All Texas Equusearch-Related Filings #1

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #621
  • #622
Oh my.
gaah-1.gif


I predict that this just may be the response that sends HHJP over the edge to the point that he will be swinging his :gavel: in a whole new light.

It is without a doubt one of the most childish, unprofessional pleadings I have EVER read. I don't have the energy to expound on each point. I'll just say that MUCH of this ridiculous pleading that Baez calls a "Response" isn't a response at all. It is full of mud-slinging and references MANY things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of reviewing the TES docs or responding to the points MN made in his bad faith motion.

What a crock. The defense should be embarrassed to stoop so low, but I know they're not. I seriously hope that Judge Perry puts an end to this nastiness.
 
  • #623
  • #624
  • #625
  • #626
It seems significant to note the difference between the words "withdraw" and "recant" in reference to the conflict waiver CA/GA had with MN. I think withdraw would mean, no longer valid from this point forward. Recant would mean it was never valid. Unless they signed it under duress (gun to their head) I don't see how they could recant and cause the document to be retroactively invalid. MN said they cannot recant, not that they cannot withdraw. Any thoughts?

ETA: Asked on Questions for our lawyers thread.
 
  • #627
'Beach said:
It's not a motion. It is a statement from the A's. Not even an affidavit as it is not sworn to or notorized. The Judge can consider it, but I don't think it has any value. Just blah. IMO
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before. I meant the waiver the A's actually signed waiving conflict of interest.
 
  • #628
nums24 said:
WHOA!! JB emailed (LEAKED!) this Motion to Beth Karras the NIGHT before the hearing! I don't think that's kosher so to speak... and from his personal email account!

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitC.pdf
Click to expand...

Unbelievable!! Well, since it's coming from Jose, I guess I can believe it. What also blows me away is none of these emails he included with his response to the court were even to or from him. Cindy forwarded Jose emails that were between her and Mr. Nejame and her attorney B. Conway.

Nejame was right on point in his email when he said to Cindy that she was just being an agent for the defense team and not for Caylee.
 
  • #629
Dear Prudence said:
Unbelievable!! Well, since it's coming from Jose, I guess I can believe it. What also blows me away is none of these emails he included with his response to the court were even to or from him. Cindy forwarded Jose emails that were between her and Mr. Nejame and her attorney B. Conway.

Nejame was right on point in his email when he said to Cindy that she was just being an agent for the defense team and not for Caylee.[/QUOTE]

BBM - Excellent point!
Click to expand...
 
  • #630
faefrost said:
- "Solicited the Anthony family"? Does JB now represent George and Cindy Anthony? If not how is he in any way a party to any arrangements or dealings between them or what grounds does he have to bring such things before the court?

- "he thwarted the defense", ummm he protected his client, his clients records, and where possible the privacy of his clients business and staff, which is his obligation before the court. Above and beyond that at least this much of the arrangements between MN and the A's is public. He was at no time a representative of KC. At no time was he in any way responsible for or a participant in her defense. Acting in the interests of his client is not an unethical or questionable practice, when it does not run counter to the ethics of the profession, the law and the judges orders. I am thinking that this is not a can of worms that JB should be kicking over given some real questionable moves on his part. (Hmmm? How exactly did DC and company find their way to the spot where the body was?)

- "He's fishing for a book deal", once again what exactly is JB's standing to make this claim? He does not represent the A's. He is not a participant in any arrangements between MN and the A's nor the terms of such arrangements. So what exactly is his basis for this complaint? Plus is questions about backroom media deals really something that JB thinks stirring up news, blog and courtroom discussion of, would be a good thing for himself? Really?

Further JB hasn't figured out by now that he has lost what little lattitude that he might have once had with the judge, who is increasingly looking very poorly on these constant nuisance motions?

I am dying to see the actual motion. I can't help wondering if it will be written in purple crayon.
Click to expand...

I
HEART-1.gif
this post soooo much.


The last sentence just may be my fav! :D
 
  • #631
Dear Prudence said:
Unbelievable!! Well, since it's coming from Jose, I guess I can believe it. What also blows me away is none of these emails he included with his response to the court were even to or from him. Cindy forwarded Jose emails that were between her and Mr. Nejame and her attorney B. Conway.

Nejame was right on point in his email when he said to Cindy that she was just being an agent for the defense team and not for Caylee.
Click to expand...


Cindy doesn't seem to have "heard" NeJames yet. I wonder what it's going to actually take to get her to see how she is being manipulated.
 
  • #632
I Din Doot said:
It seems significant to note the difference between the words "withdraw" and "recant" in reference to the conflict waiver CA/GA had with MN. I think withdraw would mean, no longer valid from this point forward. Recant would mean it was never valid. Unless they signed it under duress (gun to their head) I don't see how they could recant and cause the document to be retroactively invalid. MN said they cannot recant, not that they cannot withdraw. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

It's a good question for the legal q&a thread, my brain is on overload, too wiped out to research.
 
  • #633
nums24 said:
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before. I meant the waiver the A's actually signed waiving conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

It really wasn't even a waiver, although the A's did sign one for MN to represent TES. It was just a statement from the A's expressing their...er, views. :innocent: Though they did reference the waiver in that statement.

They are bound by the waiver they signed releasing MN for any conflict of interest for him to represent TES. Too late for that to be rescinded.
 
  • #634
  • #635
Dear Prudence said:
Unbelievable!! Well, since it's coming from Jose, I guess I can believe it. What also blows me away is none of these emails he included with his response to the court were even to or from him. Cindy forwarded Jose emails that were between her and Mr. Nejame and her attorney B. Conway.

Nejame was right on point in his email when he said to Cindy that she was just being an agent for the defense team and not for Caylee.
Click to expand...


A question........does that negate third party confidentiality????? Not because she forwarded it to her own counsel but to a "third party" as in JB????
 
  • #636
'Beach said:
It really wasn't even a waiver, although the A's did sign one for MN to represent TES. It was just a statement from the A's expressing their...er, views. :innocent: Though they did reference the waiver in that statement.

They are bound by the waiver they signed releasing MN for any conflict of interest for him to represent TES. Too late for that to be rescinded.
Click to expand...

Ahh Haa! LOL now I get it, so sorry. I'm just going to read, since I'm slow tonight.
 
  • #637
I Din Doot said:
It seems significant to note the difference between the words "withdraw" and "recant" in reference to the conflict waiver CA/GA had with MN. I think withdraw would mean, no longer valid from this point forward. Recant would mean it was never valid. Unless they signed it under duress (gun to their head) I don't see how they could recant and cause the document to be retroactively invalid. MN said they cannot recant, not that they cannot withdraw. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

It is too late for that, imo.

They can't just say, "Hey, nevermind. I don't think this was such a good idea and I don't want to agree to that anymore." MN did what he needed to do to insure that they would not find it as a conflict of interest.

That waiver will stand up.

In fact, did Judge Strickland address this at some point long ago?:waitasec:
I dunno...I can't even imagine it being challenged so many months later. It is silly, imo.
 
  • #638
nums24 said:
Ahh Haa! LOL now I get it, so sorry. I'm just going to read, since I'm slow tonight.
Click to expand...

heh...don't apologize. There are so many silly exhibits attached to that motion, I had to go back and read them a couple of times before I answered you. LOL
 
  • #639
sleutherontheside said:
A question........does that negate third party confidentiality????? Not because she forwarded it to her own counsel but to a "third party" as in JB????
Click to expand...

Well, there is certainly nothing confidential about it anymore. Thanks to JB, it's public record now. LOL

He probably had Cindy's blessing. :rolleyes:
 
  • #640
I just have to post part of what Mark NeJame wrote to Cindy Anthony in case anyone can't open the docs http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitC.pdf

written in an email dated February 12, 2010:
"Stop all of your silly and nonsensical ranting. It seems that you are fabricating matters in an effort to do whatever it takes to help Casey's defense...even if it means ignoring the truth about what really happened to Caylee. If you don't care about what happened to Caylee then just admit it. Stop twisting the truth and doing the bidding for her defense."

:blowkiss: I love me some Mark NeJame :blowkiss:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Niner
Trials & Sentencings for January, 2025
Replies
11
Views
1K
Niner
Niner
Niner
Trials & Sentencing Hearings for June, 2024
Replies
16
Views
2K
Niner
Niner
Niner
Trials & Sentencings for October, 2022
2
Replies
28
Views
6K
Niner
Niner
Niner
Trials & Sentencings for April, 2024
Replies
16
Views
2K
Niner
Niner
Niner
Trials & Sentencings for August, 2022
2
Replies
24
Views
4K
Niner
Niner

Staff online

Members online

... and 90 more.
Total: 1,648 (members: 91, guests: 1,557)

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
1,557
Total visitors
1,648
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
632,466
Messages
18,627,184
Members
243,162
Latest member
detroit_greene915
Back
Top