Tony Padilla Q&A

[magic-cat]

which is as bad as forgery!!!

It actually IS forgery. That would make the entire document a forged document. And from what I understand about what Tony has been telling us and what was said in court yesterday (Friday the 21st) the document presented in court is different even in content than what Tony originally signed.

Perhaps that is a good question for Tony...
What was different about the document that you actually signed and the one that was presented as part of that motion? Was the content of the document different than that which you signed?:waitasec:

 

[magic-cat]

See now, I get that. What I don't understand is why any document needed to be forged/altered to prove privileged, because by all accounts there were two documents which seem to allude to some sort of agreement by all parties to that effect albeit in separate documents. I guess the mash-up is what is most confusing to me, why not simply submit both agreements?

Thing is they were NOT working for the defense in any way shape or form. They were the bondsmen and they were protecting the half a million that was on the line. JB insisted on the agreement to keep them from speaking to or questioning his client, but the agreement does not make them part of the legal team, as Jose is implying.

 

[Marina2]

Can someone explain to me what it is JB intended to show by, hypothetically, altering this document? From my understanding he has supposedly added the signature from the separate agreement with TP to a document agreed upon and signed by LP, Tracy, and Rob. Is this correct? Or is the content of the document itself in question as well? It hardly seems that there is anything (going only off of what I have read here and by TP's statements) that he would need to protect his client or himself from in regards to whatever TP might have witnessed or know. Why take such a colossal risk? I am sure it is obvious and I am simply not making the connection, can anyone help me here?

I agree with you that it seems TP would have very little to offer the state. I think it's the content of what they all signed that will be questioned.

My thought is that JB typed up a brand new agreement, attached the entire "cast of characters" signatures to it and presented it in court as a true copy to support his motion. The signatores weren't noticed so that they wouldn't be aware of any discrepancy in the document.

I hope at least one of them has a copy of the document that was signed.

 

[Muzikman]

See now, I get that. What I don't understand is why any document needed to be forged/altered to prove privileged, because by all accounts there were two documents which seem to allude to some sort of agreement by all parties to that effect albeit in separate documents. I guess the mash-up is what is most confusing to me, why not simply submit both agreements? I suppose I understand the ends that he is reaching for, but not the means. That does not make sense to me. Particularly since it seems to relate mostly to TP's potential testimony rather than the other 3.

Good question. Why not? Would have to be that the docs didn't quite say what he needed them to.

I don't think he could get just one of their statements thrown out, it has to be all of them or none.

 

[DotsEyes]

JB said he had the original. We'll see.

Besides the obviously salacious nature of the document's birth, it will not prevent anyone from testifying against (or for) KC.

He took a shot at keeping these 4 from testifying. He couldn't prevent it by contract, but tried anyway. It is a civil matter now.

IIRC LP paid the 10% to TP out of his own pocket to secure the bond. It was a tricky subject as to who could and could not act as a surety in FL, but it got worked out somewhere and without any prompting or request from KC's defense. JB liked that KC was getting out, but didn't like the bondsman's conditions; that one of them would be in the house 24/7. It may have been ojectionable to the A's as well. Someone made a decision to keep the bondsman happy and Tracy showed up to stay with KC. The alternative was that KC would return to jail.

LP stated that he believed KC and that she could confide in him and he would find the bad guys. He believed that she needed to be home in order for him to get the information without taped jailhouse visits. So, they got her out to help her find her child and she promptly threw LP from the house refusing to say a word about the bad guys. LP got involved to help her find her child, not protect her evil self from protestors when while stayed mum. But he had too; he'd blown $50K on her and gotten his nephew on the hook for $450K if she took off.

LP knew that it wouldn't be too many days before LE arrested her on murder charges and the liability risk would be over without having to revoke her bond which would look VERY bad and be prejudicial to KC. I watched his disappointment when she turned out to be just another skanky criminal.

Who would turn down a free, reknown bounty-hunter in these circumstances? Only the guilty. Crushing blow. Then he set out to find Caylee's body. LP helped keep this case in the headlines with all of his antics and opinions and that cute little smirk smile and twinkling eyes.

But, his information was about as accurate as that of Bagdad Bob.

I saw a show about video about bounty hunters and as very flamboyant one starred in it. Something about untrained searchers not being able to follow tracks, they take paths instead and miss stuff. As an example, he tied some broken beads in a tree, right above where the searchers heads would be if they stayed on the path. They did and they missed the beads. No one looked up.

Then he dropped some beads at the base of a tree along a path. No one saw them either. He was being critical of untrained searchers and that it was better to hire trained, professional man hunters.

He did the same experiment with some of his student in training to test their skills and randomly placed beads in the woods. All of them saw the hanging beads and most of them starting searching for more on the ground and around trees and bushes off the path. They then tagged, documented and photographed what they found. I guess they passed.

I think about this and the beads at JBP all the time.

 

[Muzikman]

IMO, this thread should have been locked until he returned. Tony isn't going to want to search through this whole thread to find his questions, imo.

I understand what your saying, but his statement about the docs not being the ones he signed has HUGE implications/repercussions if his memory is correct.

 

[MaedchenX]

I agree with you that it seems TP would have very little to offer the state. I think it's the content of what they all signed that will be questioned.

My thought is that JB typed up a brand new agreement, attached the entire "cast of characters" signatures to it and presented it in court as a true copy to support his motion. The signatores weren't noticed so that they wouldn't be aware of any discrepancy in the document.

I hope at least one of them has a copy of the document that was signed.

I suspected that might be the case. I mean really, what a foolishly hubristic move, I would say more but I don't dare.

 

[Muzikman]

Dot, GREAT summation.

 

[Marina2]

I remember way back when investigators went to talk with Tracy and there was talk of her getting an attorney.

Maybe Tracy retained an attorney to advise her on her liability if she were to make any statements regarding conversations she had with KC. She might have needed legal clarification of the agreement she signed. Since she did make statements to LE, then maybe an attorney read over her agreement and advised her that she could speak with them based on it's contents. If this was her reason for retaining an attorney, she likely has her copy of the document she signed and it didn't bar her from making statements.

 

[DotsEyes]

See now, I get that. What I don't understand is why any document needed to be forged/altered to prove privileged, because by all accounts there were two documents which seem to allude to some sort of agreement by all parties to that effect albeit in separate documents. I guess the mash-up is what is most confusing to me, why not simply submit both agreements? I suppose I understand the ends that he is reaching for, but not the means. That does not make sense to me. Particularly since it seems to relate mostly to TP's potential testimony rather than the other 3.

Gotcha, seems to be a difference without a distinction, so why bother to alter the single document rather than produce both documents which purport to have similar content. I suggest it is because they do not have similar content or the revised top pages were never prepared. One shows intent, the other negligence.

One can not be held to a contract they didn't sign, period. TP said he contracted seperately and apart from the others. Their names and signatures are all on the same document. Something is wrong.

TP does not want himself or his business connected to the other 3 in some sort of implied employer/employee, agency relationship or collaboration which would hold him or his business responsible for their actions in a civil matter. This is why it is important to TP.

It is important to the court because it may very well be fabricated evidence. (no one is suggesting that TP's signature was forged, so calling it a forged document is technically incorrect) No matter why or how it was done, filing fabricated evidence into the record or producing fabricated evidence to the other side and certifying it to be accurate and true by signature is punishable by disbarrment. Seen it happen. It is ugly.

It is called perpetrating a fraud upon the court. The penalties are severe because those who are privileged to appear before the Bar are supposed to act with dignity and respect for the law and the court, otherwise there is no trust in the court system. Members who are dishonest and untrustworthy in their dealings with the court and other members are thrown out of the club.

It is serious stuff.

 

[Marina2]

Gotcha, seems to be a difference without a distinction, so why bother to alter the single document rather than produce both documents which purport to have similar content. I suggest it is because they do not have similar content or the revised top pages were never prepared. One shows intent, the other negligence.

Once can not be held to a contract they didn't sign, period. TP said he contracted seperately and appart from the others. Their names and signatures are all on the same document. Something is wrong.

TP does not want himself or his business connected to the other 3 in some sort of implied employer/employee, agency relationship or collaboration which would hold him responsible for their actions in a civil matter. This is why it is important to TP.

It is important to the court because it may very well be fabricated evidence. (no one is suggesting that TP's signature was forged, so calling it a forged document is technically incorrect) No matter why or how it was done, filing fabricated evidence into the record or producing fabricated evidence to the other side and certifying it to be accurate and true by signature is punishable by disbarrment. Seen it happen. It is ugly.

It is called perpetrating a fraud upon the court.

Even if the signature were a true signature, it's still a forged document if the signature was attached to a false instrument.

One of many types of forgeries:

"The fraudulent application of a true signature to a false instrument for which it was not intended or vice versa, will also be a forgery. For example, it is forgery in an individual who is requested to draw a will for a sick person in a particular way, instead of doing so, to insert legacies of his own head and then procuring the signature of such sick person to be affixed to the paper without revealing to him the legacies thus fraudulently inserted."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f056.htm

So, it is correct to say that what we are speculating is a forgery and presenting it in court in order to deceive is fraud.
Two career ending moves on JB's part if it is true and can be proven.

 

[magic-cat]

Tony-
Who was the third party in the office when you signed the document with Jose? Was it the notary or someone else?

 

[magic-cat]

Here is a screenshot of the signature page that has Tony AND Leonard's signatures along with the Notary seal for each. Now if what Tony recalls is true and accurate, and we have no reason to believe it is not, then there is no way his siggy and his uncles can be on this same page as he insisted on a document of his own...

Also interesting to note concerning the motion unto which this document is appended is the date when Jose filed the motion and his closing line in said motion. The date was July 16, 2009. We got a document dump on July 30th. This tells me that Jose and co. got the statements from LP and co. and filed this motion to keep the press from getting those statements. They otherwise, likely, would have been in that document dump of July 30 or the one of August 7. But the closing line of the motion is the dead giveaway:
"Additionally, this Court should bar the release of any statements to the media made by the above-named individuals."

 

[bailee]

It could be just me not being able to sleep, but there is something strange about the staple marks in the upper left hand corner of each page. This is really bugging me, as they don't all look the same.

Feel free to call me crazy lol!!!

 

[LaLaw2000]

I am actually a notary in WA and I don't keep copies, but for all notarizations I keep a log book with their identification info, the type of document notarized, date/time and they sign it (even if they are known to me).

I am a notary in Louisiana and I also keep a log similiar to yours, milliac, but I also record the names of everyone signing the document and the type of identification offered to me as proof of who they are. And to me the type of document is important. I would not dream of not keeping logs!

ETA: I do not read the actual document, but I do skim over the pages and note the number of pages.

I have only had to go to court once to identify my signature and notary seal.

 

[Jolynna]

I am a notary in Louisiana and I also keep a log similiar to yours, milliac, but I also record the names of everyone signing the document and the type of identification offered to me as proof of who they are. And to me the type of document is important. I would not dream of not keeping logs!

ETA: I do not read the actual document, but I do skim over the pages and note the number of pages.

I have only had to go to court once to identify my signature and notary seal.

A notary might have recorded that Tony, Rob, Tracy and Leonard signed privacy agreement(s) on August 19, but that isn't proof of WHAT was in the agreement(s). Aren't most legal documents initialed by the contract parties somewhere in the body of the document?

The way that document is put together with signature pages separate from the body of the contract it would be easy to take the contract apart and to restaple the sigs to another contract. Those pagess have been taken apart and restapled more than once.

 

[LaLaw2000]

A notary might have recorded that Tony, Rob, Tracy and Leonard signed privacy agreement(s) on August 19, but that isn't proof of WHAT was in the agreement(s). Aren't most legal documents initialed by the contract parties somewhere in the body of the document?

The way that document is put together with signature pages separate from the body of the contract any contract could be put together with any agreement.

Actually, for quite a while, I notorized inmate appeals and so forth. I would have them initial every single page.

In the private sector (which is what I am in now), a notary can notorize a person's will but it has to be initialed on each page and in proper form. By proper form I mean that the person who wrote it has to put the proper elements in. This is actually a part of what you study in order to get your commission seal.

To me, the copy in the post above where it shows TP's signature at the top of the page looks out of context to me. JMO, MOO

 

[LaLaw2000]

The third person in the room with Baez and Tony should have been the notary, IMO.


MOO

 

[Jolynna]

Actually, for quite a while, I notorized inmate appeals and so forth. I would have them initial every single page.

In the private sector (which is what I am in now), a notary can notorize a person's will but it has to be initialed on each page and in proper form. By proper form I mean that the person who wrote it has to put the proper elements in. This is actually a part of what you study in order to get your commission seal.

To me, the copy in the post above where it shows TP's signature at the top of the page looks out of context to me. JMO, MOO

BBM...

Exactly.

Not an initial to be found in that agreement.

 

[Jolynna]

As I said in a previous post, there is more than one staple mark on those documents.The rest of Baez's motion (besides the agreement) does have one staple mark but none of the copier dirt that every page of the Privacy Agreement has.

So the agreement part of the motion has to be a copy of a copy.

Actually I'm not sure what detached signature pages prove should the signature pages be found. There are no sigs or initials anywhere in the document. Not by the date or by the names (you'd expect one of those places to have initials).