All Texas Equusearch-Related Filings #1

[essies]

I think the defense going after or casting aspersions against TES or any searcher reeks of desperation and the jury will be repulsed by such an attempt!! IMO

 

[marspiter]

“Here you have someone who is a team leader, who's out there with two cadaver dogs at the location where Caylee's remains were found,” Baez said. “What kind of exculpatory information is out there? Who knows.”
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/4/5/lawyers_seek_volunteer_information_in_casey_case.html

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/0...y-of-relativity-and-his-pictures-to-prove-it/
Jose Baez’s Theory of Relativity..and his pictures to prove it
Posted on April 6th, 2010 by Valhall
As we have read in several of the searcher’s accounts recently released, on September 1st the search on Suburban Drive was centered to the east of the school. According to all statements referencing the finding of the dog/animal bones, including Mr. Miller’s statement, dog/animal bones were found out in the area to the east/southeast of the school and Mr. Miller came later in the day to check it out.

Here’s a map for dummies to show the “relative” nature of this. (Mr. Baez, feel free to use it.)
As covered in my previous article, The Searchers: Richard Creque, Joseph Jordan and Danny Ibison, the “cooler” or ice chest and baby blanket Joseph Jordan located and marked on his TES search map were somewhere between 50 and 100 feet on east of Caylee’s remains on September 1, 2008.

This is where the pictures of Danny Ibison and Tyler, along with Mr. Miller, Yuri Melich, John Allen and others are taken. (Jose – I’m talking about the big red circle on the right.)

And apparently, in Jose’s world, somewhere around 5 miles is relatively close as well. Because he’s trying to use Laura Buchanan’s search on September 3, 2008 at Jay Blanchard Park as evidence he’s been duped out of seeing exculpatory evidence as well.

http://s439.photobucket.com/albums/qq120/cayleecross/?start=960

Hitting thanks wasn't enough. These pictures really put it into perspective of how "close" the searches were. Also the wind direction was a wonderful addition as it shows that Caylee was down wind from the dogs.

 

[The World According]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pei6GAlQ5AI[/ame]

The more the defense digs into TES, the more they remind people of just how close to the home the baby was left, and all the details surrounding that discovery. Is Mr. Miller still not on either side's witness list?

I hope someone ads him, I want the jury to hear from HIM what he tells us here on this tape. IMO it is very, very compelling.

View attachment Mr. Miller interview.pdf

View attachment Tes compilation.doc

 

[The World According]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad_-3Hi5Qo4[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk1Umu7GBVw[/ame]

View attachment Mr. Miller interview.pdf

 

[LambChop]

Not sure TM witnessed anything. Other than the round table discussion with the map that they may not be able to use because her attorney was not present. Maybe SA plans on using him as a rebuttal witness and that would depend on who defense plans to use. jmo

 

[ThinkTank]

Is Mr. Miller still not on either side's witness list?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pei6GAlQ5AI

The more the defense digs into TES, the more they remind people of just how close to the home the baby was left, and all the details surrounding that discovery. Is Mr. Miller still not on either side's witness list?

I hope someone ads him, I want the jury to hear from HIM what he tells us here on this tape. IMO it is very, very compelling.

View attachment 10243

View attachment 10244

Tim Miller was added to the State Witness List on May 24, 2010
(193) Tim Miller - Texas Equusearch - added May 24, 2010

https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1eypXuLsh5uatd0yhKQPIBl3_qCYIw5K-bc0q2jEVkHo&hl=en
STATE WITNESS LIST


https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1SJuT6ZnZa_DMbH7rK5QXMFWMCG9xV7KVoIjLLRZfg_E&hl=en
DEFENSE WITNESS LIST

 

[ThinkTank]

Can't wait to read the Judge's ORDER about the next review of the TES records, and to read NeJame's Motion regarding "BAD FAITH"!!!

07/22/2010 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


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

 

[nums24]

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 fro Documents in Possession of Texas Equusearch

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

 

[nums24]

Texas EquuSearch lawyer says Casey Anthony team acts in bad faith

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ony-searchers-debate-20100722,0,1822196.story

<snipped> Much more at link:

NeJame's motion was filed soon after Chief Circuit Judge Belvin Perry spelled out in an order the rules for the review of the TES volunteer records by the defense team. Perry appointed a special magistrate to supervise the document inspection. And he allowed both parties to take notes during the inspection, a change from earlier court rulings.

Anticipating NeJame's bad faith motion, Perry's order says that document will be reviewed and then a hearing will be set on the arguments presented.

 

[Dear Prudence]

So, it looks like Judge Perry's order says the prior order by Judge S. shall still apply except both parties are allowed to take notes, plus the Special Magistrate will supervise the inspection. The order also says the inspection shall be completed no later than Aug. 25, 2010.

I don't like the note-taking but I do like how JP always puts a deadline on things.

 

[I Din Doot]

Things very clear to me:

1. TES is a class act.
2. In their quest for fame, JB & CM make statements that REALLY mess up any opportunity to present a defense.
3. This guy, HHJP, is making sure there will ne no reasons for appeal.

Things not clear to me if I was in trouble would I want:

1. Lead atty RH - THE BULLDOZER
2. Lead Atty MN - THE CLASS ACT
3. AZ - COMPETENT, ALWAYS HERE FOR US..

 

[ThinkTank]

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

 

[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 haven't been able to find the motion yet, the Sentinel article makes no mention of sanctions, my interpretation is that MN does not anyone else harassed and that the whole basis of the original subpeona is based on "bad faith" knowing that the areas where Caylee was found was under water.

 

[ThinkTank]

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............................."

 

[Kentjbkent]

I would like to read NeJame's Bad Faith Motion to understand exactly what he is asking for?
Is he asking for Sanctions?
filed July 21, 2010
sent to all lawyers including Linda Kenney Baden in New York

CLIPPED FOR BREVITY

ThinkTank,

You seem to have a very good grasp of all this, so will direct my question to you and see if you can straighten out my confusion:waitasec:

Under STRICKLAND'S orders:

The defense could go to MN office and just view all 4000 records but take no notes. They could NOT take notes any information they wanted outside the 32 volunteers would be tagged and reviewed for approval by Strickland first, correct?

So under THIS order, Baez and cohorts would have had to just "remember" any particular names they wanted to "remember" and rush back to their offices to conduct informal "sleuthing" while awaiting Strickland's decision on tagged records.

Under NEW PERRY orders:

Defense may now actually take notes as records they are interested in of 4000 volunteers are tagged for copy reuest by Perry.

So what is to stop the defense from "taking notes" of the names and addresses of a large portion of the names of volunteers and rushing back to office to begin "sleuthing" them out, especially if their only intent here is to "Kronkify" these volunteers to divert attention?

I have great concerns that Perry just opened a very wide hole of invasion of privacy for these volunteers who were not included in the original "32".....

I wonder if (and if not, WHY NOT?) the definition of "take notes" was detailed and defined....

What am I missing? The way I am understanding it after reading this order, it appears the defense DID win a huge victory here...especially since so many of us seem convinced as to what their actual motives are! :furious:

 

[Kentjbkent]

I haven't been able to find the motion yet, the Sentinel article makes no mention of sanctions, my interpretation is that MN does not anyone else harassed and that the whole basis of the original subpeona is based on "bad faith" knowing that the areas where Caylee was found was under water.

I am wondering if MN wasn't so much asking for sanctions or anything with his motion, but was instead, as for CONSIDERATION of what he is stating is intention of defense (to exploit privacy of volunteers) in regards to rendering his order.

I wonder if Nejame's intent was for Perry to consider Motion of Bad Faith BEFORE rendering order, but it isn't looking to me like that happened....

 

[ThinkTank]

CLIPPED FOR BREVITY

ThinkTank,

You seem to have a very good grasp of all this, so will direct my question to you and see if you can straighten out my confusion:waitasec:

Under STRICKLAND'S orders:

The defense could go to MN office and just view all 4000 records but take no notes. They could NOT take notes any information they wanted outside the 32 volunteers would be tagged and reviewed for approval by Strickland first, correct?

So under THIS order, Baez and cohorts would have had to just "remember" any particular names they wanted to "remember" and rush back to their offices to conduct informal "sleuthing" while awaiting Strickland's decision on tagged records.

Under NEW PERRY orders:

Defense may now actually take notes as records they are interested in of 4000 volunteers are tagged for copy reuest by Perry.

So what is to stop the defense from "taking notes" of the names and addresses of a large portion of the names of volunteers and rushing back to office to begin "sleuthing" them out, especially if their only intent here is to "Kronkify" these volunteers to divert attention?

I have great concerns that Perry just opened a very wide hole of invasion of privacy for these volunteers who were not included in the original "32".....

I wonder if (and if not, WHY NOT?) the definition of "take notes" was detailed and defined....

What am I missing? The way I am understanding it after reading this order, it appears the defense DID win a huge victory here...especially since so many of us seem convinced as to what their actual motives are! :furious:

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.

 

[nums24]

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.

 

[RR0004]

Someone explained the note-taking may very well be just that...things they may be interested in knowing...questions they'd like to ask...lawyer kinda stuff. I would think that the magistrate will not allow them to leave that room with names/addresses of any volunteers.

 

[RR0004]

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.

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?