WFTV - STRICKLAND filed complaint against Baez!

[whiteangora]

Please tell me that this is the beginning of all that side's karma starting to bite their butts.

Lady Karma is pretty hungry today.
And here I thought how boring it was gonna
be waiting for the trial.:nyah:

 

[Chezhire]

It depends. If DC overheard some communication between JB and Casey WHILE he was acting as an "agent" for JB then yes, it is privileged. If however he was no longer acting as JB's "agent" then privilege is waived because a third party was present during the attorney/client communication.

Further confusing things to the non-attorney (or to the "attorney who-knows-not-how-to-practice,") is when privileged information is shared with the PI while PI works for Attorney, but then the SAME INFORMATION is, at a later time, after PI's contractual relationship with Attorney ends, shared with PI by defendant's parents (as in the Anthonys) and then the PI winds up talking with Attorney on the darn phone about the information. :doh:
At this point, since 3rd parties - the Anthonys - are privy to the information, it's NOT PROTECTED BY ANY PRIVILEGE ANY LONGER!

 

[Chezhire]

DCasey told John Allen on 1/7/2009 that he still had a direct contractual relationship with Casey Anthony. Page 35, line 22 through page 36, line 24.

I'd like to see that contract - again, just because DCasey says it's so doesn't mean it's so. Like I said, I read the depositions, but I don't believe that DCasey still had any contractual relationship with Casey/JBaez as of January. I believe DCasey's contract ended prior to November.

 

[KeysBreeze]

Further confusing things to the non-attorney (or to the "attorney who-knows-not-how-to-practice,") is when privileged information is shared with the PI while PI works for Attorney, but then the SAME INFORMATION is, at a later time, after PI's contractual relationship with Attorney ends, shared with PI by defendant's parents (as in the Anthonys) and then the PI winds up talking with Attorney on the darn phone about the information. :doh:
At this point, since 3rd parties - the Anthonys - are privy to the information, it's NOT PROTECTED BY ANY PRIVILEGE ANY LONGER!

Can Jose use funds from the blood of Caylee to fund his defense in this matter?

 

[whisperOFwings]

:clap:


Weeelllll...that little ole afidavit Casey recently signed under oath DOES come to mind...
Perjury, anyone?!?!?!

Ooooooohh, I forgot about that, you have a good memory!!!

 

[Hell's Belle]

I'd like to see that contract - again, just because DCasey says it's so doesn't mean it's so. Like I said, I read the depositions, but I don't believe that DCasey still had any contractual relationship with Casey/JBaez as of January. I believe DCasey's contract ended prior to November.

He says there was a letter of engagement, there could legitimately have been an oral contract. DCasey specifically stated that he had a contractual relationship with CaseyA (and with her parents IIRC) but NOT with JBaez after October.

 

[Hell's Belle]

Further confusing things to the non-attorney (or to the "attorney who-knows-not-how-to-practice,") is when privileged information is shared with the PI while PI works for Attorney, but then the SAME INFORMATION is, at a later time, after PI's contractual relationship with Attorney ends, shared with PI by defendant's parents (as in the Anthonys) and then the PI winds up talking with Attorney on the darn phone about the information. :doh:
At this point, since 3rd parties - the Anthonys - are privy to the information, it's NOT PROTECTED BY ANY PRIVILEGE ANY LONGER!

Not sure if this is correct in Florida, because I'm not sure if their ethics rules preserve the distinction between a "confidence" and a "secret." The obligation to preserve a secret can survive the termination of the relationship.

 

[Chezhire]

Can Jose use funds from the blood of Caylee to fund his defense in this matter?

It depends upon what entity/person the funds are sent /remitted to, and whether or not the sender attempts to direct the recipient regarding how the funds will be used.
If Casey is selling images and videos through JBaez, she hasn't been convicted, so I'd say that yes, JBaez can use the money to fund Casey's defense at Casey's direction.

 

[Chezhire]

Further confusing things to the non-attorney (or to the "attorney who-knows-not-how-to-practice,") is when privileged information is shared with the PI while PI works for Attorney, but then the SAME INFORMATION is, at a later time, after PI's contractual relationship with Attorney ends, shared with PI by defendant's parents (as in the Anthonys) and then the PI winds up talking with Attorney on the darn phone about the information. :doh:
At this point, since 3rd parties - the Anthonys - are privy to the information, it's NOT PROTECTED BY ANY PRIVILEGE ANY LONGER!

Emphasis added.

Not sure if this is correct in Florida, because I'm not sure if their ethics rules preserve the distinction between a "confidence" and a "secret." Secrets can survive the termination of the relationship.

Not if the parents were told the same information by the defendant, which is what I'm talking about when I say "shared with PI by defendant's parents" - meaning that the PI first learned about the information from the Attorney, but then heard the exact same information from the defendant's parents, meaning that the defendant has waived the privilege by telling her parents, who then tell the PI.

 

[Marina2]

Sure, if DCasey used or relied upon info he ONLY knew/received while working for JBaez - then it's privileged.

Problem is that it's real clear, what with the timing of DCasey's being hired by the Anthonys and THEN saying we're going to go get her, etc., to me that whatever he was being told, he was hearing it then, in Nov., and not previously while employed by JBaez. And you can bet that the ANthonys, who were paying DCasey, knew all about this, too, so there's no privilege between Casey--> parents--> DCasey, and it doesn't matter if JBaez also knew at the time Casey's parents told DCasey.

But I'll bet you JBaez screwed up the privilege issues in his own mind. :doh:

The statement was sealed because it contained "work product". Maybe the work product was the fact that Baez knew where the body was and DC knew this when he was working for Baez = priviledged info.

Then, in November, Baez instructs DC to do something with the body or something equally wrong. This would not be priviledged because he no longer worked for Baez. DC's statement regarding this would include the priviledged information (knowing where the body was) and the unpriviledged instructions given by Baez in November.

The statement would have to be sealed because priviledged information would be disclosed in the course of disclosing what Baez told DC to do in November.

Does this make sense or seem logical? I'm having a hard time figuring out what is the priviledged part and what isn't.

 

[ThoughtElf]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here... these are the FL Bar disciplinary stats for the past 3 years. JB might find himself in a very select group:

http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBLa...f4ab3ff7cb9a5afa85256b2f006c9f09?OpenDocument

I wish there were corresponding stats on how many of the complaints had been filed by Judges.

 

[KeysBreeze]

It depends upon what entity/person the funds are sent /remitted to, and whether or not the sender attempts to direct the recipient regarding how the funds will be used.
If Casey is selling images and videos through JBaez, she hasn't been convicted, so I'd say that yes, JBaez can use the money to fund Casey's defense at Casey's direction.

Thank you, but I mean Jose's legal trouble with the bar because it does somewhat relate to his defense of Casey. Sorry, if I don't make sense.

ETA I wonder if Jose will hire a newbie attorney like himself or will he get an experienced one.

 

[Macushla]

I rather doubt it - he's been out of the case for so long. . . Course, maybe so in regards to TES???
Again, these types of reporting requirements usually have to be done "seasonably," which doesn't mean in a few months, weeks, etc. It informally means 14 days or less where I practice.

That raises an interesting question. the interview D. Casey did with detectives was awhile ago, wasn't it? Longer than 2 weeks anyway. The ONLY thing that has been 'secret' that has been within the two weeks that 'might' be the time frame for reporting was the 'in camera' session from the last motion hearing!! but Strickland ruled that there was no problem in that hearing didn't he?

 

[whisperOFwings]

If and when it comes out definitively, will you really be surprised?

Nope!!!!
Sadly, I have been expecting it!!!! GRRRRR..... and it really pi$$es me OFF!!!:furious:

 

[zadari]

If and when it comes out definitively, will you really be surprised?

well not now i suppose not i didnt think EVERYONE involved with the a's would help that thing they call a daughter .. i feel bad now that i tried to see some good in any of them god

 

[Hell's Belle]

Emphasis added.



Not if the parents were told the same information by the defendant, which is what I'm talking about when I say "shared with PI by defendant's parents" - meaning that the PI first learned about the information from the Attorney, but then heard the exact same information from the defendant's parents, meaning that the defendant has waived the privilege by telling her parents, who then tell the PI.

CaseyA doesn't "waive" anything by telling her parents, without more, the same facts she told her lawyer. She can't claim a privilege as to statements made to her parents, but her telling her parents the same thing she told her lawyer doesn't make the statements to lawyer not confidential. Her statement to her parents is an admission against penal interest, and therefore not hearsay IF her parents were to testify about it, but I don't see such a statement as a waiver of *anything*, unless she says to her parents, "As I told my lawyer, here's where's Casey's body is." If the parents tell DCasey, he is working for them and for Casey (according to him) and his work is their work product (potentially).

 

[Jay D]

Yep. He'd better hire himself a darn good malpractice/ethics-professionalism complaint lawyer.

Actually, I believe he is being represented by Tim Chinaris, a respected attorney. If I recall, he has served on the board of the Ethics Commitee of the Florida Bar in the past.

 

[JSR]

Actually, I've been thinking Strickland could have filed the complaint AFTER reviewing the retainer agreement JB was supposed to submit to his chambers. Or it really could be that JB instructed DC to destroy or move evidence.

 

[Chezhire]

CaseyA doesn't "waive" anything by telling her parents, without more, the same facts she told her lawyer. Her statement is an admission against penal interest, and therefore not hearsay IF her parents were to testify about it, but I don't see it as a waiver of anything, unless she says, "As I told my lawyer, here's where's Casey's body is." If the parents tell DCasey, he is working for them and for Casey (according to him) and his work is their work product (potentially).

Yes, she does. If Casey tells her attorney information in confidence, such as where Caylee's body was located, never intending to take the witness stand, and the attorney goes on to tell the PI so that the PI can search Suburban Drive on some date, that information would normally be protected by the Attorney Work Product Privilege. However, if Casey also tells her parents the same facts, who go on to AGAIN tell the PI these facts and asking that the PI "GO GET CAYLEE," as DCasey was instructed by someone to do, then Casey has waived the attorney work product privilege that would have covered all of the information given to the PI by Casey's attorney.

Non -attorneys don't have "work product" privileges (it's called the "attorney work product privilege,") so any work performed by DCasey at the bequest of the Anthonys will never be "privileged."

 

[Jolynna]

But, what IF the Anthony's source WAS P.I. Casey?

If Baez's agent "talks" after ending the Baez-DCasey business relationship, Casey's rights are as violated as if Baez himself talked.

How does a judge rectify it?

Thanks in advance to the WS attorneys.