

Now, let's say the case is dismissed a few weeks later before it ever goes to trial and the judge releases the bail. Do I get my $10,000 back?

Next, let's say the case does go to trial and my family member appears as ordered. If he's acquitted do I get my $10,000 back? If he's found guilty, do I get my $10,000 back?

Last question, in the case of the Padillas, if Leonard P paid Tony P $50,000 of the $500,000 bond, was LP entitled to a refund of his $50,000 when KC's bond was revoked?"

Sorry for sounding so dumb, but I've always wondered exactly how and when a bail bondsman earns his money assuming the accused person doesn't take off and jump bail.

 

[weasel]

Not to mention that by the time the *next* person bailed her out, she had that fashionable piece of jewelry on her ankle.

Other than that, I agree. LP and TP come across as naive and gullible in this matter. At least at the beginning.

I don't think they are one bit naive or gullible. Like I stated above, I believe they inserted themselves into a high-profile case for publicity. They knew exactly what they were getting themselves into and what it would involve.

 

[Friday]

Snipped and bolded by Friday:

That said, I think the best evidence that there was NOT any forgery/alteration of the document is that the purportedly altered document is so unhelpful to Baez's argument! If you were going to risk your bar card to create a fraudulent document, why wouldn't you at least create one that said what you needed it to say???

Oh, I can answer that, AZlawyer! To paraphrase JB himself, "the title of the document itself makes it clear what the intent was." :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

 

[AZlawyer]

Snipped and bolded by Friday:


Oh, I can answer that, AZlawyer! To paraphrase JB himself, "the title of the document itself makes it clear what the intent was." :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

Hmmm. I don't think that one's going to fly.

 

[elementary]

Methinks you are overestimating Jose's legal skills and ability to think past the end of his sneering lips.

We've seen his finest work in all his motions. It comes as no surprise to me at all that this opus also sinks to that general level.

ITA and would add, his 'skills' lie in the area of torturing logic, obfuscation, distraction, chaos, drama, contorting and distorting reality at any given moment. He's a "fly by the seat of my pants" kinda guy and I would venture a guess that that is the way he conducts his entire life.

It also makes him not very creative or much of a visionary; in other words, he doesn't think, foresee or care about the logical consequences because he'll just keep spinning when he gets called out on something. Basically his MO is to try to weasel his way in and out of everything using a scattershot approach. You don't need to think linearly to try to create chaos in the moment, every moment. He doesn't think like a lawyer; he thinks like a weasel who happens to be a lawyer. IMO.

 

[marspiter]

Questions re bail and bail bondsmen.

To keep it simple, let's say a family member is arrested and bail is set at $100,000. Let's also say that I have no property to put up as collateral, but I have some cash so I hire a bail bondsman. If I understand the way this works, I have to give the bondsman $10,000, and then he puts up the remaining $90,000. Right so far?

Now, let's say the case is dismissed a few weeks later before it ever goes to trial and the judge releases the bail. Do I get my $10,000 back?

Next, let's say the case does go to trial and my family member appears as ordered. If he's acquitted do I get my $10,000 back? If he's found guilty, do I get my $10,000 back?

Last question, in the case of the Padillas, if Leonard P paid Tony P $50,000 of the $500,000 bond, was LP entitled to a refund of his $50,000 when KC's bond was revoked?"

Sorry for sounding so dumb, but I've always wondered exactly how and when a bail bondsman earns his money assuming the accused person doesn't take off and jump bail.

I could be wrong but I believe LP said the 50k he put up would be gone. meaning he wouldn't be getting it back. Also the bondsman has to make money so I am sure there is a fee as well for their services which could be the 10 percent. I guess I could ask our local bondswoman here as I'm not entirely sure but I think the 10 percent you pay is gone.