In the hearing yesterday, my favorite part was the judge asking Cheney was he alleging that the prior judge did something inappropriate in his ruling on the Joe Jordan matter. Judge Perry, "Are you alleging there was some taint on Judge Strickland's prior ruling in this case or are you trying to get a second bite at the apple?"
Baaaam!
Cheney, after a pregnant pause, got red in the face, and laughed with apparent embarrassment, did not answer, and said something to the effect of you are trying to trip me up, as if the judge were asking a trick question. (IMO..if he was alleging the prior judge's decision was biased, he would need to illustrate that by specific example, not wholly unfounded allegations. Likewise, if he were to state he certainly was not implying the judge did anything improper...that would negate his ability to rightfully bring the request for the motion to be reheard). Standing there those few seconds of silence may have seemed like hours to Cheney. I watched it over and over because it was too funny. The judge let him up off the mat quickly and said ok, let's move on. I wish he would have just remained silent a moment longer and forced an answer from Cheney. Lions don't need to roar, so he let it go and went on to explain he was indeed denying the defense request. 13 minute mark in tape, or hearing, part two. Priceless!
http://www.wftv.com/video/23758968/index.html
ps I see that some of you were posting about this very matter.
__________________
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HH2EcHM0_8[/ame]
Two minute mark...priceless. Mark takes them to school!!!According to Mark, "The Defendant, through her counsel, has alleged that Joe Jordan's name was not among the 32 searchers identified by TES and none of his reports were disclosed to the defense. This is a misrepresentation of the facts as Mr. Jordan's name and signature are on the Field Activity Form 08-895 dated September 1, 2008, which was hand delivered to counsel for defendant. They haphazardly filed the Motion to Modify the Court's Order .A simple visit to the undersigned's office and a perusal of the documents would have illuminated the correct information."
The Defendant, through her counsel, is unnecessarily wasting this Honorable Court's time, the taxpayer's money and the undersigned's resources by filling these frivolous motions.However, it is counsel for Defendant who has frustrated and circumvented these efforts, while attempting to shirk his responsibilities and blame others for his inaction....TES respectfully asks this Honorable Court to assess attorney's fees against the counsel for the Defendant, especially since he has been advised of the inaccuracy of the defendant's motion and has failed to take any remedial actions".
View attachment 9411
Two minutes in to the arguments before the judge, Mark sets the record straight. He gets a little animated, so if you are at work, turn the volume down.
Mark Nejame "The defense claims it places a heavy burden on them to come to my office. My office is a ten minute walk and two minute drive to this courthouse. If they have got time to do TV interviews, and drive to TV stations, I think they have the time to come by and review the four thousand documents they are jumping up and down they haven't had access to because they haven't made the time to come over. It is beyond me! It is incredulous to suggest that there are bombshells and things have been hidden from them, when they are still sitting in my office, they haven't made the time to come over. Come by after court , pay a visit!! Now we find ourselves before your honor wasting the courts time, wasting the taxpayers money,for something that has been addressed and they were put on notice. This kind of stuff should not be permitted. There is no new information that has been brought before the court it is either because of laziness or sloppiness this information hasn't been tracked down. They just haven't took the time to come review them."
__________________
Jose trying to get Mr. Jordan's e mail into evidence was interesting. Although his assertion was that this is exculpatory in nature, that indeed had already been debunked in a prior hearing by Mark. Why do the defense attorneys in this case proceed as if earlier arguments have not already been well settled? Cheney was arguing the same exact things Baez already argued and it was proven in the prior hearings he had his facts wrong. This was not before Cheney came on the case, he indeed was sitting there at the defense table for the entire argument. I have never seen lawyers do this, ever! It is the epitome of wanting another bite at the apple!
________________________________________
http://www.wftv.com/news/22535671/detail.html
The very experienced Mr. Nejame, sets out the defense is out of line, and has their facts wrong. Again.
Nejame asks the court to award TES attorney fees.
snip
"He has caused unnecessary attorney time and Court time to be wasted, especially since he has been fully advised of its misrepresentations and inaccuracies and nevertheless continues to proceed," NeJame wrote.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp-TNj55rls[/ame]
My favorite line here: "I am being OVERLY GENEROUS IN MY CHARACTERIZATION" , Mr. Nejame argued to the judge regarding the defense.
Our own Mr. Hornsby: " The state is preparing their rebuttal case. "
After the defense has put on their case..The searchers that may claim they searched and the remains were not there..."The prosecution is going to come back with their rebuttal and just destroy them....demonstrate that their witnesses with showing that they are misleading, were dishonest or just plain wrong about what they remember, " Mr. Hornsby said.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XhJhCVSyw[/ame]
