Ok. Baez's argument is sound here. If TM did get cooperation and information from LE and IF OSCO paid for any of the search, he was acting as their agent. As such, OSCO would be responsible to obtain their agent's records and reports and turn them over to Baez.
Baez asked that he be allowed to file an SDT to get TES's records. TES is in TX and the court has no jurisdiction over TES in Texas. Baez should have talked to TM first, to see if he would voluntarily turn over copies of whatever to Baez. He is not asking for copies of every sign-up document, or even any information about the searchers. He wants the information that TES used to determine search sites, days of searches, the identity of every area searched and any reports TM may have made of the day's search and findings. It is not a huge burden and if he wants, he can take it all to Kinko's at Mr. Baez's expense and Mr. Baez's paralegal will stand and watch as copies are made, so that none get "released". This happens all day every day in the practice of law.
It was insulting to even suggest that a member of the Bar might himself sell photos of Caylee's skeleton. He has every right to be insulted, personally. Sometimes the State forgets they must also adhere to the Rules of Professional Responsibility, Counduct and The Canons of Ethics. Some States now have Rules of Professional Behavior.
YOU just do not accuse Bar members of anything without some PROOF! And you surely do not imply it in pleadings. I am sorry that both sides have been guilty of this behavior.
As far as the Judge being on JB's "side", LP - DUH! - yes, he was, because JB was RIGHT! The State is playing discovery games. They are just doing what we call "papering him to death", meaning make him work for every little teeny morsel of evidence they have gathered in the investigation of his client, despite KCA's unquestionable Consitutional right to have access to everything the State has, will get, can get in the future. How utterly ridiculous to have to fight for that to which you are entitlted.
It serves no purpose. KC has the right to prepare for an adequate defense. "Adequate" means timely access to all evidence collected in this investigation, no matter who has it or may get it soon. Timely means with enough time to examine the evidence and be fully prepared for trial.
The State can't ambush the defendant at Trial with "new evidence" or "previously undisclosed evidence". The problem comes when they withold it because Baez didn't use the magic words, which is sort of the game the SA is playing now and the Judge is letting her get away with a bit of it. He is giving her extensions - again. If the State's position is that they didn't turn it over because of the form of Baez's request or their interpretation of it's meaning, then !voila'! - appellate issue. Stupid to play like this.
Ask for an extension and reduce the agreement between the parties to writing and then follow through. Act like Ladies and Gentlemen of the Bar.
I went to the doc dump to try to find it, but I gave up. So how in the world she expected to win a countersuit where one of her main points for the claim can be discredited by her own earlier statements is beyond me. Yes, she'd better get used to those prison blues. I have never understand why she continues to lie when she obviously does it so badly. Good grief, I put more thought into my lies for breaking curfew in my younger days than she put into hers to explain the disappearance of her daughter!
