2010.07.15 Defense motion to protect phone call of Robin Lunceford

[Purple Iris]

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

Heck ! I'd be willing to pool my memory nickles wth ya, but, it appears that we would have a problem remembering what we wanted though ~!!

 

[ThinkTank]

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....

I absolutely agree with your conclusions.
JB himself stated in his Motion that there were "other communications".
JB does not, however, specify if the "other communications" were with Inmate Robin, or with Robin's friend, the EX-inmate "Hallie".

If Inmate Robin had used a "contraband cell phone" though, it would not have been recorded by the prison.
If Inmate Robin had used an attorney phone call - that may not have been recorded by the prison, or if a "counselor" had allowed Inmate Robin to place a call, that may not have been recorded.

From the description of the calls by LDB, it does not sound like Inmate Robin had spoken to JB before these 2 calls. I guess that Inmate Robin could have made more calls to JB AFTER these 2 calls though, using a method which was not intercepted by the prison.

There were definitely "other communications" -- and JB was definitely sweatin it ....

 

[RR0004]

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....

...and the third call may be the one illegal call that's still part of an ongoing investigation.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I absolutely agree with your conclusions.
JB himself stated in his Motion that there were "other communications".
JB does not, however, specify if the "other communications" were with Inmate Robin, or with Robin's friend, the EX-inmate "Hallie".

If Inmate Robin had used a "contraband cell phone" though, it would not have been recorded by the prison.
If Inmate Robin had used an attorney phone call - that may not have been recorded by the prison, or if a "counselor" had allowed Inmate Robin to place a call, that may not have been recorded.

From the description of the calls by LDB, it does not sound like Inmate Robin had spoken to JB before these 2 calls. I guess that Inmate Robin could have made more calls to JB AFTER these 2 calls though, using a method which was not intercepted by the prison.

There were definitely "other communications" -- and JB was definitely sweatin it ....

:waitasec:I know this is O/T but your post made me think about something. JB is allowed to take his computer into the jail. Is he allowed to take his cell phone?
Reason I ask is because IMO, Maybe Casey has been able to talk to her family through JB through his computer chat/Skye, and/or cell phone that way it would not be recorded. I just can't see Casey listening to anyone, as hungry as she is for attention, affection and me me me me time, she would of taken a visit here or there from her parents IMO.

I could even see the possibilty of JB doing this for other inmates...:cow:

 

[faefrost]

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....

I'm not so sure of this. I only see three ways for these questionable calls to occur from the prison, as JB noted;

- Call someone approved and have them 3 way the call to JB. The most likely candidate, as it is a technique she has used regularly. BUT the call would still be recorded by the prison. Simply JB would not have gotten the warning. The originator of the 3 way call would have gotten it. So in this case the tape would still be out there.

- Use an unrecorded line such as a councilors. A possibility, but since JB's number is now part of the public record from the call he received from her, well it's easy enough for someone to look through the PBX logs and see if or when that number was called from somewhere else. While probably not recorded at least there would be firm conclusive proof that such a call occurred.

- Contraband cell phone. The hardest to find or prove, but probably the least likely. The prison was obviously watching her for phone activity so they were keeping an eye out for her. Plus A LOT of jails and prisons now use cell phone jammers on site just to prevent this sort of thing. Does anyone know if this is the case here?

 

[cyberborg]

:waitasec:I know this is O/T but your post made me think about something. JB is allowed to take his computer into the jail. Is he allowed to take his cell phone?
Reason I ask is because IMO, Maybe Casey has been able to talk to her family through JB through his computer chat/Skye, and/or cell phone that way it would not be recorded. I just can't see Casey listening to anyone, as hungry as she is for attention, affection and me me me me time, she would of taken a visit here or there from her parents IMO.

I could even see the possibilty of JB doing this for other inmates...:cow:

Given the propensity of JB and the A's to bend the rules at every opportunity and even allegedly pass notes and text messages in court -- I suspect that it is highly likely.

At a minimum JB is acting as a covert postal courrier between the A's and ICA if not using shared texts, email, 'attorney' calls, Skype, etc. They will take every opportunity ... because they can and .... it makes them feel good.

I would suspect there are 'official' communications both to divert suspicion and for public consumption and then secret communications, for example CA's testimony with JB about the 911 calls was well rehearsed and orchestrated and ICA seemed to have the approved script.

However ..... whether ICA wants to communicate in real-time is the question that makes me skeptical it is much of an issue, if any? ICA will allow folks to stroke her ego, as the poor 'victim' but there is nothing from ICA.

SA is focused on Justice for Caylee and these distractions may make JB and the A's feel good ..... it is trivial stuff in the grand scheme of where ICA is headed.

 

[marspiter]

I'm not so sure of this. I only see three ways for these questionable calls to occur from the prison, as JB noted;

- Call someone approved and have them 3 way the call to JB. The most likely candidate, as it is a technique she has used regularly. BUT the call would still be recorded by the prison. Simply JB would not have gotten the warning. The originator of the 3 way call would have gotten it. So in this case the tape would still be out there.

- Use an unrecorded line such as a councilors. A possibility, but since JB's number is now part of the public record from the call he received from her, well it's easy enough for someone to look through the PBX logs and see if or when that number was called from somewhere else. While probably not recorded at least there would be firm conclusive proof that such a call occurred.

- Contraband cell phone. The hardest to find or prove, but probably the least likely. The prison was obviously watching her for phone activity so they were keeping an eye out for her. Plus A LOT of jails and prisons now use cell phone jammers on site just to prevent this sort of thing. Does anyone know if this is the case here?

(bold by me)

To my knowledge, by FCC guidelines it is illegal for prisons to jam cell phone signals. There is currently a bill HR 560 Safe Prisons Communication Act that has been passed by the senate. As of right now I don't believe it has been passed in the house. This bill will amend 1934 Communications/1996 Telcom act to allow prisons to jam communication signals. Now a prisons construction could cause cells signals to drop because of thick concrete and perhaps a faraday cage effect from the re-enforcement of the concrete. However by the FCC guidelines they can not "actively" jam the signals to my knowledge.

As it is currently written the prison could be fined by the FCC for jamming cell signals. That's not to say some prisons aren't trying it, and I'm not sure if the bill has been passed or not. Looking quickly online it still shows that it has not been passed by the house.

 

[beach]

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....

I totally agree with this. Nothing else makes sense. Baez was too nervous. Even his pleadings reflect it. He was very forthcoming and specific and the tone was sarcastic and desperate, IMO. I also noticed he filed his "Response to SA's Response" in record time...IIRC the same afternoon. There is some reason that he risked lying and alienating Judge Perry. Or maybe he didn't know he was - if, as speculated, he thought it was a different call, than the one turned over. Maybe the reason Baez was so nervous and adamant is because he has spoken with her several times and had NO CLUE which tape the SA had and what was on it. He seemed pretty desperate to get his hands on a copy of it. I think he was describing a different call than the one he anticipated the SA had and, eventually, Judge Perry actually listened to.

I'm not so sure of this. I only see three ways for these questionable calls to occur from the prison, as JB noted;

- Call someone approved and have them 3 way the call to JB. The most likely candidate, as it is a technique she has used regularly. BUT the call would still be recorded by the prison. Simply JB would not have gotten the warning. The originator of the 3 way call would have gotten it. So in this case the tape would still be out there.

--repsectfully snipped

And this is how I think it happened.


I am trying to recall exactly why RL's calls were being investigated in the first place. I *thought* it was something to do with her circumventing the recordings by using a 3rd party to initiate 3-way calls, therefore bypassing the prison recording system. As a part of the investigation, it was my understanding that the prison system wiretapped every call of RL's (unbeknownst to her or the other 2 recipients) to gather evidence in re. her abusing phone privileges. I'm not sure in re. the where & when Baez enters the picture, but he obviously got exposed during the course of the investigation.

eta: IF that is how it happened, there may or may not be other tapes. If Baez had been communicating successfully with her before the investigation ensued, there would be no tape. However, Baez would have no way of knowing that, so he would still be in the dark if he was concerned about which call the SA had. IOW, he would still have reason to be curious and nervous.

 

[faefrost]

(bold by me)

To my knowledge, by FCC guidelines it is illegal for prisons to jam cell phone signals. There is currently a bill HR 560 Safe Prisons Communication Act that has been passed by the senate. As of right now I don't believe it has been passed in the house. This bill will amend 1934 Communications/1996 Telcom act to allow prisons to jam communication signals. Now a prisons construction could cause cells signals to drop because of thick concrete and perhaps a faraday cage effect from the re-enforcement of the concrete. However by the FCC guidelines they can not "actively" jam the signals to my knowledge.

As it is currently written the prison could be fined by the FCC for jamming cell signals. That's not to say some prisons aren't trying it, and I'm not sure if the bill has been passed or not. Looking quickly online it still shows that it has not been passed by the house.

It's possible, although if it is the case a lot of counties either do not know it or are choosing to ignore it. I know of at least 2 facilities in Louisiana that have the jammers installed and operational.

 

[marspiter]

It's possible, although if it is the case a lot of counties either do not know it or are choosing to ignore it. I know of at least 2 facilities in Louisiana that have the jammers installed and operational.

Oh yeah it's certainly possible to do it. There are actually a couple of school systems that have tried it as well to stop kids from texting during class. The facilities may not know what the FCC's regulations are and I doubt the FCC is actively involved in enforcing the guideline to be honest (that and who's gonna report them?). However the guideline is there and the facilities as of now could be fined.

Here is the amendment:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-251

It's referred to S. 251 in the Senate and HR 560 in the House.

 

[Intermezzo]

I LOVED Perry's zinger to Baez on page 2 of this order. Perry said something like "the Court is confident that defense counsel is by now familiar with Florida's Public Records Act...see previous order denying motion to seal jail visitation logs".

Oh, SNAP!!!!!!

Translation: stop this nonsense, Mr. Bahyez!

I like the part where it says "Emphasis added" LOL. That part killed me. ZING!

I'm glad the Court is confident Baez is by now familiar with Florida's Public Records Act, ..I on the other hand am not so confident, :twocents:

 

[Intermezzo]

Here is the order denying the motion for protective order:

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

What a wonderfully worded Order, thank you Judge Perry :gavel:

Tsk :tsktsk: Tsk :tsktsk: Baez

 

[Gypsy Road]

I'm glad the Court is confident Baez is by now familiar with Florida's Public Records Act, ..I on the other hand am not so confident, :twocents:

I am confident that JB just likes to play "dumb". I take that back, maybe he isn't "playing" at all.

 

[Intermezzo]

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.

BBM
I'd like to know the REAL reason for this as well.

The more I read Baez's motion the more I was lead to believe that this motion was all about protecting himself, but from what?

Baez worked at lightning speed on writing and filing the motion even before the SA had the tape in her hand and then the lightning speed response to the SA's response.

IMO Baez needed to keep "a taped phone call" sealed and away from the SA, I am not so sure it was this call though, I could be wrong...but something still does not seem right.
:twocents:.

 

[Intermezzo]

I am interested in what in the world too, Mrs. Drane-Burdick made no mention of his assertion that the two of them had talked about going to the prison to depose this prisoner.
My husband and I can talk about his mother moving in. That sure doesn't mean it is going to happen. Indeed I am sure she has had to sit through quite a bit of talks of nonsense with Jose, and try not to laugh aloud. Wow!

I wonder why Jose doesn't understand the reason the prosecutor doesn't "Take a position" on this phone call being released is the same reason now it has been for the two years the case is going on. THE ADA has literally stood in court and said, "We don't have a dog in this fight", whether things get released to the public/press is by Florida statute not something the DA's office has discretion over. She has said we don't want to release things to the public, we are required to do so, by law. So very often he has used words like the State released or leaked things to the media, as if Jeff and Linda being shady or doing something outside of the rules. View attachment 10385

He just never learns. Having seen her in action for two years, he should have known she is very thorough, if she adds something to her motion , one can safely assume she has heard it for herself. She has been doing this for twenty years, she isn't going to argue the facts first and check them second, as the defense does. So, hello...Come in Tokyo....Jose don't make such asenine statements that she is "Outrageous" when by your own admission YOU haven't heard the comprehensive recording. Good grief.
I like the way the judge is cutting down the dog and pony show and ruling without the unnecessary theatrics. He is all about moving this ball down the court.:dance::dance: If this would have went to hearing, Mrs. Drane Burdick would have mopped the floor with this nonsense. She has very very professional manners, we can read between the lines of what she and the judge think Baez is playing dumb and not being honest! Unless his goal is to get removed from this case...this little stunt was just plain dumb! MOO

:clap:
BBM
I think that sums it up..
Yet the Court, in this Order, is confident that Baez is familiar, if not knowledgeable, of Florida's Records Act.
But we shall see in due time what other motions Baez files because he is unfamiliar with Florida Law.
:twocents:

 

[Intermezzo]

Love that the order of enumeration goes not from "first" to "second" to "third," but from "First," to "Moreover," to "Furthermore." It's the linguistic details that make it so delicious.

Yes, yes, so true. One thing is for sure JP's Order's have coherence.

A "therefore" or "and Finally" would have been the icing on the cake for me in this Order. :twocents:

 

[Intermezzo]

SNAP!!!! is exactly right. :slap:



Very well stated, faefrost.

JB best heed the tone of this Order because it is very, very clear to me and totally explains that incredulous look when HHJP raised his eyebrows and cocked his head when he was advised by LDB that the prison had recorded this call. JB is doing himself nor his client any favors by PO'ing the Judge like this.

To put the ridiculous nature of JB's motion into perspective, the portions that Judge Perry bolded and italicized are the most BASIC rules of FRCP (Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure). It was akin to saying, "Don't even play this silly game and waste my time like this you fool!" In an intro paralegal course, these are some of the very first things you learn in re. work product and attorney-client privilege. As a paralegal, I am bound by the same rules since I am "staff" and have knowledge of confidential material and strategy. I have no doubt that as dumb as JB plays, even he KNEW this, as Judge Perry opined in his Order. Trust me, there is no way he could have passed any bar exam w/o knowing and understanding these basic rules.

What is lost on me is why JB even tried to stop the release. If it is really RL ranting on and on and JB didn't say anything embarrassing, why care? If he was going to lie about it, he should have just said, "Yeah, I took the call. I had no idea what the inmate wanted....I thought maybe she was looking to hire me. Of course, as I listened to the call, I discovered otherwise."

BBM
I agree. why care? why try so hard and work so quick to seal the phone call? He has not worked that quick for the TES Searcher info, the info he so desperately wanted.

 

[Intermezzo]

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.

AZ, I like your speculation..

 

[Intermezzo]

ITA agree, AZ. I really, really just don't get JB's reaction to this. Outright lying in a pleading???

There is something else to this. There has to be. Even JB isn't that crazy.

I agree Beach.

 

[Intermezzo]

Rude to quote myself , but added for clarity.

There is one before this in this thread that makes it clear- more than one call !! Still looking.

IIRC there was a First call to notify Baez (and (IMO) inturn he notified his staff how to proceed when that call came in) that a call was coming from (insert name) they used another first name for Lunceford.
I believe it's detailed in the State's Reponse.

EDIT
Here is the link to the SA's response
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/24408283/detail.html
Page.2
The first call came in at 6:34pm and was answered by Baez's legal assistant.
The name Kathleen was used as the inmate calling from a Florida Correctional Institute and that it was apparent that the Baez Law Firm was expecting this call because the Assistant said "Hallie" told them she would be calling.
Then it was arranged that the caller would call back and Baez's assistant would contact "Hallie" to make sure the calls would be forwarded for another 15 mins and that the caller would call back at 7pm and did so at 7:01pm