2010.07.15 Defense motion to protect phone call of Robin Lunceford

[Paintr]

all I have to say to the esteemed Mr Baez is this "duuuuuuuuuuuude you are so boinked"


no wonder Mr Baez and Miss Anthony hit it off so well, neither of them would recognise the truth if it rode in on an elephant screaming like a banshee

Marshmallow: Thank you kindly for that mental image. :floorlaugh:

 

[MADJGNLAW]

OK, Baez caught lying now. So will he finally get in trouble? Or is he going to slide by again? He flat out lied to the judge!

Prosecution says Casey Anthony lawyer Jose Baez was told prison inmate call was recorded

Page 1 of 2

"Snip" http://mobile.orlandosentinel.com/w...8&cid=17139&scid=-1&ith=1&title=Breaking+News



By Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel
Story posted 2010.07.27 at 01:14 PM EDT



The chief prosecutor in the Casey Anthony case says that defense attorney Jose Baez knew that a call he received from a prison inmate about his high-profile murder case was being recorded, according to a new court filing.



Baez has asked the court to seal the May 31 call of a conversation he had with state prison inmate Robin Lunceford. The prosecution wants it included in discovery, which would make it public.



Baez argued to have a protective order placed on the phone conversation, insisting he was not aware he was being recorded and that the discussion represented "work product."



But in a response filed Tuesday, Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick wrote: [/B]"The assertion in the defendant's motion that Mr. Baez was 'never made aware that the call was being recorded' is simply untrue."

The prosecutor's response says the Baez Law Firm received two calls from Lunceford, an inmate at the state Department of Corrections' Lowell facility near Ocala. The first call came in at 6:34 p.m. and was answered by a Baez legal assistant. That call started with a recorded message, according to the filing.



The message states the call is a "prepaid collect call" from a state inmate and that the call "is subject to recording and monitoring."



An arrangement is made for the caller to call back at 7 p.m. to speak with Baez directly. At 7:01 p.m., inmate Lunceford calls again and "Mr. Baez hears the same warning detailed above and accepts the call," Burdick's response states.



After Burdick told Baez the warning occurred at the start of the call, she said Baez filed a supplemental motion saying he had "absolutely no recollection of hearing any recording by the correctional facility."

 

[RR0004]

Well he's apparently dumb enough to knowingly file a written motion that had his own personal "faulty recollections" as its core. This is a far cry from misremembering something when making a verbal statement or answering a question of the judge. This was a written and filed motion. One would hope that in any other law office some small amount of research and fact checking would occur before submitting it to the judge?

This was the last thing I expected to see...blatant lies IMO. I was giving Jose the benefit of the doubt when the calls became known. Figured with the transferring of the calls (was there even anything 3rd party about the calls? NO!) the assistant may not have heard the introduction, but whoa...nothing could be further from the truth! He wasn't trying to protect anyone but himself IMHO.

 

[Paintr]

OK, Baez caught lying now. So will he finally get in trouble? Or is he going to slide by again? He flat out lied to the judge!

In DP cases, defense lawyers seem to get away with a lot because the threat of appeals hangs heavily over the judges's decisions.

 

[RR0004]

Well he's apparently dumb enough to knowingly file a written motion that had his own personal "faulty recollections" as its core. This is a far cry from misremembering something when making a verbal statement or answering a question of the judge. This was a written and filed motion. One would hope that in any other law office some small amount of research and fact checking would occur before submitting it to the judge?

I don't think the Judge will take too kindly to Jose's motion now.

 

[Chiquita71]

Hello WS

Here we go again. This "law" stuff is amazing. It is the craziest game of "chess." This arm of the system gets to lie and use the system to lie and for gain(or whatever JB is up to or after), or maybe he is just not bright.(How did he make it this far I wonder...really, really wonder). I call him a "arm" of the system because JB had to pass certain criteria to make it to the point where he can blatantly misuse said system and it seems all they can do is play along?

To me, it's like if I had a row with my husband. First, I put my complaint to him in a motion.(that must be filed in a certain way and at a certain time)He reads said complaint, finds that I did not file my motion correctly and must make a filing to have a hearing to discuss said motion and the fact that it was not filed correctly. We then have said hearing, where judge hears my original complaint and any arguments and then hears my husbands side. Judge says he will rule and have ruling after hearing at said time.

We wait to hear said ruling and after ruling I file my complaint against my husband again and he reads it and finds it to be a lie. He can't just come right to me and say I lied...he must file a motion for a hearing for a judge to hear his complaint...

I GET that this is the system and if everyone using it were on the up and up, it might work out-someone help me out here...what is it I am describing, ya know? Why do we run our world this way? Why isn't everything out in the open? Does anyone know what I mean?

This is supposed to be about the fact that a two and a half year old girl was murdered. The merry go round above, if being rode for the benefit of justice, can be seen but the ride has been hijacked...

It's like, you could be a "crazy person" and make it though the bar...and once you are in...you get to be a "crazy person" by law. No one can say the emperor isn't wearing new clothes, they have to file a motion... :crazy:

(With all due respect to those involved in the law process who, if not so human and dedicated to what they believe, it is obvious the system wouldn't work at all...) In my humble opinion.

:twocents:

 

[ThinkTank]

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/24408283/detail.html
excerpt from State's filing about Inmate Robin phone calls to JB

"3. The assertion in the Defendant's Motion that Mr. Baez was "never made aware that the call was being recorded" is simply untrue.

4. As an alternative, the Defendant contends that the call contains attorney work product information including names of potential additional witnesses. A review of the call again reveals this information to be untrue."

LIES to the Court!

 

[PrintGal]

Wait...he PERSONALLY heard the message about the recording?? :banghead:

I love how the SA describes the recordings in enough detail so that it is perfectly obvious that she listened to the tapes. It's like she's saying, "OK, Jose, are you gonna call the cops on me for this 'felony'?" :rolling:

LDB's motion was elegant for a number of reasons.

Man, its like she actually knows the law and stuff.

Love her, and love you, too, AZ. We are lucky to have you here.

 

[ThinkTank]

JB's supplemental motion
excerpt:

"4. In said call, information is given to the undersigned counsel including the names of more potential witnesses." [LIE TO THE COURT]

"5. The undersigned has discussed with Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick to
make arrangements for both parties to visit the Lowell Correctional Institution together, and take depositions of all witnesses that may have relevant information to the case at bar." [MISREPRESENTATION to the Court = LIE]


HTTP://WWW.NINTHCIRCUIT.ORG/NEWS/HI...NE RECORDING OF ROBIN LUNCEFORD 7-23-2010.PDF

 

[Steely Dan]

I love LDB's response.
Baez lets the cat out of the bag before he knows what the cat looks like. IMO he has a guilty conscious about something/something's.

:thumb:

Wait...he PERSONALLY heard the message about the recording?? :banghead:

I love how the SA describes the recordings in enough detail so that it is perfectly obvious that she listened to the tapes. It's like she's saying, "OK, Jose, are you gonna call the cops on me for this 'felony'?" :rolling:

:floorlaugh:

JB's supplemental motion
excerpt:

"4. In said call, information is given to the undersigned counsel including the names of more potential witnesses." [LIE TO THE COURT]

"5. The undersigned has discussed with Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick to
make arrangements for both parties to visit the Lowell Correctional Institution together, and take depositions of all witnesses that may have relevant information to the case at bar." [MISREPRESENTATION to the Court = LIE]


HTTP://WWW.NINTHCIRCUIT.ORG/NEWS/HI...NE RECORDING OF ROBIN LUNCEFORD 7-23-2010.PDF

As much as I want to see JB disbarred, I hope it doesn't happen til after the trial. He's too much fun to watch. :crazy::loser:

 

[cyberborg]

Gee! Every news story I've read over the last few days has just made Mr Baez look soooooo competent and professional. He must be basking in all this published glory.

(did we ever manage to find that little sarcastic smilie?)

As World According states, "You just cannot make this stuff up!"

Not to mention that this is just a distraction and it is highly doubtful that the SA will even use testimony of prisoners (e.g., MD) but JB had a potential rebuttal that he could use to save ICA's butt in this facet of the case and --

What does JB do?

-- Not only does he fumble the ball and risk completely dis-crediting this 'witness' and her statements .... not only does he dis-credit himself in a bunch of mistruths, half truths and ..... 'untrue' statements (per LDB) but .... he draws so much media attention to it he ensures everyone knows.

While the Defense may need to bluff, spin and, distract ...... JB is doing a great job of tripping all over himself so that at the end of the day -- it does more harm to ICA's case than the original benefit.

Cost versus benefit? JB and CM are a real and increasing liability to ICA.

 

[Intermezzo]

Yep, and they apparently they have it on the tape! Amazing? Why would JB even file something like this? At best it shows him being "factually inaccurate" or "grossly mistaken" about his own personal and fairly recent actions, and at worst it shows him being deliberately disingenuous to the court. I mean what is the possible positive outcome here? really? I can't help thinking that HHJP is just sitting in his chambers laughing his butt off over this whole thing.

BBM
My thoughts as well faefrost. Yet Baez is still trying to get the tapes to be sealed.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...anthony-prison-calls-20100727,0,7449273.story

"Baez has said that the Lunceford conversation is not damaging to the defense and more detrimental to the state's case."
:waitasec: So why is he trying so hard to have the tapes sealed?

"Regardless of the state of Mr. Baez' faulty recollection, it is clear that the call was not an unlawfully intercepted communication under [ Florida statutes]," Burdick argues. "It takes little imagination to envision that calls being received from a prisoner in a correctional institution are being recorded negating any reasonable expectation of privacy Mr. Baez may believe he had in the call." :clap::clap: BRAVO LDB.

However, Baez maintained today that he had no recollection of the recorded message. He also noted that calls between prison inmates and their lawyers are not recorded and he did not know whether Lunceford told prison officials she was calling an attorney. Baez is still sticking to the "I had no recollection excuse" and Is Baez stating that Lunceford is his client?

In addition, he noted that the second call was transferred from his office to his secretary's cell phone and then to his cell phone. My response. And? What this tells me is that Baez and his secretaries were expecting the call and how the transferring of the call was going to be handled.:twocents:

"Did my secretary hear it before she transferred the call to me? I don't know," Baez said. "I did not have any recollection of it being recorded."
Well Baez, Your secretary did hear it, she did accept the call and she's YOUR employee.:twocents:

Heck, even Inmate Lunceford reminded him the call was being recorded

 

[Steely Dan]

If I'm the judge my first question is; "Mr. Baez, how many illegal calls have you received from inmates?"

 

[Intermezzo]

Well he's apparently dumb enough to knowingly file a written motion that had his own personal "faulty recollections" as its core. This is a far cry from misremembering something when making a verbal statement or answering a question of the judge. This was a written and filed motion. One would hope that in any other law office some small amount of research and fact checking would occur before submitting it to the judge?

BBM
So true..

 

[Intermezzo]

BBM

in re: bold - Yes, that is exactly how I understood the 2nd call at 7:01pm when Baez answered it, it was HE who heard it. Then, RL further advises him that she's not revealing everything 'cause "these phones are recorded". However, please keep in mind that JB has no recollection of any of that. :angel:

I'm with you in re. LDB's motion! LOL She might as well have said, "I dare ya to do it, JB!"

eta: I did notice when I read JB's supplemental that he waivered from (para) "absolutely had no knowledge that the call was being recorded" to "personally has no recollection". Made me raise my eyebrows and say "hmmm".

BBM
HMMM indeed Beach..

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...anthony-prison-calls-20100727,0,7449273.story

"After Burdick told Baez the warning occurred at the start of the call, she said Baez filed a supplemental motion saying he had "absolutely no recollection of hearing any recording by the correctional facility."

 

[LambChop]

Oh my, when KC said in her letters that she had to, not sure this is correct but in other words, "school" her boys she was not kidding. Obviously JB learned "That's my story and I'm stickin to it" from KC. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM
My thoughts as well faefrost. Yet Baez is still trying to get the tapes to be sealed.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...anthony-prison-calls-20100727,0,7449273.story

"Baez has said that the Lunceford conversation is not damaging to the defense and more detrimental to the state's case."
:waitasec: So why is he trying so hard to have the tapes sealed?

"Regardless of the state of Mr. Baez' faulty recollection, it is clear that the call was not an unlawfully intercepted communication under [ Florida statutes]," Burdick argues. "It takes little imagination to envision that calls being received from a prisoner in a correctional institution are being recorded negating any reasonable expectation of privacy Mr. Baez may believe he had in the call." :clap::clap: BRAVO LDB.

However, Baez maintained today that he had no recollection of the recorded message. He also noted that calls between prison inmates and their lawyers are not recorded and he did not know whether Lunceford told prison officials she was calling an attorney. Baez is still sticking to the "I had no recollection excuse" and Is Baez stating that Lunceford is his client?

In addition, he noted that the second call was transferred from his office to his secretary's cell phone and then to his cell phone. My response. And? What is shows to me is that Baez and his secretaries were expecting the call and how the transferring of the call was going to be handled.:twocents:

"Did my secretary hear it before she transferred the call to me? I don't know," Baez said. "I did not have any recollection of it being recorded."
Well Baez, Your secretary did hear it, she did accept the call and she's YOUR employee.:twocents:

Heck, even Inmate Lunceford reminded him the call was being recorded

Let me see now - where have we heard that phrase "I do not recall" or "I have no recollection" before recently???

Oh yeah, it was Cindy Anthony at the hearing a week or so ago. Hmm, I wonder if it's some kind of germs or bugs he gave her - she is acting the same way! :waitasec:

 

[logicalgirl]

Do you ever get the feeling that back when the Defense was hollering about HHJS to step down, that HHJP said to him (JS) - listen Stan, let me handle this mess - I can quickly get it sorted out and make these people behave. We really need you over in this other court.

So, I think HHJS said - Okay I'll do that - but "You Will See!" "These Folks Are Nuts - The Whole Lot of Them, Defense Included". "There is no controlling them!"

HHJP said - Stan, Stan, relax - you're over worked - I'll take care of it!

And every week or so Stan phones HHJP and says "TOLD YA SO!!!!"
:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[ZsaZsa]

Let me see now - where have we heard that phrase "I do not recall" or "I have no recollection" before recently???

Oh yeah, it was Cindy Anthony at the hearing a week or so ago. Hmm, I wonder if it's some kind of germs or bugs he gave her - she is acting the same way! :waitasec:

It is used a lot in Courts, it saves you from outright lying - you can always say you have no recollection of whatever you are being questioned about, or say not to my knowledge, that's another favorite claim.
Then when you are confronted with the evidence and there's no way round it you finally start to remember ....

 

[logicalgirl]

It is used a lot in Courts, it saves you from outright lying - you can always say you have no recollection of whatever you are being questioned about, or say not to my knowledge, that's another favorite claim.
Then when you are confronted with the evidence and there's no way round it you finally start to remember ....

Yes, LOL - we saw LDB use that technique very effectively with CA at the last hearing.