Where is Casey? (All things related to FCA's location) #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moving for Deanna82437 who posted this in the States Recovering Costs thread - it looks to me that that busy girl Lisbeth is appealing the Appeal Court decision.



What do the rest of you think?

I'll let you know when I stop laughing. :floorlaugh:

Sadly I feel like I'm watching her career go down in flames the more she tries to argue for the DT. She needs to cut her losses and run far far away....
 
I'm surely no expert, but the way those forms read, and considering honesty, etc., as a condition of serving probation, I would think that any attempts to 'hide' any income (overseas, funds in the names of others, etc.) would be made much more difficult to pull off. Hope so, anyway. :D

Folks manage to successfully hide funds from the IRS all the time. Hiding it from Fla D.O.C. should not be that difficult. Off shore accounts is pretty well untraceable.
 
http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/Parents_Blame_Python_Sentencing_on_Casey_Anthony_128374898.html

Parents Blame Python Sentencing on Casey Anthony

Oh My! Probably OT, but best thread, I think.

..yep--------the fact that they had it in a 'cage' that was too small, "secured" with a blanket on top , held in place by safety pins no less-----AND---admit that they hadn't fed the snake in a MONTH, have absolutely nothing to do with it.....it's all kc's anthony's fault.
 
Yes, but even if Florida said "YES" you can bet the State she requested would return it with a big fat :denied: with an addendum that said in big red letters - GET REAL FLORIDA! -

Even if accepted by another state, they might not agree to keep her address confidential and/or keep her mug shot off their public database.
 
Moving for Deanna82437 who posted this in the States Recovering Costs thread - it looks to me that that busy girl Lisbeth is appealing the Appeal Court decision.

What do the rest of you think?

..i just noticed that in addition to pointing out to them, that they were WRONG four times-----she begins by letting them know that it didn't escape her and cheney that the Appeals Court had failed to SIGN their Order before sending it to them...

..good grief lisabeth....
 
..i just noticed that in addition to pointing out to them, that they were WRONG four times-----she begins by letting them know that it didn't escape her and cheney that the Appeals Court had failed to SIGN their Order before sending it to them...

..good grief lisabeth....

CMs still burned about his notary stamp from the prior decade.
 
Some information on trusts for you!

A revocable living trust offers minimal protection from creditors. While the trust itself would not be a party to the action, a creditor can generally attach the assets to secure liabilities of the beneficiaries or of the grantor/trustees during their lifetime.

That generality, however, is subject to a lot of variables. Trusts drafted with different specific provisions will afford differing levels of protection.

The "best" way to protect your assets is very complicated question and is dependent upon several additional variables, such as: what do you want to protect your assets from? what do you want to preserve the assets for? (i.e. for future use to provide for your own needs, to pass on to heirs, etc.) Is it an estate tax planning issue, a potential future crfeditor issue, future health care needs issue, and so on.

A couple of examples may help to illustrate the reason for the "it depends" answer.

An Offshore Asset Protection Trust, established in the appropriate jurisdiction may be the answer for some - it would provide a very high level of protection for the trust assets in the event of a lawsuit for which you are liable for amounts in excess of your net worth. It may be more expensive to set up than other trusts, may require a high minimum fundingf, and will likley also involve fees for the trust administration and may require a trustee in the jurisdication of the trust. Additionally, your trust assets are not readily available for your use in the event that you need them for living expenses.

An irrevocable trust, properly structured, can offer a high level of protection from creditors and health care needs issues, as well. Here again, though, the trust assets are no longer available for the use of the grantor. Once the assets are placed into the irrevocable trust, the grantor relinquishes all control, use, and benefit of the assets to the Trustee and, ultimately the named beneficiaries. As the name implies, once in place, the gtantor can not simply revoke the trust.

The more common type of trust we see in estate planning is the revocable living trust (aka living trust). The biggest benefit is that it provides for a more efficient means of passing the assets along to the intended beneficiaries at the time of the grantor's death.

Under a will, the estate must be settled through the probate court,following procedures and formalities prescribed by statute. This process exposes the estate distribution to public scrutiny, as the entire process is public record, and it involves significant delay and expense. In my jurisdiction it is roughly estimated to take 16 months and 5-8% of the estate assets in fees to complete estate settlement through probate.

With a properly drafted trust, the public record, delays and additional expense are avoided.

Bear in,mind that tax implications can insert another level of complexity to what is the best planning technique for a given situation.

I have a pretty strong opinion that this is not an area where one-size-fits-all. It would be best to contact a competent attorney practising estate planning law in your area.

Do not forget that CA went to see a high priced financial planner. And there is no doubt in my mind that the whole clan is still very much involved with each other which would include financial matters, regardless what Lippman has been spouting as propaganda for acceptable public image purpose..
A "blind" trust could also be a handy dandy for KC.
 
The unsigned Order.

Hate to tell you, but that really is a valid point. Unsigned Orders are not considered binding, they are just paper with typing on them. Anyone can type an Order up and put it on the Judge's desk. They can, and usually do, sit there a long time before the Judge has time to review and sign.

Slight issue, but easily corrected by a Judge's signature, or an attorney's signature if that is missing, all signatures must be there. (Or a Judge can waive an attorney signature if he feels whatever the Order is about is more important than the legal semantics. If that happens, it will be clearly noted, usually in the Judge's handwriting.)
 
Also, on the rules #6 talks about alcohol and that she cannot visit places where alcohol is unlawfully sold. Does that mean she can visit legal bars and maybe even work there?

Sure she can, but is only allowed to get slightly intoxicated and not legally drunk:innocent:Who would hire her to work in their establishment, bet even their liability insurance company would bark at that.:crazy:
 
..i just noticed that in addition to pointing out to them, that they were WRONG four times-----she begins by letting them know that it didn't escape her and cheney that the Appeals Court had failed to SIGN their Order before sending it to them...

..good grief lisabeth....

Huh - maybe she should check her mail - the actual motion is probably sitting there on fancy Appeals Court paper and all...with the lovely court stamp...:innocent:

You could ask Baez if he's hiding it..... :floorlaugh:
 
Sure she can, but is only allowed to get slightly intoxicated and not legally drunk:innocent:Who would hire her to work in their establishment, bet even their liability insurance company would bark at that.:crazy:

Anybody know what the "blow" is on impairment down in Florida? Up here it's either .05 or .08, which is approx 2 drinks depending on how big you are. Better not be driving in this province if you are or prepare to cough up a lot of money and lose your vehicle....
 
The unsigned Order.

Hate to tell you, but that really is a valid point. Unsigned Orders are not considered binding, they are just paper with typing on them. Anyone can type an Order up and put it on the Judge's desk. They can, and usually do, sit there a long time before the Judge has time to review and sign.

Slight issue, but easily corrected by a Judge's signature, or an attorney's signature if that is missing, all signatures must be there. (Or a Judge can waive an attorney signature if he feels whatever the Order is about is more important than the legal semantics. If that happens, it will be clearly noted, usually in the Judge's handwriting.)

Bah, just checked, Susan Wright, the Court Clerk signed it to swear it was a true copy of the original order. Maybe it's the original one she's arguing about - but I still think she is pushing her luck.....as we say...:innocent: Maybe they just "rule and roll" in Daytona Beach also....
 
Just heard on HLN a TH said in answer to where she's living that she did drive to the probation office.
Did we ever hear anything from that motion about trying to get her DL back?
I wonder if the A's have passed one of their SUVs over to KC?
Is the motor vehicle dept open to the public for vehicle registrations?
 
I'm sorry but HLN & TMZ needs to hire some new people. They are still reporting that FICA has started her online classes as of yesterday. TMZ reporter wasn't even sure whether she had her GED and if she even needed it to take college classes and then followed up with CA saying FICA was one half credit short of graduating. Reporting that she has a crew of security to protect her when she goes out in public but then reports she drove herself to probation office. Judge Seidlin says after cooling off period he expects she will end up in hollywood/entertainment business. I imagine Gretl Plessinger is pretty irritated by now. She seemed pretty tired of repeating herself yesterday and they still have it wrong unless anyone found new information out today.
I think they should interview some WSers for positions at their station.
 
..bob kealing tweeted on that recently----so they haven't let up on it anyway..

bobkealingbob kealing
Nadda yet“@starmonkie2: @nodoubt12wrong @ **Hey BOB! what happened to the request to unsealrecords to see how 200,000 was spent ?
11 Aug

bobkealingbob kealing
Not that ive seen yet“@notthatsmart1: @starmonkie2@nodoubt12wrong is defense fighting public records request for info on the 200000.00?”
11 Aug

( hmmm..interesting that "notthatsmart" is wondering about it..)

Glad to hear the issue is still open. Thanks for that.

I hope it's not inappropriate to ask, but I'm curious.....what is the significance of "notthatsmart" wondering about it? Is that someone I should know or know of?
 
..bob kealing tweeted on that recently----so they haven't let up on it anyway..

bobkealingbob kealing
Nadda yet“@starmonkie2: @nodoubt12wrong @ **Hey BOB! what happened to the request to unsealrecords to see how 200,000 was spent ?
11 Aug

bobkealingbob kealing
Not that ive seen yet“@notthatsmart1: @starmonkie2@nodoubt12wrong is defense fighting public records request for info on the 200000.00?”
11 Aug

( hmmm..interesting that "notthatsmart" is wondering about it..)

NTS with a twitter! :eek:
 
Glad to hear the issue is still open. Thanks for that.

I hope it's not inappropriate to ask, but I'm curious.....what is the significance of "notthatsmart" wondering about it? Is that someone I should know or know of?


I'm wondering the same thing. Maybe someone could pm us to explain if thats ok.
 
Glad to hear the issue is still open. Thanks for that.

I hope it's not inappropriate to ask, but I'm curious.....what is the significance of "notthatsmart" wondering about it? Is that someone I should know or know of?

He/she posts on the Orlando Sentinel site quite a bit. Don't read it that much, but seems to be pro KC. Hope it's ok to post this :waitasec:
 
No wonder they couldn't figure out the days she had off for good behavior. They don't know math very well.

On her rules that she signed, it said she would pay $20 plus 4% surcharge each month. Then, they actually multiply it out $20.00 x 12 = $120 plus surcharge of $4.80 for a grand total of $124.80. Anyone that knows any math knows that the total should be $240.00 plus $9.60 for $249.60 (if I did it right). No wonder she was so eager to sign that agreement sheet.

She's getting it at half price or this considered another scrivener's error?

Amazing, really. I missed this when I skimmed the document earlier today, so thanks for this. Have to say, however........it's just one more 'thing' about this whole case that's so maddening. Scrivener's error, indeed.......and right on the heels of another quite controversial one. Makes me embarrassed to be a Florida resident.

WHAT next?!? :rolleyes: Thanks again, though (not shooting the messenger!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
2,132
Total visitors
2,202

Forum statistics

Threads
601,010
Messages
18,117,147
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top