WFTV - STRICKLAND filed complaint against Baez!

[Chezhire]

:laugh:

As a rule of thumb the doodoo is very deep when it is the judge who is filing the bar complaint.

I admit I have a morbid fascination with exactly which of the potential ethical violations might be at play here. This case is like a bar exam question.

I can tell. So I went ahead and posted substantively, above.

 

[Hell's Belle]

Just because on 1/7/2009 DCasey related something to the cops that was later, in March, determined by Judge S to have been confidential/privileged information does NOT mean that things/information being received by DCasey via Casey or JBaez is still protected by any privilege, nor does it indicate the continued existence of a privilege. It merely means that on said date, 1/7/2009, he related information to the cops that was privileged at the time that he, DCasey, became privvy to said information. The date said information was related to the cops certainly doesn't indicate to us when it was related to DCasey by JBaez. :waitasec:

Judge Strickland's ruling wasn't determining that the information was privileged as of 1/7 only. It was still privileged (or exempt from disclosure) on 3/25. Hence his ruling.

 

[amethyst221]

However, Judge Strickland ruled on 3/25 that whatever DCasey told the cops on 1/7/2009, it WAS work product, it WAS privileged, and it would NOT be disclosed. I have a hard time reconciling that with your waiver argument.

Also, what the Anthonys tell THEIR attorney, Brad Conway, in confidence, IS privileged, and what Brad Conway tells HIS PI, DCasey, to do, could also be considered "work product."

I understand that attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are separate, but I disagree that the work product exemption from disclosure is analytically a privilege in the usual sense of the word. I wish Florida wouldn't use the term "attorney work product privilege."

BC didn't even represent the A's in November when the search occurred. They had another attorney until around mid-November, I believe. They employed BC virtually as they were on their way back from California, at the time remains were found.

 

[Hell's Belle]

BC didn't even represent the A's in November when the search occurred. They had another attorney until around mid-November, I believe. They employed BC virtually as they were on their way back from California, at the time remains were found.

I believe you are correct.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

OK - say PI when he was working for JB knew where the body was. Then his "contract" with JB ends....(stupid on JB's part not to keep him on the payroll to the end) he then says he is working for KC, CA and GA. Months pass, he and CA become close.....he tells her what he knows.....she tells him to go search the lot ..... what happens?

How does that put JB in deep dookey?

 

[Chezhire]

Wouldn't Casey's rights be violated if DCasey told George or Cindy information he had obtained as "work product" without Casey's permission?

I DO believe George and Cindy knew Caylee was dead and that DCasey was going to go look for her. But, maybe P.I. DCasey was their source,not their daughter, Casey.

How would a judge make that right?

Yes, if DCasey told Cindy or George information he had obtained as "work product" without Casey's permission - then anything/information that was discovered as a result of the breach of the privilege would be suppressed and inadmissible during any trial (assuming that the defense attorney files such a proper motion :doh

Remember: DCasey didn't find Caylee, and thus far, there's no connection between DCasey and Roy K.

 

[Marina2]

Just because on 1/7/2009 DCasey related something to the cops that was later, in March, determined by Judge S to have been confidential/privileged information does NOT mean that things/information being received by DCasey via Casey or JBaez is still protected by any privilege, nor does it indicate the continued existence of a privilege. It merely means that on said date, 1/7/2009, he related information to the cops that was privileged at the time that he, DCasey, became privvy to said information. The date said information was related to the cops certainly doesn't indicate to us when it was related to DCasey by JBaez. :waitasec:

That's how I see it. Baez knowledge of the body location was priviledged because DC knew this when he worked for Baez. Baez instruction to DC in November would not be priviledged because he no longer worked for him.

In order to disclose to investigators Baez' communication to him in November, DC necessarily had to include priviledged information, i.e, Baez knew where the body was.

 

[amethyst221]

I've subpoenaed, er, requested, MH, too.

MH won't be appearing to answer questions until infamous counsel has been retained to advise. JK!

 

[ThoughtElf]

Oh, but the next thing will be that she knew where the body was but didn't kill her. :waitasec:
They're weaving a very tangled web.

Believe it or not, I am feeling badly for the psychic. If any/all of this actually happened, then they dragged her in as a cover ruse.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

On JVM, JB wanted a 'private meeting between himself and Judge" last week,
Judge said 'no'...............and so the speculation is that JB has 'something' and
wanted more discovery before he gives it over????? IIRC

Hmm.
I wonder if Baez wanted more discovery from the SA before he gives his over, which would mean he is holding back discovery from the SA and that is also a violation I believe? Could be the tox report show that Caylee was drugged on many occasions as well and Baez is holding back or something else that was found through the autopsy and he wants to make sure the SA office don't have the same reports?. So many possibilities.

 

[ThoughtElf]

BC didn't even represent the A's in November when the search occurred. They had another attorney until around mid-November, I believe. They employed BC virtually as they were on their way back from California, at the time remains were found.

For the record, BC was retained 3 days before Caylee was found. He did not meet personally with them until their return from CA.

 

[Katana]

Maybe they tried to pay off the judge.

 

[amethyst221]

Really, every time I speculate a scenario, I end up talking myself out of it. I know what people say in their depositions, which doesn't clear everything up, but I still don't really know who worked for whom and exactly when. And who knows how much cross-contamination/non-safekeeping of information has occurred. How often did they all have meet-ups, with even media present, like the one at the Ritz? Do they all have common business and financial dealings or interests now, so that they and their lawyers and Pi's share information? I doubt J. Strickland would report something trivial, though.

 

[Hell's Belle]

Yes, if DCasey told Cindy or George information he had obtained as "work product" without Casey's permission - then anything/information that was discovered as a result of the breach of the privilege would be suppressed and inadmissible during any trial (assuming that the defense attorney files such a proper motion :doh

Remember: DCasey didn't find Caylee, and thus far, there's no connection between DCasey and Roy K.

I suppose it depends which way the information goes. I also don't see--yet--maybe I'm slow today--how DCasey blabbing to Cindy or George gave rise to information being discovered AS A CONSEQUENCE of the breach.* I mean, if DCasey has the information from JBaez, and he goes poking around in the woods based on that information from JBaez, and he's still working for Casey, where's the breach?

*Oh, I suppose the very fact that he was doing a search in the area where it turns out her body actually WAS is indirectly a disclosure of information.

 

[tehcloser]

Justice.

 

[Chezhire]

ITA that the controlling date is the date on which said information was relayed.

I've been continuing discussion on your below post, which you made in direct response to a quoted clip of an earlier post of mine, here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3572463#post3572463

wherein you left out the initial part of my paragraph, which read:
"I completely agree that work performed for an attorney can be that attorney's work product, but the Anthonys are NOT attorneys nor is JBaez their attorney nor are the Anthonys working for JBaez....," but you clip-quoted the remainder of my paragraph, which read "...ergo, anything that the Anthonys know is discoverable, including everything they to phld or instructed their PI, DCasey, to do for them."

You went on to post that:

However, Judge Strickland ruled on 3/25 that whatever DCasey told the cops on 1/7/2009, it WAS work product, it WAS privileged, and it would NOT be disclosed. I have a hard time reconciling that with your waiver argument.

Also, what the Anthonys tell THEIR attorney, Brad Conway, in confidence, IS privileged, and what Brad Conway tells HIS PI, DCasey, to do, could also be considered "work product."

I understand that attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine are separate, but I disagree that the work product exemption from disclosure is analytically a privilege in the usual sense of the word. I wish Florida wouldn't use the term "attorney work product privilege."

Just because on 1/7/2009 DCasey related something to the cops that was later, in March, determined by Judge S to have been confidential/privileged information does NOT mean that things/information being received by DCasey via Casey or JBaez is still protected by any privilege, nor does it indicate the continued existence of a privilege. It merely means that on said date, 1/7/2009, he related information to the cops that was privileged at the time that he, DCasey, became privvy to said information. The date said information was related to the cops certainly doesn't indicate to us when it was related to DCasey by JBaez. :waitasec:

Judge Strickland's ruling wasn't determining that the information was privileged as of 1/7 only. It was still privileged (or exempt from disclosure) on 3/25. Hence his ruling.

I don't understand from what you've written re: problems reconciling, as you state in your first post above.

If we agree that the date that the information at issue is related to the PI by the attorney is what controls, then what the heck does a ruling in March about some completely different information related to the cops by PI DCasey on 1/7/2009 have to do with the present thread, wherein we're discussing the potential that DCasey was first told some invrimintaing info by JBAez, and then was ALSO told the same information by Casey's parents, ergo, he can say what the parents said to him and, tada, the very information Casey might have liked to keep between she, her attorney and her PI, is now fair game?
I'm not being sarcastic.

 

[Chezhire]

I suppose it depends which way the information goes. I also don't see--yet--maybe I'm slow today--how DCasey blabbing to Cindy or George gave rise to information being discovered AS A CONSEQUENCE of the breach.* I mean, if DCasey has the information from JBaez, and he goes poking around in the woods based on that information from JBaez, and he's still working for Casey, where's the breach?

*Oh, I suppose the very fact that he was doing a search in the area where it turns out her body actually WAS is indirectly a disclosure of information.

I never said "DCasey blabbing to Cindy or George gave rise to information being discovered AS A CONSEQUENCE of the breach."
I have been saying the Anthonys might have blabbed to DCasey about things they knew from talking with Casey (or, I'll add here, with someone else who's not Casey's attorney, such as her bro, Lee.) Also if these "things" are the same things that DCasey had earlier heard from talking with JBaez - well, then there's the waiver - Casey didn't just tell her attorney, who asked the PI to go do some work for him, she also told her parents, who did ask the PI to go "bring Caylee home," assuming that's how it happened.
Course, I'm totally speculating here re: if this is even related to the substance of the complaint Judge S made against JBaez...

 

[Mendara]

My question is - if he was told NOT to call the police if he found Caylee, then WHAT were his instructions?

It still amazes me the amount of people participating in this circus that really don't care about justice for this child. I strongly feel this family and KC's lawyer were actually trying to obstruct justice and throw off the investigation by getting rid of the body after the fact - and every time I come back to this thought - I tried to talk myself out of if, thinking NO WAY they wouldn't do such a thing! Please can someone talk me down!!!

 

[kageykaren]

I feel MN the A's first attorney bowed out to avoid being in BC's predicament now! I would love to hear his interpretation of these PI's and what they new and how they new! I think it's time for the W/S poster to bring back, "Dewy, Cheat'em, & How" to descibe these bumbling _erds!

 

[Hell's Belle]

If we agree that the date that the information at issue is related to the PI by the attorney is what controls, then what the heck does a ruling in March about some completely different information related to the cops by PI DCasey on 1/7/2009? <respectfully snipped>

I don't think you're being sarcastic.

Here is my logical problem. How do we know that the information related to the cops by PI DCasey on 1/7/2009 IS completely different from the information related by the attorney to the PI?

Suppose it's the same information?