2011.01.05 Hearing TES Volunteer Computer Subpoena

[TotallyObsessed]

NJ Lawyer:

I respect your post and the knowledge you bring. However, what if I today say "I have pictures of my searches for Caylee"....I don't..I didn't search, but what if I just said that to impress and draw curiosity by the cyberworld participants?

Would JB be able to haul me into court and have a subpoena issued, just to see if I was telling the truth? I understand the difference is that JJ did, in fact, search for Caylee. But what concrete evidence did JB bring to the judge that JJ does in fact have pictures of his search on Suburban drive? None.

So given the fact that JB did not present any evidence in that case, what then would stope JB from wanting a subpoena to haul each and every 4,000+ searchers for TES and otherwise into court to go on a fishing expedition to see if they MIGHT have something that would help his client?

 

[chefmom]

I also think that just because ICA was in court on Monday during the sanctions hearing that she just thinks the State is picking on JB, I am sure he was able to spin it that he was only a few hours late (yea the next day) my guess is when JA was up telling JP all the infractions that JB has done in this case, that she was not listening or paying any attention, and since JP did not go thru each infraction 1x1 with JB but instead just picked 1 that KC thinks that is the only mistake that JB has made....I also think that during KC time out of jail and all the time she spent with JB at his office that they have a very close relationship (and I don't mean that kind) But I still feel that KC would Never Ever fire JB, as others have said in the past they are 2 peas in a pod, and I think KC feels like she finally has someone who supports and understands her there is no way she would Ever fire him, And since CA & GA can't go and visit her she will never know all the shenanigans that have went on in this case...

Another thing IMO we only know a small amount of what has went on with the SA office, JB, and the courts there is so much stuff that goes on behind the scene that we will never know about, but I think JP is getting really tired off all the crap that the defence has done in this case.

BBM

ITA! I think she really wants to keep JB around because, unlike her parents or anyone else, JB does not want her to tell what happened to Caylee, he is only concerned with getting her off, and that is all ICA cares about. If she were to hire another attorney, they might ask her those pesky little questions about Caylee and what happened, and we have all seen how ICA reacts when she is being questioned about something she doesn't want to talk about. MOO



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pla9ZoGTqzs[/ame]

 

[beach]

I haven't gone through this thread to see if anyone has made the point but...while I am 100% on the side of the prosecution in this case, the judge should have allowed defense counsel's subpoena duces tecum in this instance. The blogger in question apparently searched an area close to where the body was found and, subsequent to the deposition, defense counsel discovered that the blogger had photos of various search areas. Even if the statements about photos didn't include the specific area in question, it's enough that the blogger: (1) had photos of searches; and (2) made statements at another time about having searched near to the area where the body was found. It's not an exact match (i.e., "I have photos of the area where the body was found") but it's enough for counsel to ask about it.

Defense counsel says it didn't realize photos were taken until after the deposition but....even if it *should* have asked the question at deposition, it doesn't change the result. It is still reasonable for defense counsel to demand copies of any photos that may have been taken close to where the body was discovered. Defense doesn't have to make the case that such photos actually exist. It is entitled to ask if they exist...yes, even though the deposition is concluded. If the blogger has photos, defense counsel is entitled to them because they are evidence in the case (in fact, the State is entitled to them too).

This is the kind of trial court decision that could hamper the ability of the State to have a conviction affirmed on appeal. I'm sure Judge Perry has fans on this site but I am not impressed by the decision today or his reasoning. If I were Jeff Ashton, I'd issue my own subpoena asking the blogger if photos were taken within 100 feet of the site (or some distance) and if so, for copies of them. If the blogger refused to answer, I'd go to court for enforcement. Then I would share the answer and the photos with defense counsel. Doing this would take the wind out of defense counsel's sail in terms of later arguing that counsel was hampered in suggesting that there was no body at the scene at a certain point in time. The judge is making a stupid mistake. Ashton will probably realize this and step in, hopefully. As a prosecutor you want a conviction but you want it to be affirmed on appeal. Why risk that?

BBM

Excellent points made.

In re. the bold: I can't say that I agree, but I am no lawyer. I think that was the whole basis for HHJP's ruling - that he wasn't going to allow a fishing expedition for something that may or may not exist. And I sincerely doubt they do exist because we have seen many photos of his search at another location (Jay Blanchard Park). These were all taken and posted before the remains were located. I see no reason to believe that he would not have shared similar photos of the Suburban area, if they actually existed. Therefore, I tend to believe they do NOT exist.

I think HHJP ruled according to the law. It is a dangerous thing when the courts start allowing personal computers to be searched without probable cause. And I do not believe that Baez established probable cause. The application for subpoena duces tecum included not just photos, but all of his posts, too. Really scary road to travel down w/o proof that those photos even exist and HHJP gave Baez every opportunity to offer proof.

jmho

 

[The World According]

Thank you so much NJ Lawyer for contributing here!! I really appreciate it. I drive my husband nuts running to him with questions, he always says, "Haven't they tried that case YET?!!!"

I think Judge Perry is just wanting Jose to get the request correct procedurally. He takes a lot of time explaining why to him. A LOT OF TIME. He has the patience of a kinder teacher!!

Remain calm friends, Jeff Ashton and Linda Drane Burdick know just how to handle this. They have dealt with far more clever defense attorneys than Mr. Baez, and, even the forty years experienced Mr. Mason.

Every time the defense floats one of their silly balloons, I picture Mrs. Drane Burdick calmly there at the defense table, not even looking up from her reading, lifting one elbow off the table with the sewing needle....POP...as she continues her work, unphased.

The judge seems to want Jose to understand and follow procedures and the Florida rules of criminal procedures, at a minimum!. It is almost as if he sentenced him to two weeks after school detention , in the law library! He denied it, without prejudice, so Jose can go back, find out the RIGHT WAY and try again. Believe it or not, these teaching moments of Judge Perry, are going to be something Jose looks back on with fondness one day. These frequent teaching moments are lifting him up to a much better lawyer. Much like we all grow up and thank our parents for holding the line, he is simply the teacher saying Johhny I am going to do you a favor today , take this assignment back, proof read it, when you are PROUD OF IT, turn it back in, and then I will grade it. Judge Perry is trying to break all of Jose's bad, lazy, complacent, ill prepared habits, or at least let him know they are not going to fly in his courtroom. I say this because he had the choice of denying it with prejudice, and he did not. I give up on Cheney, HE KNOWS BETTER, and still he does it. That disappoints me, and in the words of Mark Nejame, "I am being overly generous in my characterization!"
my opinion only
www.floridabar.org

 

[Turnadot]

I haven't gone through this thread to see if anyone has made the point but...while I am 100% on the side of the prosecution in this case, the judge should have allowed defense counsel's subpoena duces tecum in this instance. The blogger in question apparently searched an area close to where the body was found and, subsequent to the deposition, defense counsel discovered that the blogger had photos of various search areas. Even if the statements about photos didn't include the specific area in question, it's enough that the blogger: (1) had photos of searches; and (2) made statements at another time about having searched near to the area where the body was found. It's not an exact match (i.e., "I have photos of the area where the body was found") but it's enough for counsel to ask about it.

Defense counsel says it didn't realize photos were taken until after the deposition but....even if it *should* have asked the question at deposition, it doesn't change the result. It is still reasonable for defense counsel to demand copies of any photos that may have been taken close to where the body was discovered. Defense doesn't have to make the case that such photos actually exist. It is entitled to ask if they exist...yes, even though the deposition is concluded. If the blogger has photos, defense counsel is entitled to them because they are evidence in the case (in fact, the State is entitled to them too).

This is the kind of trial court decision that could hamper the ability of the State to have a conviction affirmed on appeal. I'm sure Judge Perry has fans on this site but I am not impressed by the decision today or his reasoning. If I were Jeff Ashton, I'd issue my own subpoena asking the blogger if photos were taken within 100 feet of the site (or some distance) and if so, for copies of them. If the blogger refused to answer, I'd go to court for enforcement. Then I would share the answer and the photos with defense counsel. Doing this would take the wind out of defense counsel's sail in terms of later arguing that counsel was hampered in suggesting that there was no body at the scene at a certain point in time. The judge is making a stupid mistake. Ashton will probably realize this and step in, hopefully. As a prosecutor you want a conviction but you want it to be affirmed on appeal. Why risk that?

BBM.

That's not quite right. Baez claimed knowledge that JJ may have photos of Suburban Drive, or information. But Baez had no proof the photos of Suburban Drive, from JJ, exist, nor did he have, imo, a believable explanation why he wanted all of JJ's posts from the www. Changing your story and pointing to a map just isn't good enough, because JJ could claim he made an honest mistake by jumping the gun in his eagerness to help. It happens all the time. Moreover, the only photos JJ himself posted (which are still available on the 'net) were taken at Jay Blanchard Park. JJ himself never posted, or claimed to have photos of suburban Drive, or any place other than Jay Blanchard Park.

It's my understanding that it's a violation of JJ's rights for the Court to issue a subpoena bases on a lawyers suspicion that JJ may, possibly have evidence. I think Baez has a shot at getting the subpoena if he asks again with facts instead of conjecture.

Just my opinion.

 

[Virtual Truth]

I haven't gone through this thread to see if anyone has made the point but...while I am 100% on the side of the prosecution in this case, the judge should have allowed defense counsel's subpoena duces tecum in this instance. The blogger in question apparently searched an area close to where the body was found and, subsequent to the deposition, defense counsel discovered that the blogger had photos of various search areas. Even if the statements about photos didn't include the specific area in question, it's enough that the blogger: (1) had photos of searches; and (2) made statements at another time about having searched near to the area where the body was found. It's not an exact match (i.e., "I have photos of the area where the body was found") but it's enough for counsel to ask about it.

Defense counsel says it didn't realize photos were taken until after the deposition but....even if it *should* have asked the question at deposition, it doesn't change the result. It is still reasonable for defense counsel to demand copies of any photos that may have been taken close to where the body was discovered. Defense doesn't have to make the case that such photos actually exist. It is entitled to ask if they exist...yes, even though the deposition is concluded. If the blogger has photos, defense counsel is entitled to them because they are evidence in the case (in fact, the State is entitled to them too).

This is the kind of trial court decision that could hamper the ability of the State to have a conviction affirmed on appeal. I'm sure Judge Perry has fans on this site but I am not impressed by the decision today or his reasoning. If I were Jeff Ashton, I'd issue my own subpoena asking the blogger if photos were taken within 100 feet of the site (or some distance) and if so, for copies of them. If the blogger refused to answer, I'd go to court for enforcement. Then I would share the answer and the photos with defense counsel. Doing this would take the wind out of defense counsel's sail in terms of later arguing that counsel was hampered in suggesting that there was no body at the scene at a certain point in time. The judge is making a stupid mistake. Ashton will probably realize this and step in, hopefully. As a prosecutor you want a conviction but you want it to be affirmed on appeal. Why risk that?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought JB was not just asking for copies of the photos with this motion --he wanted to search JJ's computer. Wouldn't that make the difference in why His Honor denied the request....JB just doesn't seem to know how to ask for the proper thing...or he really wants something that he is not entitled to have, such as looking to see what JJ has on MS, the PI, that might be incriminating to the defense team???? Just my opinion....

 

[The World According]

Cheney Mason you are asleep at the wheel, and the train, sir is running off in the ditch. Wake up and DO SOMETHING!!!! Please!
The judge needs to start referring to Cheney as lead counsel, to remind him, he is not a silent passenger here. I believe he should be equally sanctioned, he is not innocent or unaware of what Jose files or argues to the court.
Judge Perry told Jose he could not give him a license to fish. He did, however, deny the motion without prejudice, meaning the defense attorneys could revisit the issue if they can make a more compelling argument for the obtaining the information they seek.

In other words, help a kid out Cheney!!

 

[Intermezzo]

Excellent points made.

In re. the bold: I can't say that I agree, but I am no lawyer. I think that was the whole basis for HHJP's ruling - that he wasn't going to allow a fishing expedition for something that may or may not exist. And I sincerely doubt they do exist because we have seen many photos of his search at another location (Jay Blanchard Park). These were all taken and posted before the remains were located. I see no reason to believe that he would not have shared similar photos of the Suburban area, if they actually existed. Therefore, I tend to believe they do NOT exist.

I think HHJP ruled according to the law. It is a dangerous thing when the courts start allowing personal computers to be searched without probable cause. And I do not believe that Baez established probable cause. The application for subpoena duces tecum included not just photos, but all of his posts, too. Really scary road to travel down w/o proof that those photos even exist and HHJP gave Baez every opportunity to offer proof.

jmho

bbm
Baez wanted ALL of Jordan's internet posts to blogs and forums...as well as photos no one has ever claimed even exist.

JBP is very learned in Florida Law

Probable Cause...That seems to be the major legal issue here and why Judge Perry ruled the way he did.
Do they have proof that there is any evidence that relates to this case or are they just assumptions..are they Fishing?

Jordan has been known to the Defense for many many months..they have tried to use him to bolster their theory about the placement of Caylee's remains....I do not believe they are just now finding information on him...

:twocents:

 

[NJ Lawyer]

BBM.

That's not quite right. Baez claimed knowledge that JJ may have photos of Suburban Drive, or information. But Baez had no proof the photos of Suburban Drive, from JJ, exist, nor did he have, imo, a believable explanation why he wanted all of JJ's posts from the www.

*sigh* I understand there's nothing out there about photos from the actual Suburban Drive search. I took pains to note as much in my post. Rather, the point I made is that the blogger conducted searches for Caylee and posted pictures of some of the searches (I understand Blanchard Park). He didn't post pics of a Suburban Drive search but apparently, he said he looked in the area. Therefore, it's reasonable to ask the blogger if he has pictures of the Suburban Drive search and if so, give us copies. The prosecutor should be entitled to them too, not just defense counsel. Baez said he didn't ask the blogger about it at the deposition b/c he didn't know the blogger had searched Suburban Drive at that point. True or not, the state and the defense are both entitled to the photos if they exist. When you're talking about someone who went and searched for Caylee and contacted law enforcement and kept a blog....it is not a "fishing expedition" to demand an answer to the simple but critical question: Do you have pictures of the area where Caylee's body was found and, if so, turn them over copies, please. We're not talking about tenuous inquiries into tangential matters -- this is a question about whether photos of a body's location exist and what the photos show. I'm confident an appeals court would quickly overturn the judge's decision but I don't think an appeal will be necessary. Ashton seems like a smart guy and surely he will step in to make the same request so a future conviction isn't overturned on something stupid. Remember, you don't want to win the battle and lose the war.

 

[Turnadot]

*sigh* I understand there's nothing out there about photos from the actual Suburban Drive search. I took pains to note as much in my post. Rather, the point I made is that the blogger conducted searches for Caylee and posted pictures of some of the searches (I understand Blanchard Park). He didn't post pics of a Suburban Drive search but apparently, he said he looked in the area. Therefore, it's reasonable to ask the blogger if he has pictures of the Suburban Drive search and if so, give us copies. The prosecutor should be entitled to them too, not just defense counsel. Baez said he didn't ask the blogger about it at the deposition b/c he didn't know the blogger had searched Suburban Drive at that point. True or not, the state and the defense are both entitled to the photos if they exist. When you're talking about someone who went and searched for Caylee and contacted law enforcement and kept a blog....it is not a "fishing expedition" to demand an answer to the simple but critical question: Do you have pictures of the area where Caylee's body was found and, if so, turn them over copies, please. We're not talking about tenuous inquiries into tangential matters -- this is a question about whether photos of a body's location exist and what the photos show. I'm confident an appeals court would quickly overturn the judge's decision but I don't think an appeal will be necessary. Ashton seems like a smart guy and surely he will step in to make the same request so a future conviction isn't overturned on something stupid. Remember, you don't want to win the battle and lose the war.

Absolutely; I agree.

However, it's not reasonable to issue a subpoena to the defense before it's established that JJ actually has pictures of the Suburban Drive search. So the defense needs to depose him again; not ask for a subpoena based on nothing more than what amounts to a hunch.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

bbm
Jordan has been known to the Defense for many many months...I do not believe they are just now finding information on him...

? Baez never said to the judge "we're just now finding information about Jordan." He deposed Jordan already - that's not an issue. Baez just wants to close the loop on whether photos exist of the Suburban site. The question wasn't asked at deposition and that loop needs to be closed. It's a capital murder case - of course the defense (and state) have a right to ask if photos exists (and if they do...copies). I would like to see a conviction in this case but I would like that conviction affirmed. Without the loop closed, a conviction will not be affirmed. That is why I think Ashton will probably close the loop himself. It was not a good ruling by the Judge. Sometimes prosecutors have to step in and correct a ruling that favors the prosecution.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Have we seen JJ's deposition? I know it's here somewhere. I want to reread. Link anybody. I suck at finding stuff here.

 

[The World According]

*sigh* I understand there's nothing out there about photos from the actual Suburban Drive search. I took pains to note as much in my post. Rather, the point I made is that the blogger conducted searches for Caylee and posted pictures of some of the searches (I understand Blanchard Park). He didn't post pics of a Suburban Drive search but apparently, he said he looked in the area. Therefore, it's reasonable to ask the blogger if he has pictures of the Suburban Drive search and if so, give us copies. The prosecutor should be entitled to them too, not just defense counsel. Baez said he didn't ask the blogger about it at the deposition b/c he didn't know the blogger had searched Suburban Drive at that point. True or not, the state and the defense are both entitled to the photos if they exist. When you're talking about someone who went and searched for Caylee and contacted law enforcement and kept a blog....it is not a "fishing expedition" to demand an answer to the simple but critical question: Do you have pictures of the area where Caylee's body was found and, if so, turn them over copies, please. We're not talking about tenuous inquiries into tangential matters -- this is a question about whether photos of a body's location exist and what the photos show. I'm confident an appeals court would quickly overturn the judge's decision but I don't think an appeal will be necessary. Ashton seems like a smart guy and surely he will step in to make the same request so a future conviction isn't overturned on something stupid. Remember, you don't want to win the battle and lose the war.

Again, thank you for being here to chimb in. Much the way most of my and my best friend's marriage and job woes seem to be solved by the third glas of wine on girl's night, often talking it through illumnifies the answer. You can always count on a lively discussion here. It is instructive to look at all of the points of view, imo.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

However, it's not reasonable to issue a subpoena to the defense before it's established that JJ actually has pictures of the Suburban Drive search. So the defense needs to depose him again; not ask for a subpoena based on nothing more than what amounts to a hunch.

I think the Subpoena can be narrowed to ask only for pics and info of the Suburban Search and blogger's counsel can respond to the Subpoena to the effect that no pictures in fact exist. That should solve the problem. Don't know if another deposition is needed. But.....if something more *is* needed, it could just be interrogatories to blogger with appropriately worded questions (about the existence of photos). If another dep is needed, it can be like a 3 question thing. I've seen follow-up deps last 1 minute. (Costly? Not really in the scheme of things. Once again, I want to see the war won).

 

[The World According]

Have we seen JJ's deposition? I know it's here somewhere. I want to reread. Link anybody. I suck at finding stuff here.

http://www.wftv.com/video/26171628/index.html#

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...5N2BAg&usg=AFQjCNE1xenZDa7qSpXbhxtYFYQjRZ_7hQ

 

[Intermezzo]

*sigh* I understand there's nothing out there about photos from the actual Suburban Drive search. I took pains to note as much in my post. Rather, the point I made is that the blogger conducted searches for Caylee and posted pictures of some of the searches (I understand Blanchard Park). He didn't post pics of a Suburban Drive search but apparently, he said he looked in the area. Therefore, it's reasonable to ask the blogger if he has pictures of the Suburban Drive search and if so, give us copies. The prosecutor should be entitled to them too, not just defense counsel. Baez said he didn't ask the blogger about it at the deposition b/c he didn't know the blogger had searched Suburban Drive at that point. True or not, the state and the defense are both entitled to the photos if they exist. When you're talking about someone who went and searched for Caylee and contacted law enforcement and kept a blog....it is not a "fishing expedition" to demand an answer to the simple but critical question: Do you have pictures of the area where Caylee's body was found and, if so, turn them over copies, please. We're not talking about tenuous inquiries into tangential matters -- this is a question about whether photos of a body's location exist and what the photos show. I'm confident an appeals court would quickly overturn the judge's decision but I don't think an appeal will be necessary. Ashton seems like a smart guy and surely he will step in to make the same request so a future conviction isn't overturned on something stupid. Remember, you don't want to win the battle and lose the war.

Thanks for your posts.

I am wondering if, as Baez claims he recently learned about photos and blog posts, would the next step not be to contact, either by phone call or written correspondence, Jordan/his lawyer and ask if photos of the area do exist?
Before assuming they do and file a Motion with the court for Subpoena Duces Tecum?
I don't remember Baez even stating he tried to obtain the information before filing a Motion.

I am suspicious of Baez's claim that he only recently found this information out...he has already in the recent past lied to JBP when asked if any of his Experts upon examination of evidence authored reports and Baez answered NO in court..but in handing over discovery the Prosecution and we come to find out that was not true.

Once again thank you for your input and point of view..it is greatly appreciated.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

[/color]

What 'cha gonna do, what 'cha gonna do when they come for you?

Sorry, couldn't resist.:innocent:

I couldn't resist either! :innocent::innocent: (besides, wouldn't want CM to get lost on the WORLD WIDE WEB)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iISyPz5XRyI[/ame]

 

[Turnadot]

? Baez never said to the judge "we're just now finding information about Jordan." He deposed Jordan already - that's not an issue. Baez just wants to close the loop on whether photos exist of the Suburban site. The question wasn't asked at deposition and that loop needs to be closed. It's a capital murder case - of course the defense (and state) have a right to ask if photos exists (and if they do...copies). I would like to see a conviction in this case but I would like that conviction affirmed. Without the loop closed, a conviction will not be affirmed. That is why I think Ashton will probably close the loop himself. It was not a good ruling by the Judge. Sometimes prosecutors have to step in and correct a ruling that favors the prosecution.

Yes and to be perfectly honest, I think getting photos of the Suburban Drive search, if JJ has them, is a good move on Baez's part. But my opinion is by asking for the subpoena when he did, he put the cart before the horse. He didn't really seem to know what he was asking for; it was too broad and unfocused.

 

[Turnadot]

I think the Subpoena can be narrowed to ask only for pics and info of the Suburban Search and blogger's counsel can respond to the Subpoena to the effect that no pictures in fact exist. That should solve the problem. Don't know if another deposition is needed. But.....if something more *is* needed, it could just be interrogatories to blogger with appropriately worded questions (about the existence of photos). If another dep is needed, it can be like a 3 question thing. I've seen follow-up deps last 1 minute. (Costly? Not really in the scheme of things. Once again, I want to see the war won).

*nod*

Now that would be the smart thing to do.

And therein lies the problem, imo, Baez went about it all the wrong way because he's in over his head.

 

[faefrost]

*sigh* I understand there's nothing out there about photos from the actual Suburban Drive search. I took pains to note as much in my post. Rather, the point I made is that the blogger conducted searches for Caylee and posted pictures of some of the searches (I understand Blanchard Park). He didn't post pics of a Suburban Drive search but apparently, he said he looked in the area. Therefore, it's reasonable to ask the blogger if he has pictures of the Suburban Drive search and if so, give us copies. The prosecutor should be entitled to them too, not just defense counsel. Baez said he didn't ask the blogger about it at the deposition b/c he didn't know the blogger had searched Suburban Drive at that point. True or not, the state and the defense are both entitled to the photos if they exist. When you're talking about someone who went and searched for Caylee and contacted law enforcement and kept a blog....it is not a "fishing expedition" to demand an answer to the simple but critical question: Do you have pictures of the area where Caylee's body was found and, if so, turn them over copies, please. We're not talking about tenuous inquiries into tangential matters -- this is a question about whether photos of a body's location exist and what the photos show. I'm confident an appeals court would quickly overturn the judge's decision but I don't think an appeal will be necessary. Ashton seems like a smart guy and surely he will step in to make the same request so a future conviction isn't overturned on something stupid. Remember, you don't want to win the battle and lose the war.

But did the defense actually ask if there were any pictures? That's the thing. They hauled out the big guns demanding a ton of personal data with out first utilizing the most basic tools to determine if they existed. A simple phone call to JJ's lawyer would most likely be sufficient. And while yes it is beyond reasonable to expect that they can get any pictures directly related to the case if they exist, The simple thought that something might exist does not give them the right to open up the entirety of a persons personal data.

Asking if the pictures exist under oath is a reasonable request. If they needed to they should have requested to put the witness back under oath to ask the question. Then only if they have some clear indication that the witness was not being truthful under oath should they go in and attempt to request the supeona they filed. It is the diference between ASKING SOMETHING UNDER OATH, where the defendants rights are paramount and compelling a SEARCH where the private citizens rights are. JB did not present sufficient cause to compel the search that he had demanded and HHJP kept telling him that over and over.