All Texas Equusearch-Related Filings #1

[I Din Doot]

I agree, the waiver will stand. I just find it interesting that JB/CM slipped it into the motion when the words they use are as significant as and/or, may/will.

 

[logicalgirl]

It's an Apples and Oranges comparrisson. It is unbelievably illegal or unethical for a criminal defense attorney to do this. It is perfectly valid for a civil attorney to do it however.

In Florida a Criminal defense Attorney cannot accept contingency payments for services. He cannot agree to be paid based on the outcome, or even worse be paid based on something like a book deal. A defense attorney must be paid up front with an exchange of something of current value. Money, property, etc. The simple reason for this is it then immediately insures that the attorneys needs and interests are taken care of at the beginning, so all subsequent actions are entirely in the clients interests. Take this case as an example. Since the defense payment scheme is so highly questionable. The defense was being funded by media deals with ABC and others. So who exactly where all of these press conferences and pre trial publicity serving? the defendant KC? or the lawyers who would get paid more if the case was more infamous and publicized? Does all that media attention serve the defendant or the attorneys?

Whereas MN's deal with the A's is a civil arrangement, not criminal. Civil activities are commonly taken and funded on contingency basis's. It's perfectly legal and ethical. MN did not work for the A's pro bono. We have long wondered how they afforded him. Granting him book rights is a perfectly valid mechanism for doing that.

I actually gasped at the thought of MN shopping around for a book deal - that seems so un-NeJame's like - so thanks for you quick answer re payment in lieu of $$ for a civil case. What a relief and it makes complete sense to have that kind of insurance when the A's don't have the funds to actually pay him for the work he was doing.

 

[Paintr]

http://www..net/125045

OK folks, this is not new news, David Lohr was asked the same question by police quite some time ago. The answer is yes, NeJame did ask him, but NeJame also allegedly asked a number of other people the same question. David politely declined the offer, and NeJame retracted the offer when it became clear that there was some friction between David Lohr and Tim Miller. NeJame apparently was looking for a ‘tell all’ on the Anthony case, but it had to have a positive spin on Tim Miller.

 

[LambChop]

It's an Apples and Oranges comparrisson. It is unbelievably illegal or unethical for a criminal defense attorney to do this. It is perfectly valid for a civil attorney to do it however.

In Florida a Criminal defense Attorney cannot accept contingency payments for services. He cannot agree to be paid based on the outcome, or even worse be paid based on something like a book deal. A defense attorney must be paid up front with an exchange of something of current value. Money, property, etc. The simple reason for this is it then immediately insures that the attorneys needs and interests are taken care of at the beginning, so all subsequent actions are entirely in the clients interests. Take this case as an example. Since the defense payment scheme is so highly questionable. The defense was being funded by media deals with ABC and others. So who exactly where all of these press conferences and pre trial publicity serving? the defendant KC? or the lawyers who would get paid more if the case was more infamous and publicized? Does all that media attention serve the defendant or the attorneys?

Whereas MN's deal with the A's is a civil arrangement, not criminal. Civil activities are commonly taken and funded on contingency basis's. It's perfectly legal and ethical. MN did not work for the A's pro bono. We have long wondered how they afforded him. Granting him book rights is a perfectly valid mechanism for doing that.

And somehow I have the impression that this book would be more about TES as MN is donating 50% of the proceeds to TES. I would be willing to bet there is a real story there of what TM had to put up with, how costly these searchs were and how interference from the family can cost precious time, not just for the searches he is conducting but for the other families out there who also had missing relatives at the same time. CA should be ashamed of herself for her comments about Tim when all she had to do was demand her daughter tell her the truth. Bet CA could have gotten the truth out of her if she really tried. Instead she tied up TES and ran them out of money. This is a book I would buy. You betcha.... jmo

 

[faefrost]

First, just let me say FANTASTIC post! Great points made, faefrost. :clap:

-- respectfully snipped; BBM



Ahhh...I see exactly what you are saying, but I am hesitant to think it will ' blow away' any right the Anthony's have in re. attorney-client privilege in re. Nejame or Conway. I don't think the Court would take away that right just because Baez decided to include these docs as exhibits to a response. (I know, I know...the A's had to know it, but....) That privilege is SO sacred...Just from my experience, I have never seen it overruled. That doesn't mean it can't happen, I've just never seen it. Hopefully AZ or another atty. will drop by and chime in.

Look at exhibit B and C. While I normally agree that the courts will fall backwards over themselves in order to preserve the sacred attorney client privilege. I always thought one of the huge huge exceptions is when the attorney in question is forced into a situation where they have to defend themselves, their performance and their integrity before the court, based on claims or accusations of the client. And once placed in that situation ALL bets are off. There is no longer any privilege for ANY communications whatsoever. The attorney may use any portion of them to defend themselves and may be subject to questioning regarding them. The discretion wholly resides with the attorney at that point.

In this case the client, CA, deliberately sent such accusations to another third party attorney, for the purposes of accusing her former representation of lying. These communications have then been used by the third party attorney to impugn the original one before the court. Is that not a textbook case of waiver of privilege? Exhibit C in particular is a direct comunication sent from CA to JB in order to accuse MN of lying. (her words).

I'm not sure that HHJP will be all so forgiving about this one, or err on the side of privilege? If the comunications had not come directly from CA then yes he probably would have strong reason to maintain the privilege. But come on, why would CA send this to JB unless it was intended to be used for some purpose such as this?

Once again CA really does need to learn to just keep her mouth shut and her hands off the keyboard.

 

[Paintr]

I still can't see what Mr Baez hoped to accomplish by including the CA-MN emails. They serve no useful purpose as far as the motion goes (am I missing something?) Surely Mr Baez is not so unprofessional that he would attach these emails to his response, just to launch a personal attack against another lawyer? Isn't this supposed to be about defending his client?

 

[Intermezzo]

The emails had me at "to Beth Karas". Everything that followed was white noise after seeing that. It may as well have been entitled SPIN. SPIN. SPIN.
Clearly the defense has a very personal grudge with Mark, and want to spin publicly in a fashion that would make a politician in a sex scandal take notes.

I agree it was very much their loss when Mark resigned his post. Mr. and Mrs. Anthony's letter, is clearly designed to be released publicly. Advising them not to make any public statements was the best advice they ever received. If you click on the link in my signature line, Mr. Mason was in full agreement with him. All of the public commenting from the lawyers and the parents was making it clear they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, he opined. Indeed , the irony is rich. What Mr. and Mrs. Anthony fail to recall is that it was THEY who approached another lawyer about replacing Mr. Baez, Mr. Buarauno, who said NO! Guess what, they told him they could not pay him, but rather it would be a contingency MEDIA deal for later!!! Outrageous that now they want to leave the impression they are offended by the mention of such a thing, when it is exactly what THEY did. You just can't make this stuff up!!
MOO

They totally underestimate Judge Perry, Ms. Karas and the public. I assume that will translate to them insulting the intelligence of the jury and we'll see how that turns out. We shall just see.

Casey Anthony's Parents Tried To Replace Jose Baez | The Caylee Daily
Feb 17, 2010 ... Casey Anthony's Parents Tried To Replace Jose Baez .... It seems Cindy and George think of their daughter as a Juvie … a child, ...
www.🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬.com/.../casey-anthonys-parents-tried-to-replace-jose-baez/ - Cached - Similar

The correspondence between NeJame & Cindy via her lawyer B Conway should have stayed between them IMO.

But here we have it, Cindy had to go and forward the message to Casey's defense lawyer JoseBGood on his private email account and in turn JoseBGood forwards the emails to the media to InSession correspondent Ms Karas.

JoseBGood, I hardly doubt a Good lawyer or one without ulterior motives would have forwarded anything to the media.
It is becoming abundantly clear why JoseBGood was against the Gag Order in this case.
:twocents:

 

[beach]

Look at exhibit B and C. While I normally agree that the courts will fall backwards over themselves in order to preserve the sacred attorney client privilege. I always thought one of the huge huge exceptions is when the attorney in question is forced into a situation where they have to defend themselves, their performance and their integrity before the court, based on claims or accusations of the client. And once placed in that situation ALL bets are off. There is no longer any privilege for ANY communications whatsoever. The attorney may use any portion of them to defend themselves and may be subject to questioning regarding them. The discretion wholly resides with the attorney at that point.

In this case the client, CA, deliberately sent such accusations to another third party attorney, for the purposes of accusing her former representation of lying. These communications have then been used by the third party attorney to impugn the original one before the court. Is that not a textbook case of waiver of privilege? Exhibit C in particular is a direct comunication sent from CA to JB in order to accuse MN of lying. (her words).

I'm not sure that HHJP will be all so forgiving about this one, or err on the side of privilege? If the comunications had not come directly from CA then yes he probably would have strong reason to maintain the privilege. But come on, why would CA send this to JB unless it was intended to be used for some purpose such as this?

Once again CA really does need to learn to just keep her mouth shut and her hands off the keyboard.

BBM

I see exactly what you are saying... You may be spot on with it, too.

On the surface, it does sound like a textbook example of waiver of privilege. I concede, this is over my head now.

What a freakin' MESS! The absolute LAST thing JB should want is for MN to start chirping about what he knows in re. CA. omg... lol

We NEED an attorney now. lol

 

[beach]

The correspondence between NeJame & Cindy via her lawyer B Conway should have stayed between them IMO.

But here we have it, Cindy had to go and forward the message to Casey's defense lawyer JoseBGood on his private email account and in turn JoseBGood forwards the emails to the media to InSession correspondent Ms Karas.

JoseBGood, I hardly doubt a Good lawyer or one without ulterior motives would have forwarded anything to the media.
It is becoming abundantly clear why JoseBGood was against the Gag Order on this case.
:twocents:

JB needed that gag order more than anyone else involved in this case....just to protect him from HIMSELF!!!

 

[Intermezzo]

Is JB even allowed to legally disclose private communications between lawyers and the Anthony's? Let alone leaking it to the media the night before a hearing was to take place?

Well, Cindy is the one who forwarded and disclosed the private correspondence between herself, her current lawyer and her former lawyer to her daughter's lawyer.

Yes, I would like to know the answer to that as well was it legal or professional for JoseBGood to "leak", I mean,forward the correspondence to a media outlet?

 

[Intermezzo]

But wasn't MN's motion addressing issues involving his client, whereas JB was addressing personal issues he has with MN which has nothing to do with MN's motion? Not sure the judge is really interested in JB's personal issues with MN. And why would they be paying a PI to investigate MN's conversation with a writer? I am really, really surprised the writer would discuss any conversations he had with an attorney about a business matter with a third party even if it actually did happen. That part is strange.

Funny how people look at things. I have lost an item and looked, looked, looked for long periods of time only to find it in the exact place I had previous looked for it numerous times before. Just because someone did not find the remains does not mean they were not there and had been placed there right before they were found. You will never convince a jury that this would be so. LE had to dig to recover some of the bone fragments. Bones just do not bury themselves in the ground within a few short weeks. Also chew marks would have come from when the body was decomposing. This theory will not hold up with the forensic reports presented at court. jmo

BBM
Since Casey is now declared Indigent and I as a Florida Taxpayer now paying for her to defend herself against murder charges, I better not see an expense receipt from Jose to the JAC asking to pay the PI to investigate an issue that IMO has nothing to do with defending the murder charges against Casey.

 

[The World According]

Actually looking at it again, and reading through all of those exibits I have a few more questions and thoughts.

- OK not only am I wondering if this didn't blow away the A's attorney client privilege with MN... what does this do to it with regards to Brad Conway? I mean there are obviously private communications between BC and CA in JB's filing? There are references to and possibly false hearsay claims involving events and actions of which BC was a first person direct participant, and for which he can be called for the truth of the matter. All of the claims regarding the waiver and his being allowed to search the files and such. Since CA obviously had direct discussions with a third party JB, concerning GC's actions on their behalf, does that not now open him up to cross examination, both by Mr. Nejame, and by the SA? Or am I overreaching here?

- JB added a rather nasty and scandalous series of e-mails as an exibit, that clearly show him sending all of this to the news media. AND THIS WAS A RESPONSE TO A MOTION OF BAD FAITH!?!?!?! I mean the entirety of the motion is just mindblowing? But Exibit C is simply the worst. I don't think MN has to actually make an oral argument. He simply has to submit this entire filing as plaintiff exibit A, and say 'see! this is what I am talking about!". I mean really in this instance MN should consider paying JB for doing all of this hard work for him. :woohoo::waitasec:

- One of his exibits is a badly typed, unsigned, unnotarized statement, not under oath of any sort, from someone who is not his client, and is rather a prior client of the opposing council. Oooo! That's gonna work out well! :waitasec:

- He sends what is now a state paid investigator for the defense to investigate the supposed "book deal" of MN. Not only is this a horrible horrible act of bad faith in and of itself (imagine the stink if MN had sent investigators to look into those ABC deals with JB, on TES's dime?) But the document attached causes all sorts of issues for JB. Yeah, while Mr. Lohr's statements do indicate that MN was looking to write a book down the road. His statements also seem to reflect that said book was A. centered on TES involvement in the case, B. was going to support a charitable organization TES (so no direct profit motive for MN), and C. leaves the impression that yes, the A's were aware of any said book from the word go, and that it was likely part of their compensation deal for MN's services. Remember he did not enter into an arrangement with them Pro Bono. Further while it is incredibly illegal and unethical for a criminal defense lawyer to enter into any sort of contingency deal in Florida (gee wonder how JB got past that one?) it is perfectly legal, ethical and acceptable to do so for civil matters, such as press representation. So he is hauling another lawyers compensation deals out in public in order to argue against his bad faith actions? Oh my? Isn't that a huge huge nono among lawyers? :nono: You don't get involved in another lawyers compensation? I seem to recall there was some shock earlier when the SA had the temerity to ask about JB's dealings?

- Oh but wait. That signed affidavit from Mr. Lohr. It gets better. Read it. While it introduces a potential book deal with MN, it does huge damage to one of the core elements of the defenses case. Mr. Lohr was an on site first person witness on Suburban drive on the days that TES went to search it. He is a corroborating witness for everything that TES and the state have said about the search conditions, and TES not being able to search because of water. He tells the exact same story that is documented in the TES search reports and TM's testimony. This is a witness that the SA may not have even been aware of, and was certainly not on their witness lists. Since he was located and interviewed by the defense he is one that they would not have known about. His statement would not necessarily have been discoverable (the defense does not have to turn over evidence that proves the states case, that they discover)... UNTIL JB SUBMITTED IT IN A NONSENSE FILING!!! The only signed, sworn document in this filing, is the one that shoots down his primary defense theory in flames, and further disproves the initial arguments he makes in the filing itself. Am I missing something here? Is there some actual legal methodology or strategy behind this filing? Is there something brilliant here that I am just not seeing? or is it really this bad? :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Good catch! Great catch!!! Wow, you just can't make this stuff up!!!!
When one writes a motion, don't they even go through a perfunctory checklist?

1. Do a search on the computer file for other documents already of record that would be relative to what goal we are trying to accomplish. Has anyone now or that has ever been on the team said or filed anything that directly contradicts this argument?

2. Research the case law, and in ways that Judge Perry is certain to do like Florida Supreme Court decisions, et al. Has Judge Perry ruled on matters that would help us predict his opinion?

3. What will be the likely response by the other side?

4. Is the goal so valuable that it is worth the risk if this doesn't go our way?

5. Are the folks we are relying upon as witnesses to bring the motion going to have any thing to testify to on cross that would be detrimental to our case?


It is almost as if someone is writing the motion on a napkin at the local coffee shop with less time and effort than a child would proof read their homework. There is such a pattern of things the defense does backfiring on them. In the words of Mr. Nejame, "It is either due to sloppiness or laziness".
__________________Unrelated______________ The rantings about the twenty four dollars reminded me of this little gem from the JAC

03/19/2010 Justice Administrative Commission's Post-Hearing Memorandum
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/36596270...ing-Memorandum

In part, it states:

4. In light of the substantial amounts raised for the Defendant's defense, JAC
objects to a finding of indigency in this matter absent a showing that the $275,000.00
was expended in a reasonable and rational manner. In JAC's experience with court-
appointed death cases, $275,000 should have been adequate to fund both a
reasonable fee for the private attorneys and cover at least a substantial portion of the the
due process costs particularly in light of the current posture of the case.
5. Per the information provided in the motion and at hearing, this case is still largely
in the fact gathering stage in that depositions have not been conducted of the various
state witnesses. For the defense to have utilized the entire $275,000 while this case is
still in the investigatory stage seems unusual.
6. Considering that the money was raised during the course of this proceeding, the
funds should have been dedicated to the Defendant's defense. As part of the Court's
review, the Court should verify that none of the funds were transferred to third parties
such as family, friends, or other persons or institutions.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I still can't see what Mr Baez hoped to accomplish by including the CA-MN emails. They serve no useful purpose as far as the motion goes (am I missing something?) Surely Mr Baez is not so unprofessional that he would attach these emails to his response, just to launch a personal attack against another lawyer? Isn't this supposed to be about defending his client?

You are joking, right?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

The correspondence between NeJame & Cindy via her lawyer B Conway should have stayed between them IMO.

But here we have it, Cindy had to go and forward the message to Casey's defense lawyer JoseBGood on his private email account and in turn JoseBGood forwards the emails to the media to InSession correspondent Ms Karas.

JoseBGood, I hardly doubt a Good lawyer or one without ulterior motives would have forwarded anything to the media.
It is becoming abundantly clear why JoseBGood was against the Gag Order in this case.
:twocents:

You know, at this point, I personally would LOVE a gag order slapped on this case.

 

[nums24]

I still can't see what Mr Baez hoped to accomplish by including the CA-MN emails. They serve no useful purpose as far as the motion goes (am I missing something?) Surely Mr Baez is not so unprofessional that he would attach these emails to his response, just to launch a personal attack against another lawyer? Isn't this supposed to be about defending his client?

BBM - You answered your own question.

 

[Paintr]

You are joking, right?

:moose::moose::moose:

 

[Paintr]

Anyone care to guess what HHJP's reaction to this latest offering by the defense team will be? Will there be a hearing on this?

 

[RR0004]

Look at exhibit B and C. While I normally agree that the courts will fall backwards over themselves in order to preserve the sacred attorney client privilege. I always thought one of the huge huge exceptions is when the attorney in question is forced into a situation where they have to defend themselves, their performance and their integrity before the court, based on claims or accusations of the client. And once placed in that situation ALL bets are off. There is no longer any privilege for ANY communications whatsoever. The attorney may use any portion of them to defend themselves and may be subject to questioning regarding them. The discretion wholly resides with the attorney at that point.

In this case the client, CA, deliberately sent such accusations to another third party attorney, for the purposes of accusing her former representation of lying. These communications have then been used by the third party attorney to impugn the original one before the court. Is that not a textbook case of waiver of privilege? Exhibit C in particular is a direct comunication sent from CA to JB in order to accuse MN of lying. (her words).

I'm not sure that HHJP will be all so forgiving about this one, or err on the side of privilege? If the comunications had not come directly from CA then yes he probably would have strong reason to maintain the privilege. But come on, why would CA send this to JB unless it was intended to be used for some purpose such as this?

Once again CA really does need to learn to just keep her mouth shut and her hands off the keyboard.

Interesting, the Lohr interview did have case related info about the search...assuring that they'll get paid (?) Oh, and why they were at it...let's throw in the part about MN.

 

[faefrost]

Anyone care to guess what HHJP's reaction to this latest offering by the defense team will be? Will there be a hearing on this?

Possibly a Baker Act hearing? :angel:
:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

 

[RR0004]

Now doesn't Cindy's gushing about the defense in the letter she sent Casey make sense?!