ZFG Civil Case: Casey's Deposition #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
dang I made this big fuss about reading the depo and I forgot it even happened. I opened my comp and saw it on my desktop and I was like **** fire and save matches, what is this **** doing on my desktop then I remembered :floorlaugh:
 
logicalgirl said:
Thanks for that watcher9 and just to be clear - this is the actual appeal filed or was it a notice that they will file?

You can see how high my trust level is for this Defense Team.....
Click to expand...

Maybe one of our lawyers can answer some of this for us, but it looks to me as if the initial appeal has been filed, and the state has countered with a couple requests for summary judgement (probably not the right term, but I'm not a lawyer/chemist either!). This last request for extension of time was by FCA for her 'record', the earlier one was for the state's records, if I'm reading this correctly. Maybe that note added to the last court's extension of time is saying that the court transcripts are now available and they're warning that another extension won't be granted without proof from the court reporter that something isn't available? I'm hoping they're saying it's time to play ball or leave the field, maybe?

Today there is now a new line dated 11/1 saying FCA has responded to the last request by the state for judgement , and now we wait to hear the court's ruling on that response.

I suspect this is all just a way for the DT to draw all this out so FCA can claim a basis for the 5th amendment claim in the civil suits, but if so I wonder how long they can keep this going, and also whether she can appeal this decision to the FL Supreme Court, assuming she loses this one.
 
LinTX said:
Maybe one of our lawyers can answer some of this for us, but it looks to me as if the initial appeal has been filed, and the state has countered with a couple requests for summary judgement (probably not the right term, but I'm not a lawyer/chemist either!). This last request for extension of time was by FCA for her 'record', the earlier one was for the state's records, if I'm reading this correctly. Maybe that note added to the last court's extension of time is saying that the court transcripts are now available and they're warning that another extension won't be granted without proof from the court reporter that something isn't available? I'm hoping they're saying it's time to play ball or leave the field, maybe?

Today there is now a new line dated 11/1 saying FCA has responded to the last request by the state for judgement , and now we wait to hear the court's ruling on that response.

I suspect this is all just a way for the DT to draw all this out so FCA can claim a basis for the 5th amendment claim in the civil suits, but if so I wonder how long they can keep this going, and also whether she can appeal this decision to the FL Supreme Court, assuming she loses this one.
Click to expand...

Well where I'm ....:waitasec: ...is did she appeal the monetary judgements against her or are these latest talking about the appeal for lying....or is it all mixed up together...

Then again re the lying, she isn't saying she didn't lie - she's saying it is one big whopper, not four - isn't that right? So whether or not she wins her lying appeal and it is one lie (fat chance) - the monetary judgements would still stand...right? IMO
 
logicalgirl said:
Well where I'm ....:waitasec: ...is did she appeal the monetary judgements against her or are these latest talking about the appeal for lying....or is it all mixed up together...

Then again re the lying, she isn't saying she didn't lie - she's saying it is one big whopper, not four - isn't that right? So whether or not she wins her lying appeal and it is one lie (fat chance) - the monetary judgements would still stand...right? IMO
Click to expand...

The original objection in Perry's court was for it being 4 counts instead of 1, either of those would include the 1 year & $1,000 for each. The appeal did specify the ruling of July 7th which would be the 4 lying convictions, so unless I'm missing something (very possible) I don't think it has to do with repaying state expenses.

eta: looked at docket again and notice the notes on the order Granting Relinquishment of Jurisdiction, which do reference the state costs judgement, so maybe the original filing was amended and the $'s for state costs are part of this appeal. Who knows?
 
Well Done 99 said:
Finnell speaking on what a great mother OCA was: ' ....... or didn't give it a bath'
'IT'? To them Caylee really is just a byproduct isn't she?
Click to expand...

My mother-in-law calls babies "it." Fortunately, she stopped way before they turned 2, but she made my mother want to scream when my daughter was a newborn. All the grandparents were watching her through the nursery window and mil kept saying, "Oh, they're giving it a bath. I wonder if it's hungry. GRRRR." My mil is NOT a good mother, none of her kids would say that she is.

I think that Finnell just wanted to deny Caylee her personhood by calling her "the child" and "it."

Her name is Caylee and she was a beautiful little girl.
 
Steely Dan said:
I think that Mr. Morgan's question regarding "which case" may be to nail down the exact trial so he can ask the judge for a stay or whatever they call it until that case is settled and she has no reason to plead the fifth. JMO
Click to expand...
You mean drag on Zenaida's case even longer?
 
logicalgirl said:
Well where I'm ....:waitasec: ...is did she appeal the monetary judgements against her or are these latest talking about the appeal for lying....or is it all mixed up together...

Then again re the lying, she isn't saying she didn't lie - she's saying it is one big whopper, not four - isn't that right? So whether or not she wins her lying appeal and it is one lie (fat chance) - the monetary judgements would still stand...right? IMO
Click to expand...

What confuses me (and that seems to happen often these days) is that, regardless of whether it was one lie or four, the prosecution in the ZFG case will still assert that part of the one lie or one of the four lies still constituted the implication of and accusation against - thus the ruination of - ZG .... didn't it?
I agree with you that it must be about the money because it's difficult to see how the outcome of the appeal would affect the outcome of the ZFG case and vice-versa, or how it would relate to taking the fifth.
She's not appealling the conviction for lying ..... so the lie or lies was/were about Zenaida or they weren't.
 
Well Done 99 said:
What confuses me (and that seems to happen often these days) is that, regardless of whether it was one lie or four, the prosecution in the ZFG case will still assert that part of the one lie or one of the four lies still constituted the implication of and accusation against - thus the ruination of - ZG .... didn't it?
I agree with you that it must be about the money because it's difficult to see how the outcome of the appeal would affect the outcome of the ZFG case and vice-versa, or how it would relate to taking the fifth.
She's not appealling the conviction for lying ..... so the lie or lies was/were about Zenaida or they weren't.
Click to expand...

Bolding by me....

I was under the impression that she was in fact appealing the conviction itself. I think under the grounds that she was not properly marandized, I think? In the event that doesn't work, I think she's falling back on she should have just been convicted on one lie, not four. Does anyone know for sure?
 
Dells said:
Bolding by me....

I was under the impression that she was in fact appealing the conviction itself. I think under the grounds that she was not properly marandized, I think? In the event that doesn't work, I think she's falling back on she should have just been convicted on one lie, not four. Does anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...

I don't know if she is even able to appeal the mirandizing but she is appealing the lies - says it's one lie not four...
 
:truce:
Dells said:
Bolding by me....

I was under the impression that she was in fact appealing the conviction itself. I think under the grounds that she was not properly marandized, I think? In the event that doesn't work, I think she's falling back on she should have just been convicted on one lie, not four. Does anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...

Ah ok. Thanks. I've possibly not read back far enough and was unaware of the 'rights' component to it, so I may have been a little ambiguous there.
My meaning was that technically she is not contesting the fact that she lied - she admits it - but rather whether it was one lie or four. Regardless, that lie or those lies included a story about the involvement of ZG.
 
Dells said:
Bolding by me....

I was under the impression that she was in fact appealing the conviction itself. I think under the grounds that she was not properly marandized, I think? In the event that doesn't work, I think she's falling back on she should have just been convicted on one lie, not four. Does anyone know for sure?
Click to expand...
I believe they lost that round during a pretrial hearing on whether the state could use OCA's statements to LE during the trial. I'm not sure you can appeal that now.
 
I really don't see how the judge could say that pleading the 5th was legit. Morgan asked the correct questions that pretained directly to this case involving his client. He didn't showboat, he didn't ask anything IMO that didn't constitute an answer regarding ZG and FCA and the "relationship" FCA made exist between the two parties.

I just don't see how the attorney for FCA think they can have these relevant questions refused? And, if they ARE allowed, the State has more fuel for FCA's lying appeal.

We'll just have to see who butters the bread better for the judge because to me it's cut and dry here. She should HAVE to answer ANY and ALL questions related to ZG.
 
Insomnia Momma said:
I really don't see how the judge could say that pleading the 5th was legit. Morgan asked the correct questions that pretained directly to this case involving his client. He didn't showboat, he didn't ask anything IMO that didn't constitute an answer regarding ZG and FCA and the "relationship" FCA made exist between the two parties.

I just don't see how the attorney for FCA think they can have these relevant questions refused? And, if they ARE allowed, the State has more fuel for FCA's lying appeal.

We'll just have to see who butters the bread better for the judge because to me it's cut and dry here. She should HAVE to answer ANY and ALL questions related to ZG.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely agree Insomnia Momma - I got the idea that Mr. Morgan wanted this consistent "pleading the 5th" on record to be able to go back to the judge in the case and ask for her to compel answers...
 
watcher9 said:
On news thread okiedokietoo posted an update on the lying conviction appeal.
Probably needs to go to the right thread, but since it was brought up....

10/28/2011 Show Cause Lack of Prosecution, Initial Brief/ROA 11/07/2011 W/I 10 DYS
10/31/2011 Motion Extension of Time To File Record Appellant
11/01/2011 Order Granting Time Extension To File Record
---DATE DUE 01/17/2012 ANY FURTHER REQUESTS FOR AN EOT FOR THIS PURPOSE MUST BE ACCOMPANIED...

So it looks like next year just to file a "record" whatever that is.
Is this the same judge?
Click to expand...

Okay - here is AZLawyer's translation of what the "above" means...

AZlawyer said:
It looks like Casey's lawyers didn't file the trial transcript with the appellate court on time and got an extension until 1/17/02.
Click to expand...

IMO - Looks like stalling to me! Didn't they do this also with one of their other appeals?
 
Oh, I'm so surprised...Not.
What a rookie move huh? I so wish someone would put the skids on this kind of behavior. I've said it I don't know how many times but I'll say it again if I were a Florida tax payer I'd be doing whatever I could to stop this trash from happening over and over again.
 
logicalgirl said:
Okay - here is AZLawyer's translation of what the "above" means...



IMO - Looks like stalling to me! Didn't they do this also with one of their other appeals?
Click to expand...

I don.t understand about the trial transcript they must have copies at their law office (for their reading enjoyment) or did they just forget.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 170 more.
Total: 2,688 (members: 171, guests: 2,517)

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
2,517
Total visitors
2,688
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,419
Messages
18,108,468
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top