2010.12.21 Stream of Motions - General Discussion

[Intermezzo]

Thank you MuzikMan! :yourock: :loveyou:

Amended Motion to Suppress Statements

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71719679/20110216-Defense-Amended-Motion-to-Suppress-Statements


ETA: For reference, here is the original motion: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26367661/detail.html

Does anyone else get the feeling the Defense is just now getting around to actually listening to these recordings and the outcome is the Motion to suppress???
:waitasec: What am I thinking??Nah...they just know she spoke with LE and want the whole thing thrown out...

 

[Star12]

Shouldn't there be a notice of hearing to go along with this?

 

[logicalgirl]

Does anyone else get the feeling the Defense is just now getting around to actually listening to these recordings and the outcome is the Motion to suppress???
:waitasec: What am I thinking??Nah...they just know she spoke with LE and want the whole thing thrown out...

Agree, I have just been bitterly complaining about the whole thing over in the ICA statements suppressed thread. I swear Baez just got around to looking at this evidence last week...:banghead:

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Agree, I have just been bitterly complaining about the whole thing over in the ICA statements suppressed thread. I swear Baez just got around to looking at this evidence last week...:banghead:

I saw your post over there logicalgirl and you got a way-to-go from me!

 

[logicalgirl]

I saw your post over there logicalgirl and you got a way-to-go from me!

Umm - er.....Bad things happen to people who swear on the board. :ufo:

I gave the santized version. :skip: :skip: :skip:

 

[Intermezzo]

let the thwarting of motions begin!!!!!

OLE! arty:

 

[Intermezzo]

Ah yes. And the State of Florida has "spared no expense, at taxpayer expense" to prove the diary was indeed written after 2003, if I read the Motion to Strike the Motion to Strike the Defense Motion to Suppress correctly. Again I say :banghead:.

does he have a fascination with the word EXPENSE

 

[RR0004]

Thanks for the warm welcome!!! I signed up a while ago and made the mistake of asking my daughter to help me find a name. She filled in my sign up info with Lotus 22 and I didn't like it at all so I never signed on.

But I'm physically screaming at my computer today!! I COULDN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!! It was the ticket that sent me over the edge after those moronic motions.

Please forgive me:maddening::maddening::maddening:

Welcome...and please stay!!

 

[ynotdivein]

does he have a fascination with the word EXPENSE

I heard he went on Amazon to buy a thesaurus but couldn't spell it. Ended up with a bunch of books about Theodore Geisel and Athenian mythology.

(No but really, the juvenile attempt to point the finger back at the State for frittering taxpayer monies is not lost on this reader.)

 

[faefrost]

I heard he went on Amazon to buy a thesaurus but couldn't spell it. Ended up with a bunch of books about Theodore Geisel and Athenian mythology.

(No but really, the juvenile attempt to point the finger back at the State for frittering taxpayer monies is not lost on this reader.)

If he had been reading Theodore Geisel his motions would probably be better spelled and make more sense... not to mention rhyme. :angel:

 

[Amil]

This blabber is not even a sentence. The man is an [unusual person].


“The State has also failed to establish; How they are prejudiced by the timing of defense supplemental witness list?”

 

[ynotdivein]

Your time we have clearly frittered
Our client, she clearly did it
Yet we shan't cop a plea
Nope, no plea for we
Tho we're deeply in debt
Right up to our necks
Our motions are wrecks
And there may be a hex
Cast by court reporters who ain't been paid yet.

 

[Wysteria]

"Is the defendent seriously concerned about a bias against sloppy car owners"?
(I have not learned how to post a link yet, sorry.)
The above question is in the State Response regarding the car stain, filed on 2011.02.10

For some reason this question made me laugh so hard I started to snort. Very unladylike. Scared the dog too.

The SA office is amazingly adept at pointing out the defenses marked lack of competence. The question in my post demonstrates that so well. I am a bit quirky by nature so maybe that explains my reaction. There are oodles of examples in the SA responses, documents and court pleadings thus far; that clearly demonstrate their devotion to Caylee Marie Anthony.

I feel guilty for thinkin' some of the information is hysterical in this case; considering the content of the document and question I posted above and more importantly; for the loss of our dearest angel Caylee. I'm sorry sweet Caylee. I feel very uncomfortable when I hear laughter in the courtroom when following cases. I do understand and accept it. I debated whether to post about something that I found to be funny. The only reason I did decide to post, I guess, is to share my opinion that the SA's office is doing an outstanding job; and LE is as well. Kudos to all involved in seeking justice for Caylee. Thank you so very much.

ICA, CA, GA and LA refuse to seek just punishment for Caylee. They have also attempted to waylay this justice by behaving in a decietful, disingenuous and corrupt manner. No worries hunny Caylee, it will be okay.

Perhaps, through my sorta peculiar post a member here that is concerned about the outcome of this case will ease that concern? I remember a couple of my posts were about my worry and concern regarding punishment for this horrid crime. Thanks to WS'ers as well, because I'm not concerned anymore. The information, all of the hard work, and the insight you provide is awesome. :tyou:

Okay then... off to slink into the lurker corner...:crazy::nuts::talker::ziplip:

sorry about the grammer and spelling errors...I think I'll add that to my sig. line.

 

[Wysteria]

Ummm? Oh My!

Even after almost three years of horrid and incompetent motions, Jose still manages to raise the bar each time. I mean wow! Just wow! Apparently nobody bothered to teach Jose that when you are filing 6 months past the deadline the opposing side does not have to show in what way they are prejudiced. Rather you have to show the reason for the late filing, in your initial motion.

Oh and Jose, maybe if you want the opposing council to play nice and actually talk to you about things on the phone, you might want to consider refraining from continuously falsely accusing them of crimes or gross misconduct in public interviews and court filings. Just a thought.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Respectfully bolded by Wysteria

Wow! is right. The thanks button wasn't enough. Outstanding and concise observations.
I bow to your pithy...ness LOL.
I'm old, but never to late to learn. :snail:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

This blabber is not even a sentence. The man is an [unusual person].


“The State has also failed to establish; How they are prejudiced by the timing of defense supplemental witness list?”

I looked at that sentence for awhile as well...Can't figure out if it's an "English as a second language" thing or what. Is this standard acceptable for people admitted to the Bar? I just don't get it.

 

[Purple Iris]

"Is the defendent seriously concerned about a bias against sloppy car owners"?
(I have not learned how to post a link yet, sorry.)
The above question is in the State Response regarding the car stain, filed on 2011.02.10

For some reason this question made me laugh so hard I started to snort. Very unladylike. Scared the dog too.

The SA office is amazingly adept at pointing out the defenses marked lack of competence. The question in my post demonstrates that so well. I am a bit quirky by nature so maybe that explains my reaction. There are oodles of examples in the SA responses, documents and court pleadings thus far; that clearly demonstrate their devotion to Caylee Marie Anthony.

I feel guilty for thinkin' some of the information is hysterical in this case; considering the content of the document and question I posted above and more importantly; for the loss of our dearest angel Caylee. I'm sorry sweet Caylee. I feel very uncomfortable when I hear laughter in the courtroom when following cases. I do understand and accept it. I debated whether to post about something that I found to be funny. The only reason I did decide to post, I guess, is to share my opinion that the SA's office is doing an outstanding job; and LE is as well. Kudos to all involved in seeking justice for Caylee. Thank you so very much.

ICA, CA, GA and LA refuse to seek just punishment for Caylee. They have also attempted to waylay this justice by behaving in a decietful, disingenuous and corrupt manner. No worries hunny Caylee, it will be okay.

Perhaps, through my sorta peculiar post a member here that is concerned about the outcome of this case will ease that concern? I remember a couple of my posts were about my worry and concern regarding punishment for this horrid crime. Thanks to WS'ers as well, because I'm not concerned anymore. The information, all of the hard work, and the insight you provide is awesome. :tyou:

Okay then... off to slink into the lurker corner...:crazy::nuts::talker::ziplip:

sorry about the grammer and spelling errors...I think I'll add that to my sig. line.

Oh, please don't be a lurker - POST with us !!!

 

[Purple Iris]

This is my first post here. Long...long time lurker, but I can't help myself today!!!

As if Baez hasn't proven himself incapable in many areas........His drivers licence has been suspended for failure to pay a $23.00 speeding fine!!:floorlaugh:

:welcome5:

Stop that lurking and post to your heart's content !!!

 

[Intermezzo]

Your time we have clearly frittered
Our client, she clearly did it
Yet we shan't cop a plea
Nope, no plea for we
Tho we're deeply in debt
Right up to our necks
Our motions are wrecks
And there may be a hex
Cast by court reporters who ain't been paid yet.

BRAVO :clap:

 

[mitzi]

does he have a fascination with the word EXPENSE

Bold mine.

Must be his "word of the week." heh!:floorlaugh:

 

[logicalgirl]

"Is the defendent seriously concerned about a bias against sloppy car owners"?
(I have not learned how to post a link yet, sorry.)
The above question is in the State Response regarding the car stain, filed on 2011.02.10

For some reason this question made me laugh so hard I started to snort. Very unladylike. Scared the dog too.

The SA office is amazingly adept at pointing out the defenses marked lack of competence. The question in my post demonstrates that so well. I am a bit quirky by nature so maybe that explains my reaction. There are oodles of examples in the SA responses, documents and court pleadings thus far; that clearly demonstrate their devotion to Caylee Marie Anthony.

I feel guilty for thinkin' some of the information is hysterical in this case; considering the content of the document and question I posted above and more importantly; for the loss of our dearest angel Caylee. I'm sorry sweet Caylee. I feel very uncomfortable when I hear laughter in the courtroom when following cases. I do understand and accept it. I debated whether to post about something that I found to be funny. The only reason I did decide to post, I guess, is to share my opinion that the SA's office is doing an outstanding job; and LE is as well. Kudos to all involved in seeking justice for Caylee. Thank you so very much.

ICA, CA, GA and LA refuse to seek just punishment for Caylee. They have also attempted to waylay this justice by behaving in a decietful, disingenuous and corrupt manner. No worries hunny Caylee, it will be okay.

Perhaps, through my sorta peculiar post a member here that is concerned about the outcome of this case will ease that concern? I remember a couple of my posts were about my worry and concern regarding punishment for this horrid crime. Thanks to WS'ers as well, because I'm not concerned anymore. The information, all of the hard work, and the insight you provide is awesome. :tyou:

Okay then... off to slink into the lurker corner...:crazy::nuts::talker::ziplip:

sorry about the grammer and spelling errors...I think I'll add that to my sig. line.

Please don't lurk - you have a lot to offer. You will see me making jokes and it is to give some balance to this horrible crime so I can even endure reading about it.

I also had the same reaction to that particular phrase and remind myself we are not discussing the death of Caylee, but the ridiculous actions of the lawyer who is supposed to be defending the person we believe is a monster who took the life of this precious child.

And it was pretty funny. :silly: Join us!