All Texas Equusearch-Related Filings #1

[nums24]

Dumb question....

Jose is still emailing Cindy on her D Casey email account, does that mean that DC has access to all of their email communications? Most likely he is or has admin privileges.

 

[mitzi]

What do ya'll think about Cindy's emails in one of the attachments, where she says she has always been "for Caylee"? Yeah, right...I'm even more disgusted with her now, and I didn't think it was possible.

Another thing, she writes derrogatory comments about Mark N., Tim Miller, and John Morgan. Honestly, is she as dense as she makes out? Geesh! Does she not ever see how she comes off to people?

 

[Paintr]

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

He probably had Cindy's blessing.

Wow! I am still shaking my head! Why would Mr Baez want the world to see these? It hardly shines a favourable light on CA and seems to do more to prove Mark N's point than Cindy's. :waitasec:

 

[kaRN]

OMG! I love page 8 of exhibit A:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitA.pdf

24$ was the monitoring fee that nobody on the dream team could pony up on behalf of their innocent client? :loser:

 

[sleutherontheside]

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.

BBM

Manipulated by..........?

Just trying to understand.

 

[nums24]

24$ was the monitoring fee that nobody on the dream team could pony up on behalf of their innocent client? :loser:

This is my favorite part:

 

[sleutherontheside]

24$ was the monitoring fee that nobody on the dream team could pony up on behalf of their innocent client? :loser:

Well.....it is not the respnsibility of an attorney to pony up cash (albeit an amount equal to a casual lunch) but I think the point regarding the $$ was intended to demonstrate an unwillingness to "work within the confines of the system".

A previous judicial order stipulated that a monitor was to be present to verify that the "rules" were followed. It also stated that the defense was responsible for that fee. I need to go back and look at when the motion to reconsider previous rulings was filed.

If the defense wanted to use indigency as their argument against paying up front for fees...... they should have postponed their visit until that had been addressed by the court. They should have at least documented their delay based upon their legal position.

The comments by Nejame regarding a show of "good faith" (by at least submitting a request for reimbursement in advance) was spot on. The defense appears to have snubbed the JAC protocol and now wants to whine about it.

When dealing with an indigent client....there are an additional set of rules to be followed. IMO....what this issue boils down to...IMO.....is the impression that the defense don't have time for rules......

One may always file a motion and present their "unique situation" as is relates to "the rules". BUT......arguing the point AFTER the fact is rather pointless.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Wow.....tell it like you feel it Mark!! .... :bowdown:

 

[kaRN]

This is my favorite part:

Yeah that part's great. He expresses himself quite eloquently!! Took the words right out of our mouths and expressed them for us.
7 long months ++ of legal banter back and forth over a non issue and the bottom line is presumably cost.......24$ worth of cost. KC eats more than that in Doritos each month. LOL!!

 

[I Din Doot]

Isn't it obvious that CA is still driving GAs' train. She starts her affidavit (Exhibit B) with "We" then goes to her dominant role "I".
"Tim Millers' promise to ME..." then "I was the one who arranged for Tim Miller...". She obviously composed it as you can tell by theses slips and all the bile that squirting from the tone of it.. (Smacks GA and says "Sign this")

 

[kaRN]

Well.....it is not the respnsibility of an attorney to pony up cash (albeit an amount equal to a casual lunch) but I think the point regarding the $$ was intended to demonstrate an unwillingness to "work within the confines of the system".

A previous judicial order stipulated that a monitor was to be present to verify that the "rules" were followed. It also stated that the defense was responsible for that fee. I need to go back and look at when the motion to reconsider previous rulings was filed.

If the defense wanted to use indigency as their argument against paying up front for fees...... they should have postponed their visit until that had been addressed by the court. They should have at least documented their delay based upon their legal position.

The comments by Nejame regarding a show of "good faith" (by at least submitting a request for reimbursement in advance) was spot on. The defense appears to have snubbed the JAC protocol and now wants to whine about it.

When dealing with an indigent client....there are an additional set of rules to be followed. IMO....what this issue boils down to...IMO.....is the impression that the defense don't have time for rules......

One may always file a motion and present their "unique situation" as is relates to "the rules". BUT......arguing the point AFTER the fact is rather pointless.

Thanks for this great post!
I'm just amazed that none of the defense mouth pieces are willing to put up even a paltry 24$ to advance the cause of an innocent, maligned, grieving young mother. Cheney has money. Baez dresses like he does. If these files are so crucial and your client is innocent, my guess is the 24$ would be a pleasure to pay. CA and GA would have readily paid up. The karmic rewards would come back threefold.
Teachers I know supplement their classroom budgets by purchasing supplies with their own funds because they believe in their students and the bigger cause. I spent more than 24$ on food and small gifts for lonely and indigent patients in July alone without batting an eye. A 4$ card can change lives I've learned.
I personally don't think KC is worth 24$. It's just amazing to see proof her defense dream team didn't think it was money well spent either. But she's innocent okay lol. :banghead:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Wow after reading that email, the borderline in CA really shines through. Simply amazing.

 

[butterfly1978]

WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?
It haS been two freakin years, the trial starts in 9 months, They wasted $275,000 dollars in two years on this kind of BS and now that the state is paying for it you would think they would stop this and actually start preparing a defense. Is JAC going to continue to allow this bull, at the tax payers expense. Attempting to dig up dirt on MN has absolutely NOTHING to do with defending KC NOTHING!!!!!!!
My gosh if Judge Perry allows this to continue, I think his credability as a judge will be gone. This is ridiculous, its like JB is running a political campaign not a freakin defense team. UGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!

 

[TakeNote]

:hand: :boohoo: :snooty:

:banghead:

 

[Gnatcatcher]

Even in email, she can't keep Casey and Caylee's names straight. "Caylee first, Caylee second." She meant Casey second. Ugh, that Cindy.

 

[butterfly1978]

Even in email, she can't keep Casey and Caylee's names straight. "Caylee first, Caylee second." She meant Casey second. Ugh, that Cindy.

Maybe it is subconcious Caylee's ghost is haunting Cindy and everytime she lies Caylee lets her know she wont be forgotten.

 

[zoey]

I'm still baffled that they keep thinking that MN wanted to represent ICA....I never got that in any of his interviews way back when...if anything he KNEW --- He just didn't know how long it would take his clients to realize the truth of the matter. He always stated he was for Caylee---NEVER would help out on ICA....

This is getting to be a tad on the tadbloid journalism side rather than the murder of a child...:furious: I do hope for a smak down by either HHJP or JAC....:furious:

 

[Kentjbkent]

Isn't it obvious that CA is still driving GAs' train. She starts her affidavit (Exhibit B) with "We" then goes to her dominant role "I".
"Tim Millers' promise to ME..." then "I was the one who arranged for Tim Miller...". She obviously composed it as you can tell by theses slips and all the bile that squirting from the tone of it.. (Smacks GA and says "Sign this")

And don't forget, in Cindy's OWN WORDS in an email to Nejame, she reminds him of the time he called a meeting in his office to voice his despleasure that CA was refusing to follow his advice and his warning that HE was considering withdrawing as their attorney...

And Cindy reminds him "but I gave YOU another chance!" :waitasec::waitasec:

This would all be quite humorous...if it wasn't so sad....:sick:

 

[Sun]

Here is JB's response to motion:

RESPONSE: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/arti...809_ResponseToMotionToQuashTheCourtsOrder.pdf

Exhibit A: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitA.pdf

Exhibit B: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitB.pdf

Exhibit C: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitC.pdf

Exhibit D: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/0809_ExhibitD.pdf

Thanks so much, nums!! Looks to me like Beaz has gotten somebody new to write his motions nowdays.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Even in email, she can't keep Casey and Caylee's names straight. "Caylee first, Caylee second." She meant Casey second. Ugh, that Cindy.

Does anyone else think Judge Perry may get a brief moment of comic relief when he reads this motion and attachments and sees Jose's email addy????

[email protected]

Still makes me giggle every time I see it in print :woohoo: