All Texas Equusearch-Related Filings #1

[ThinkTank]

Won't the magistrate be able to check their note-taking?

ETA: I'd like the judge to clarify the notetaking...anyone see the motion?

The Judge's Order is here - note taking is not defined

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ior Rulings by Disqualified Judge 7-21-10.pdf

 

[RR0004]

The Judge's Order is here - note taking is not defined

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ior Rulings by Disqualified Judge 7-21-10.pdf

I hope TES/MN presses that issue.

 

[ThinkTank]

Won't the magistrate be able to check their note-taking?

ETA: I'd like the judge to clarify the notetaking...anyone see the motion?

I can envision the defense team using laptops for their note taking ... and can envision the Special Magistrate NOT standing directly over their shoulders to watch every moment to see exactly what info they are taking note of from the 4,000 records.

The only safeguard in this situation is that the defense cannot go public with any names of the 4,000 TES searchers that they want to target for Kronking, unless that TES searcher's name has previously been approved by Judge P..

 

[Kentjbkent]

Exactly right - this is how I understand the situation to be.
I too was very upset that Judge Perry overuled Judge S. and will allow the defense to take notes from the 4,000 TES searcher records. As far as I can tell there will be nothing to stop the defense from writing down names and contact info on anyone they want. The only prohibition is that the defense cannot make any of that info public (but IMO they don't want to make it public - yet). They want the names and contact info so they can start DIGGING for dirt on the TES searchers - then they will conjure up some kind of motion to present to the Judge for releasing the info on that particular searcher.
I think the defense will need to give their tagged records to the Special Mag to copy and show to Judge P.
If the defense later comes up with names of TES searchers that were NOT approved by Judge P., they would be in deep doodoo.
I think the note taking is a bad thing - but Judge P. has already made up his mind on that issue, apparently.

Where is this stipulated? (I think I am forgetting something?)

Is there somewhere in the orders that stipulate that the names of volunteers are to remain confidential apart from attorneys involved in the case?

I can see where Baez may realize that it is not in his best interest to go in front of a tv camera spewing out names of volunteers, but I would not put it past him (or his co-horts) to provide these names to "defense volunteers who frequent crime forums but now have extra time on their hands" from leaking these names on various websites....then sit back and watch the fireworks begin....

 

[RR0004]

I can envision the defense team using laptops for their note taking ... and can envision the Special Magistrate NOT standing directly over their shoulders to watch every moment to see exactly what info they are taking note of from the 4,000 records.

The only safeguard in this situation is that the defense cannot go public with any names of the 4,000 TES searchers that they want to target for Kronking, unless that TES searcher's name has previously been approved by Judge P..

Not like I don't trust Baez...but the implications are veryyyyyy scary!

 

[ThinkTank]

I agree completely, I think MN is upset that this keeps coming back, it appears to be a fishing expedition. I don't think HHJP will give the defense anything without his approval. JB & Co. better have some relevant reasons for requesting the files they want, jmo.

As far as I can tell Judge P. did not alter Judge S.'s Order as pertains to the "relevant" TES searchers being those who searched within "50 yards" of where Caylee's remains were found.
The defense tagged TES searchers who searched 300 yards (3 football fields) up to 8 miles away ....

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank
Exactly right - this is how I understand the situation to be.
I too was very upset that Judge Perry overuled Judge S. and will allow the defense to take notes from the 4,000 TES searcher records. As far as I can tell there will be nothing to stop the defense from writing down names and contact info on anyone they want. The only prohibition is that the defense cannot make any of that info public (but IMO they don't want to make it public - yet). They want the names and contact info so they can start DIGGING for dirt on the TES searchers - then they will conjure up some kind of motion to present to the Judge for releasing the info on that particular searcher.
I think the defense will need to give their tagged records to the Special Mag to copy and show to Judge P.
If the defense later comes up with names of TES searchers that were NOT approved by Judge P., they would be in deep doodoo.
I think the note taking is a bad thing - but Judge P. has already made up his mind on that issue, apparently.

Where is this stipulated? (I think I am forgetting something?)

Is there somewhere in the orders that stipulate that the names of volunteers are to remain confidential apart from attorneys involved in the case?

I can see where Baez may realize that it is not in his best interest to go in front of a tv camera spewing out names of volunteers, but I would not put it past him (or his co-horts) to provide these names to "defense volunteers who frequent crime forums but now have extra time on their hands" from leaking these names on various websites....then sit back and watch the fireworks begin....

Aug 27, 2009
JUDGE S. ORDER: Read Order About Tim Miller

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20582267/detail.html
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CERTIFY TIMOTHY MILLER AS A MATERIAL WITNESS IN THE INSTANT PROSECUTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF TEXAS EQUUSEARCH
Judge S said: No notes, photographs or copies shall be taken of the other searchers documents and no disclosure regarding any information regarding the other searchers shall be disclosed or released by the Defense unless first approved by this court;.....

 

[Kentjbkent]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank
Exactly right - this is how I understand the situation to be.
I too was very upset that Judge Perry overuled Judge S. and will allow the defense to take notes from the 4,000 TES searcher records. As far as I can tell there will be nothing to stop the defense from writing down names and contact info on anyone they want. The only prohibition is that the defense cannot make any of that info public (but IMO they don't want to make it public - yet). They want the names and contact info so they can start DIGGING for dirt on the TES searchers - then they will conjure up some kind of motion to present to the Judge for releasing the info on that particular searcher.
I think the defense will need to give their tagged records to the Special Mag to copy and show to Judge P.
If the defense later comes up with names of TES searchers that were NOT approved by Judge P., they would be in deep doodoo.
I think the note taking is a bad thing - but Judge P. has already made up his mind on that issue, apparently.



Aug 27, 2009
JUDGE S. ORDER: Read Order About Tim Miller

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20582267/detail.html
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CERTIFY TIMOTHY MILLER AS A MATERIAL WITNESS IN THE INSTANT PROSECUTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF TEXAS EQUUSEARCH
Judge S said: No notes, photographs or copies shall be taken of the other searchers documents and no disclosure regarding any information regarding the other searchers shall be disclosed or released by the Defense unless first approved by this court;.....

Ok, got it now! Thanks so much!

So only stiplulation in underlined above that Perry amended was the "no notes" portion.

Whew....feel a little better...but still not letting guard down for those volunteers!

Baez plays dirty....:banghead:

 

[LambChop]

If it were me and JB was coming to my office on a witch hunt I'd be giving him copies of the files with just the file number on them. All names and addresses blacked out. If the judge looks at the file and says it's okay to give JB a copy of the original file then he could have them. It is the only way to protect their privacy now. If JB is looking to single out people by name I do not think the judge would agree with him unless JB could produce the name ahead of time. It would certainly bring to the public's attention and those 4,000 people who volunteered exactly what JB was after. Could they not then take steps to protect their privacy by asking MN to get a protective order? What if you lived down the street from where the body was found and you were a volunteer out at the airport. That's what they are looking for. Let's hope no one that lived that close volunteered. JMO

 

[LambChop]

I can envision the defense team using laptops for their note taking ... and can envision the Special Magistrate NOT standing directly over their shoulders to watch every moment to see exactly what info they are taking note of from the 4,000 records.

The only safeguard in this situation is that the defense cannot go public with any names of the 4,000 TES searchers that they want to target for Kronking, unless that TES searcher's name has previously been approved by Judge P..

No laptops. Laptops have cameras. That would be very, very bad. I would hope they are permitted to have a pad and pen.

 

[AZlawyer]

From the order, it sounds like the whole review-and-take-notes plan was agreed on by JB and MN, so I can't imagine MN's motion re: bad faith would ask to change the plan.

 

[nums24]

I would like to read NeJame's Bad Faith Motion to understand exactly what he is asking for?
Is he asking for Sanctions?
The judge has already Ordered that the Defense can review the 4,000 docs and that they can take notes.
The review can take place before a Hearing on the Bad Faith Motion, so NeJame cannot be asking that they NOT take notes. That has been ordered - the Judge is not going to change his decision on taking notes.

If the Defense has the Special Mag tag and copy any docs to show to the Judge in private, then a Hearing will be held before the Judge looks at those tagged docs.

Is NeJame just trying to make sure that the Defense gets no more than the 32 docs of TES searchers?

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...ior Rulings by Disqualified Judge 7-21-10.pdf

ORDER ADDRESSING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PRIOR RULINGS BY DISQUALIFIED JUDGE AS TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO MODIFY COURT'S ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR DOCUMENTS IN POSSESSION OF TEXAS EQUUSEARCH

filed July 21, 2010
sent to all lawyers including Linda Kenney Baden in New York

I think he is looking for the judge to deny access to the records period. I think HHJP will allow the insepction for due process rights, but will make the defense explain in camera why they want them.

snipped from the Sentinel article, BBM:

NeJame said, "It is patently obvious and apparent that the defense knows the conditions of the area, and that they are no longer in need of the names of any searchers to verify this information."

NeJame further suggests the defense "is filing these motions, requesting irrelevant documents all to create seemingly bogus appellate issues that do not exist."

 

[nums24]

From the order, it sounds like the whole review-and-take-notes plan was agreed on by JB and MN, so I can't imagine MN's motion re: bad faith would ask to change the plan.

Do you think MN wants to change the plan? Or filed this motion just for "the record"?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Do you think MN wants to change the plan? Or filed this motion just for "the record"?

Isn't the motion for "bad faith" based upon the fact that JB et al failed to make any valid effort (as the SA office did without issues) to review docs prior to demanding MORE???

First JB sent The Presentation Group to copy the records (blatant violation of court ruling).

Failed to schedule further efforts and failed to return calls????

JB ended with a "half effort" theoretically made for appearances and failed to even attempt to operate within the constraints of the ruling.....

 

[nums24]

Isn't the motion for "bad faith" based upon the fact that JB et al failed to make any valid effort (as the SA office did without issues) to review docs prior to demanding MORE???

First JB sent The Presentation Group to copy the records (blatant violation of court ruling).

Failed to schedule further efforts and failed to return calls????

JB ended with a "half effort" theoretically made for appearances and failed to even attempt to operate within the constraints of the ruling.....

Yes, yes, yes! Excellent point!

Bad faith with the "half effort" and bad faith by Mason's statement to the press.

 

[Kentjbkent]

If it were me and JB was coming to my office on a witch hunt I'd be giving him copies of the files with just the file number on them. All names and addresses blacked out. If the judge looks at the file and says it's okay to give JB a copy of the original file then he could have them. It is the only way to protect their privacy now. If JB is looking to single out people by name I do not think the judge would agree with him unless JB could produce the name ahead of time. It would certainly bring to the public's attention and those 4,000 people who volunteered exactly what JB was after. Could they not then take steps to protect their privacy by asking MN to get a protective order? What if you lived down the street from where the body was found and you were a volunteer out at the airport. That's what they are looking for. Let's hope no one that lived that close volunteered. JMO

EXCELLENT POINT and I think I will keep my fingers crossed that Nejame has already got that covered!!!

Baez doesn't get access to names and addresses listed on a particular record until AFTER it has been tagged AND approved for copying by Perry?....I begrudgingly agree with that.....

 

[beach]

EXCELLENT POINT and I think I will keep my fingers crossed that Nejame has already got that covered!!!

Baez doesn't get access to names and addresses listed on a particular record until AFTER it has been tagged AND approved for copying by Perry?....I begrudgingly agree with that.....

I could be wrong, but I think I recall that blacking out the names would not be allowed. It is not in any order that I know of, but I know it has been discussed before and IIRC, that was gonna be a no-no.

I hope I AM wrong about that!!

eta: I only recall it because I was hoping the exact same & was disappointed with the answer.

Let's just try to keep in mind that Judge Perry is gonna review this before they are allowed to go on a witch hunt. I think he allowed the note taking to avoid any appellate issues. JMO

 

[beach]

Isn't the motion for "bad faith" based upon the fact that JB et al failed to make any valid effort (as the SA office did without issues) to review docs prior to demanding MORE???

First JB sent The Presentation Group to copy the records (blatant violation of court ruling).

Failed to schedule further efforts and failed to return calls????

JB ended with a "half effort" theoretically made for appearances and failed to even attempt to operate within the constraints of the ruling.....

Well, yeah...but add to that - JB & CM's interpretation of searchers in the "vicinity" differs GREATLY from MN's definition of "vicinity".

I am anxious to read that motion.

 

[chefmom]

The Judge will not care about what Mason said to the media after a Hearing, will he?

Mason said this to the media, after the June 21, 2010 Hearing.
http://www.wftv.com/video/23979291/index.html
Cheney Mason:
"The public has been made to believe that these people searched the exact area where the body was, or tried to and couldn't, the fact is they didn't try to and they didn't-they weren't there and it was impassable at the time. So there's a lot of people mistakin' things of what happened back in the summer of 2008 and what happened in the winter of 2008.
If we were able to establish a reasonable doubt as to when the body got put there, and it comes at a time when KC couldn't have done it then we know conclusively that somebody else had to do it. If we know that somebody else put the body there, it's a question of who, and how and when. So thats all we're pursuing. We don't know-I wasn't there-you weren't there, all I know is that the people who have searched the area, many of them have given different stories about the condition of the place. Some say its under water as an excuse of why they couldn't find the body. We have witness say it wasn't under water so that means it wasn't there............................."[/QUOTE]

BBM

Perhaps this is all that they are after, finding the people who state that the remains area was NOT under water. Then they can argue it wasn't found because it was there, blah, blah, blah. IMO, it is going to look bad on them if they keep trying to blame anyone and everyone else and never give one good reason as to why their client never reported her daughter missing, lied and lied to LE, and never shed one tear for her daughter. Well, IMO, they will NEVER be able to explain those things away.

 

[ThinkTank]

From the order, it sounds like the whole review-and-take-notes plan was agreed on by JB and MN, so I can't imagine MN's motion re: bad faith would ask to change the plan.

However ... look at the title of NeJame's Motion - he wants to quash the COURT'S ORDER ....
Doesn't that look like MN is NOT in agreement with Judge P's Order?

- 07/22/2010 Motion to Quash --The Court's Order on Defendant's Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum for the Documents in the Possession of Texas Equusearch Based on Bad Faith