2010.07.15 Defense motion to protect phone call of Robin Lunceford

[Steely Dan]

Even JP says in the order that JB doesn't give opinion etc. so why did JB fight to seal this?
There is no indication that he even said anything embarrassing.

This is what escapes me too. I'm trying to find the logic in it. Maybe this just isn't logical and that's what's trippin me up. Sometimes I wonder if he wanted to bring more attention to it and therefore decided to ask for a protective order but then didn't fight too hard to get it so it would be released, thereby bringing more attention to it and the claims of RL.
But then again, maybe we need to actually hear the tape to really see what all the fuss was about.

AZ, you were paying attention!!!! There was more than one call (FOR SURE). I read about it too and will provide link if someone doesn't beat me (please beat me).

I think AZ is dead on about this. I think there may be a call that wasn't recorded or was recorded where something bad happens. I just wish his motion saying prisoners sometimes illegally skirt the issue was enough to subpoena his phone records. JMO

 

[nums24]

Well, maybe JB thought they had a recording of the OTHER call--you know, the one that really was NOT recorded because RL circumvented the jail rules by calling from a contraband cell phone--the one in which JB DID say something he didn't want us all to hear... :waitasec:

To clarify, I have no inside knowledge lol. I'm just speculating that there may have been another (unrecorded) call based on: (1) JB's panicky reaction to the proposed release of his calls with RL, which seems odd if the calls were unremarkable, and (2) his strong suggestion in the motion that he thought RL had successfully made an unrecorded call to him.

On page 1, second line of second paragraph, Judge Perry writes about 2 calls:

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/24477717/detail.html

 

[nums24]

Richard Hornsby's comments today-
"For about two years Jose Baez has been walking an ethical tightrope in the way he's handled this case and the representations he's made. What we are seeing is Jose Baez being knocked off the tightrope he's been walking.
The State was as diplomatic as they could be without calling him an outright liar."
He also says that Baez has damaged his credibility with HHJP by making the claim that he didn't know the call was being recorded.

Source- Wesh TV

Here is the video:

http://www.wesh.com/video//24480915/detail.html

 

[nums24]

I think AZ is dead on about this. I think there may be a call that wasn't recorded or was recorded where something bad happens. I just wish his motion saying prisoners sometimes illegally skirt the issue was enough to subpoena his phone records. JMO

I'm hoping the other call is being withheld for some sort of prosecutorial or disciplinary action, if there's an investigation or allegation of some sort, they would delay releasing it.

 

[nums24]

After reviewing the SA response, I believe that there are two calls, I'm guessing one was with the secretary Michelle, perhaps that is where the "possible witnesses" story came in, but he sure is busted for something, in my opinion.

Paragraph 4: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/24408283/detail.html

 

[Kimmer]

IIRC there was a link last week, sorry I don't have it handy, but there was a supplement added to an existing law, that as of July 1st 2010, an Attorney that was originally hired as a private Attorney can not leave a case if that client goes into and indigent status....The new law was put into place to protect clients who have paid there attorneys and then ran out of money and had to go to indigent status...That way no Attorney can take there money and then bail on them when the State is footing the bill....I really doubt we will see JB bail on this case I don't think that JP would allow him to do that.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Thanks so much for this Nums24!

I'm sure you've read this pdf., and will agree with me. HHJP points out several places in Baez's statements where he flat out lied about what happened during the phone calls.

Mr. Baez stated in his motion that he had no idea the calls were being recorded, and his secretary must have accepted the calls before forwarding them on to Baez. HHJP specifically says the defense voice was heard on the tape immediately after pressing "1" to accept the call, and it is clear it was he who heard the recorded warning and accepted the call.

OH OH Baez, I think you got caught big time with a lot more than your hand in the cookie jar. :croc:

Link to motion:
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/24477717/detail.html

I love how Judge Perry states, "The Court is confident that counsel for the defense is now familiar with the dictates of Florida's Public Records Act" after the Judge had to explain to Baez in the Denial. It must be a pain to have to hold a teaching session within a motion to this supposed law school graduate.

BBM in your quote

So in other words, Judge Perry is saying to Baez about his claim of 'work product, my secretary must have forwarded the calls, I never heard the recording', "IT'S A CROCK". Yeah, yeah, I read his mind. :dance: Not only did Baez hear the warning, Ms Lunceford was also heard warning him the call was being recorded. Smack down!

I love His Honor. :blowkiss:

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Originally Posted by AZlawyer
Well, maybe JB thought they had a recording of the OTHER call--you know, the one that really was NOT recorded because RL circumvented the jail rules by calling from a contraband cell phone--the one in which JB DID say something he didn't want us all to hear...

After reviewing the SA response, I believe that there are two calls, I'm guessing one was with the secretary Michelle, perhaps that is where the "possible witnesses" story came in, but he sure is busted for something, in my opinion.

Paragraph 4: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/24408283/detail.html

In court, JB said there were TWO calls. The State of Florida says there were TWO calls. In Judge Perry's denial he says there were TWO calls. Obviously, there were TWO calls.

I doubt any of these so-called 'jailhouse confessions' from the inmates will ever make it to trial. So, my only question is: When do we get the doc dump? :angel: In reality, I know it takes time for the process to come to fruition. :cry:

 

[Numbers]

After reviewing the SA response, I believe that there are two calls, I'm guessing one was with the secretary Michelle, perhaps that is where the "possible witnesses" story came in, but he sure is busted for something, in my opinion.

Paragraph 4: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/24408283/detail.html

IIRC, there was a First Call to arrange for the Big Call, a sort of "pre-call" to make sure Jose would be available at 7:00.

But then I also have memory failure on a regular basis.

 

[zoey]

And remember he had the gall to stand up in court and say that he didn't want Ms. Drane Burdick to be arrested for listening to the tape! :banghead:

also have to remember he kind of did it as a "joke" but was the only person who got the "joke"----:loser:

 

[zoey]

Re: Baez, I feel the need to modify a quote from Hamlet here (I hope the bard doesn't mind!):

"The lawyer doth protest too much, methinks".

IMO, Baez has said something in this recording(s) that he wants to keep private. His legal arguments are weak and lack any substance. He got caught with his drawers down, and now wants protection from the bench. Ain't gonna happen. The jig is up. I continue to have great faith that HHJP will follow the letter of the law......which doesn't bode well for our protesting lawyer. As I am unfamiliar with the FLA Bar Association, I really have no idea what will happen in the long run. I DO know that here in my jurisdiction, lawyers genuinely expect their peers (from both sides of the bench) to maintain integrity and honesty in all matters. When one lawyer deliberately "plays dirty" and is dishonest, it makes ALL lawyers look bad! The profession receives enough flack as it is......so my DH and his state colleagues really want to maintain dignity and respect in their daily work. It is not unusual for lawyers to take notice of any "bad apples" and try and remedy the situation. This doesn't always mean disbarment. Many older, more experienced lawyers will mentor a "Greenhorn" for several years and will try and set a good example to follow.

Just my usual ramblings!! ~and JMO, MOO!

wouldn't some of this fall under heresay?? The only parts I'm thinking the SA would even want are the letters from Robin and ICA....the other comments well....

 

[Steely Dan]

IIRC, there was a First Call to arrange for the Big Call, a sort of "pre-call" to make sure Jose would be available at 7:00.

But then I also have memory failure on a regular basis.

If I had a nickle for every time I forgot something, I'd have errr...ummm...pht...some money for something or other.

 

[QB.]

In court, JB said there were TWO calls. The State of Florida says there were TWO calls. In Judge Perry's denial he says there were TWO calls. Obviously, there were TWO calls.

I doubt any of these so-called 'jailhouse confessions' from the inmates will ever make it to trial. So, my only question is: When do we get the doc dump? :angel: In reality, I know it takes time for the process to come to fruition. :cry:

I agree, there is no question there were 2 calls, the first one supposedly to arrange for the 2nd call from the inmate.
I'm wondering if there was a 3rd call no one knows about and wasn't recorded, as AZ speculates. The more I think about it the more I think its what happened because none of it makes any sense unless there was another call.

I think RHornsby is right when he says the credibility of the defense may have been knocked off of that tightrope, whether we have the right call or not.
Just my opinion.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Is JB truly that ignorant? Did he not think His Honor would listen for himself after finding out it the call originated from a prison???

His Honor makes mention of, press 1 to accept call or 2 to decline call...Immediately thereafter, the call is accepted and counsel can be heard in the recording to answer.
Thus there is no reason for counsel to believe that his call would be exempted from this warning. To the contrary, counsels affirmative act of "pressing 1" to accept a call from an inmate in a correctional facility after being expressly warned that the calls were subject to monitoring and recording demonstrated his consent.

His honor also makes mention of RL advising JB the call was subject to recording...


SMACK DOWN 1000???? J/K...I don't know how many times JB has been smacked down thus far but....this must be the worst one yet! IMO, he just lost all credibility with His Honor, if he had any to begin with..I don't know how he doesn't feel embarassed or humiliated by his lack of understanding or knowledge of the law in which he chose for his profession, he is truly inept...JMHO




Justice for Caylee

 

[Numbers]

If I had a nickle for every time I forgot something, I'd have errr...ummm...pht...some money for something or other.

I'm working on a Ferrari. I passed "candy bar" a looooooooooong time ago.

 

[ThinkTank]

AZlawyer
Well, maybe JB thought they had a recording of the OTHER call--you know, the one that really was NOT recorded because RL circumvented the jail rules by calling from a contraband cell phone--the one in which JB DID say something he didn't want us all to hear...

To clarify, I have no inside knowledge lol. I'm just speculating that there may have been another (unrecorded) call based on: (1) JB's panicky reaction to the proposed release of his calls with RL, which seems odd if the calls were unremarkable, and (2) his strong suggestion in the motion that he thought RL had successfully made an unrecorded call to him.

I agree, there is no question there were 2 calls, the first one supposedly to arrange for the 2nd call from the inmate.
I'm wondering if there was a 3rd call no one knows about and wasn't recorded, as AZ speculates. The more I think about it the more I think its what happened because none of it makes any sense unless there was another call.

I think RHornsby is right when he says the credibility of the defense may have been knocked off of that tightrope, whether we have the right call or not.
Just my opinion.

The State says there were two calls from Inmate Robin L (recording says "Kathleen").
One call placed at 6:34pm and was answered by JB's legal assistant Michelle N. In this call, it is apparent that JB was expecting a call from an inmate. "Hallie" told the legal assistant Michelle that Inmate Robin was going to call.

Second call was placed at 7:01pm (after arrangements were made to contact Hallie and make sure calls are forwarded for another 15 minutes because the inmate will call again), and was answered by JB. He heard the warning and pressed "1" to continue the call.

In JB's Response to the State's Response .... JB says in para 2. that he told LDBurdick and the Court that the "other witness names" that were obtained may also have not come from the call but from other communications. Meaning, JB did have "other communications" with Inmate Robin L. or maybe had "other communications" with the EX-Inmate who set the 3-way/forwarded call up, which was not recorded as the EX-Inmate was not in a prison.

JB may be confused (scrambling to save his butt) as to what they have recorded (by the prison), and what was said on his phone communication with the EX-inmate friend of Inmate Robin L., which was not recorded. IMO

 

[zoey]

Is JB truly that ignorant? Did he not think His Honor would listen for himself after finding out it the call originated from a prison???

His Honor makes mention of, press 1 to accept call or 2 to decline call...Immediately thereafter, the call is accepted and counsel can be heard in the recording to answer.
Thus there is no reason for counsel to believe that his call would be exempted from this warning. To the contrary, counsels affirmative act of "pressing 1" to accept a call from an inmate in a correctional facility after being expressly warned that the calls were subject to monitoring and recording demonstrated his consent.

His honor also makes mention of RL advising JB the call was subject to recording...


SMACK DOWN 1000???? J/K...I don't know how many times JB has been smacked down thus far but....this must be the worst one yet! IMO, he just lost all credibility with His Honor, if he had any to begin with..I don't know how he doesn't feel embarassed or humiliated by his lack of understanding or knowledge of the law in which he chose for his profession, he is truly inept...JMHO




Justice for Caylee

ironically he doesn't want his client talking to anyone other than himself for the same reason HHJP denied the claim....yes the irony is rich:dance:

 

[ZsaZsa]

I bet Judge Strickland is chuckling over Baez' latest motion... :innocent:

 

[logicalgirl]

I bet Judge Strickland is chuckling over Baez' latest motion... :innocent:

Chuckling? He's probably laughing so hard he fell off his rainbow!

 

[AZlawyer]

I agree, there is no question there were 2 calls, the first one supposedly to arrange for the 2nd call from the inmate.
I'm wondering if there was a 3rd call no one knows about and wasn't recorded, as AZ speculates. The more I think about it the more I think its what happened because none of it makes any sense unless there was another call.

I think RHornsby is right when he says the credibility of the defense may have been knocked off of that tightrope, whether we have the right call or not.
Just my opinion.

AZlawyer
Well, maybe JB thought they had a recording of the OTHER call--you know, the one that really was NOT recorded because RL circumvented the jail rules by calling from a contraband cell phone--the one in which JB DID say something he didn't want us all to hear...

To clarify, I have no inside knowledge lol. I'm just speculating that there may have been another (unrecorded) call based on: (1) JB's panicky reaction to the proposed release of his calls with RL, which seems odd if the calls were unremarkable, and (2) his strong suggestion in the motion that he thought RL had successfully made an unrecorded call to him.

The State says there were two calls from Inmate Robin L (recording says "Kathleen").
One call placed at 6:34pm and was answered by JB's legal assistant Michelle N. In this call, it is apparent that JB was expecting a call from an inmate. "Hallie" told the legal assistant Michelle that Inmate Robin was going to call.

Second call was placed at 7:01pm (after arrangements were made to contact Hallie and make sure calls are forwarded for another 15 minutes because the inmate will call again), and was answered by JB. He heard the warning and pressed "1" to continue the call.

In JB's Response to the State's Response .... JB says in para 2. that he told LDBurdick and the Court that the "other witness names" that were obtained may also have not come from the call but from other communications. Meaning, JB did have "other communications" with Inmate Robin L. or maybe had "other communications" with the EX-Inmate who set the 3-way/forwarded call up, which was not recorded as the EX-Inmate was not in a prison.

JB may be confused (scrambling to save his butt) as to what they have recorded (by the prison), and what was said on his phone communication with the EX-inmate friend of Inmate Robin L., which was not recorded. IMO

Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my first post about this. I'm speculating that there was a THIRD call, which was NOT recorded because RL did, in fact, circumvent the recording in one of the several illegal ways suggested by JB in his motion. In this hypothetical third call, JB would not have heard any warning about recording, he would have made "work product" comments about the case (and probably also about his approval of illegal jail phone calls lol), and RL would have provided the names of other witnesses. In other words, the third call would have actually matched the description of the call(s) provided by JB in his motion.

Then JB gets the State's response, realizes that the tapes they have do not include the one he was worried about, and tries to backtrack on his description so they don't catch on....