Bankrupt Casey Anthony interviewed by KPHO CBS in Phoenix #2

[logicalgirl]

While I appreciate all the hard work done to post the above on this page, none of it really answers my question.

We are missing something here because we seem to be insisting that one process is and should happen and yet we see another process happening and we don't seem to have the information to understand why it is happening.

My question was - was the indigent agreement limited to the JAC decision not to pay Baez fees during the trial because they believed Baez had already received "enough" money through the various sales of pictures, stories etc. that he sold on behalf of FCA - so they, the JAC, would not issue any public or taxpayer funds to him?

We know that was the JAC's position. They would pay reasonable expenses to investigators, costs for transcription copies etc., but would not pay any fees to Baez for the trial.

But did that indigent agreement mean that he was forbidden from continuing to sell photos etc as her agent (meaning the money he made was her money) so he could continue to have an income?

Either it was limited to ONLY no payments from the JAC and it didn't include all other sources OR it meant no money for Baez from the JAC and any other sources at all.

That seems to be the question and because of the claim Baez has made to the BK court, I'm not positive we know the answer to it. IMO:moo:

 

[ThinkTank]

Baez did NOT show INCOME or "payment" of the money which Casey Anthony said he made off of the staged photos in Ohio which SPLASH took, and TMZ published.

TMZ photos - August 3, 2011
she "may" have relinquished rights to photographs of herself - DATE 9/9/2011"

March 4, 2013 - bankruptcy Meeting of Creditors [audio tape]

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/audio-casey-anthony-at-bankruptcy-hearing/vsQzC/

34 minutes video
Audio: Casey Anthony at bankruptcy hearing

She says Baez BILLED her $500,000 (no date given)

She says Baez GAVE her $3,400 to live on (no date given)

she describes the sale to ABC to fund her defense, of less than 15 photos, for $200K.

FCA wrote in her bankruptcy filing, page 39, that she "may" have relinquished rights to photographs of herself - DATE 9/9/2011"

The "posed" photos in OHIO, Old Navy store and sidewalk, published by TMZ/SPLASH, were done August 3, 2011.

Nancy Grace reported that TMZ wanted $25,000.00 for NG to show pics one time

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-casey-anthony-bankruptcy-hearing-20130304,0,4525591.story

Twice, she said, Anthony relinquished rights to photos of herself to her former lead lawyer.
The first time, in 2008, she said Baez sold the photos to ABC for $200,000, money that was used to fund her defense.
The content and purpose of the second set of photos, given to Baez in September 2011, was less clear. Anthony said those "were pictures I was asked to participate in... I was asked to pose for a couple photographs, but that was the extent of my involvement."
She said she believed Baez sold the photos, but didn't know what he got for them

http://blogs.forbes.com/kiriblakeley/2011/08/04/is-casey-anthony-already-cashing-in/
8/04/2011 @ 12:25PM
Is Casey Anthony Already Cashing In?
Yesterday, photos and video of Casey Anthony hanging out, checking her cell phone, and shopping at Old Navy surfaced on celebrity gossip site TMZ.

Today, The New York Post has the same photos, which show Anthony in a red Ohio State baseball cap, glasses, and faded jeans, strolling about an Ohio town—which eagle-eyed online commenters have identified as Columbus. (Anthony has several relatives in the area, according to TMZ.)

The photos and video were taken by celebrity photo agency SplashNewsOnline

possible that Anthony’s team worked with Splash to sell photos of her—staging the Ohio walkabout. “That happens all of the time,” says the insider. “If she worked out a good deal, she’d get half or 75% of the [money for the] photos each time they were sold.

So how much could Anthony and her team have made if they had anything to do with this? The insider thinks up to half a million, especially since these were the first photos of her

 

[ThinkTank]

Bankruptcy case - IRS filed Proof of Claim for 2008 taxes

IRS - 2008 taxes - for ABC money for photos??
Assessed 11/1/2010 - $ 68,520.41
Tax Due - $ 47,904.00
Penalty to Petition Date - $ 26,269.10
Interest to Petition Date - $ 6,682.01
Lien 8/24/2011

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/05/29/casey-anthony-on-trial-liened-by-irs/

Investing
5/29/2011 @ 10:57AM |27,659 views
Casey Anthony on Trial, Liened by IRS
Kelly Phillips Erb, Contributor

Just days before opening arguments in Anthony’s murder trial, the IRS filed a federal tax lien against Casey, claiming she owes $68,520.41 in unpaid federal income taxes, interest and penalties. The lien is for the same year, 2008, in which Caylee was allegedly murdered.

It is not clear whether Casey held a regular job at any point during that year...
..she would have had to have done quite well over the course of her employment that year to run up a tax bill of over $68,000. Under the circumstances, it isn’t likely that the income is solely attributed to wages.

It seems that Casey might be taking a page from former Survivor champion Richard Hatch’s playbook. A television network – in this case, ABC – had a deal with Anthony to pay $200,000 in exchange for family videos and photos. As we know from the Hatch case, this makes it taxable to the recipient. If the money was paid directly to Casey (or on her behalf), she would be responsible for reporting the money to the IRS and paying any related taxes due.

The deal was allegedly crafted with ABC by Anthony’s attorney with the understanding that the money was going to be used for defense costs. That would be a great deal for her defense attorney but unfortunately for Casey, attorney’s fees for personal reasons (and that would include criminal defense work for a homicide case) are not deductible on your federal income tax return.

Assuming a 33% tax rate for a single taxpayer in 2008, that $200,000 ABC payment would likely result in a tax bill approximating that $68,520.41 lien. That’s a little bit of educated speculation on my part and I can’t say for certain that the payment resulted in the lien though the evidence tends to suggest that it did. What is clear is that with Anthony’s freedom – and future – in limbo until after the trial, it’s likely that the IRS may never collect.

 

[ThinkTank]

Baez and Casey Anthony have filed documents stating that Baez will not be paid more than $ 89,454.83 - after March 3, 2010 - by Casey Anthony or ANY other person or source.

Casey Anthony was not allowed to claim Indigency if Baez was making money from her case in any way other than the $ 89,454.83 she gave him [out of the ABC $ 200,000].
They both said they were NOT selling any part of her story or making money.

INDIGENT APPLICATION
March 2, 2010
page 8 - Affidavit regarding Baez attorney fees - no more than $ 89,454.83

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpILV85dEgzdnAtMkk/edit?usp=sharing

page 8

INDIGENT FOR COSTS AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES

I, Casey Marie Anthony am represented by Jose Baez in the above entitled action. The estimated amount of fees for the attorney named above in this case is $ 89,454.83 dollars. The fees paid or to be paid to the attorney were or are being paid by: Casey Marie Anthony ...
No other compensation, things of value or funds have been paid or are anticipated to be paid in the future to the attorney in this case from any other person or source. The attorney represents me in other cases as follows:

Case No: 2008-CF-013331-A-0 Fee: $ 0.00

Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Indigent for Costs
Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and that the facts in it are true.

3-3-10 signed by Casey Anthony

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Richard Hornsby:
"The statute requires full disclosure of all fees paid AND the source precisely in situations like this - so defendant's of actual means do not "game" the system."

 

[Tulessa]

Baez and Casey Anthony have filed documents stating that Baez will not be paid more than $ 89,454.83 - after March 3, 2010 - by Casey Anthony or ANY other person or source.

Casey Anthony was not allowed to claim Indigency if Baez was making money from her case in any way other than the $ 89,454.83 she gave him [out of the ABC $ 200,000].
They both said they were NOT selling any part of her story or making money.

INDIGENT APPLICATION
March 2, 2010
page 8 - Affidavit regarding Baez attorney fees - no more than $ 89,454.83

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpILV85dEgzdnAtMkk/edit?usp=sharing

page 8

INDIGENT FOR COSTS AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES

I, Casey Marie Anthony am represented by Jose Baez in the above entitled action. The estimated amount of fees for the attorney named above in this case is $ 89,454.83 dollars. The fees paid or to be paid to the attorney were or are being paid by: Casey Marie Anthony ...
No other compensation, things of value or funds have been paid or are anticipated to be paid in the future to the attorney in this case from any other person or source. The attorney represents me in other cases as follows:

Case No: 2008-CF-013331-A-0 Fee: $ 0.00

Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Indigent for Costs
Affidavit of Attorney's Fees and that the facts in it are true.

3-3-10 signed by Casey Anthony

TT, thanks for all of your hard work, and your dedication to our baby girl....

 

[ThinkTank]

Casey Anthony said on March 4, 2013 - in bankruptcy court in Tampa, that Baez "billed her $ 500,000".

Baez said in his Proof of Claim on June 24, 2013 - that he had a "Retainer Amount" of $ 500,000.

Those are two very different things -- "bill" vs "Retainer"

Baez made the decision to take the case, and represent Casey Anthony, knowing that she had NO MONEY. He did not have to accept the case.

He cannot claim her INDIGENT -- then turn around and send her a "bill" for $ 500,000.00. He contradicts himself. The State does not have to pay for her Defense, if her defense attorney is able to make money off of her case/story in other ways.

Casey Anthony was originally declared INDIGENT and appointed a PUBLIC DEFENDER on July 16, 2008.

Richard Hornsby opinions on Baez taking the case July 17, 2008:

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2009/12/attorney-of-record-in-record-time/

Attorney of Record in Record Time
Posted on December 28, 2009 by Richard Hornsby

excerpts:
"Exactly how did Jose Baez become Casey Anthony’s attorney and how he is getting paid?"

"the Notice of Appearance [Jose Baez] was stamped by the Orange County Clerk of the Court at 3:54 p.m [July 16, 2008]."

"I can not think of any sane attorney who would:
Agree to take on an inmate’s case, without speaking to a third party guarantor.

File a Notice of Appearance without first obtaining a very significant down payment from the Third Party guarantor."

"I don’t know any attorney this side of Wonderland who would:
File a Notice of Appearance without so much as a smidgen of compensation or guaranteed source of payment."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

July 22, 2008 - Bond Hearing
At this Hearing, George and Cindy Anthony reveal they have little to no net worth, and Casey Anthony has NONE

 

[logicalgirl]

Thank you ThinkTank for again posting relevant information and information and links to support your opinions.

We followed along during the sale of the ABC photos, and his declaration of income to Judge Strickland during the indigent claim in court, and like most of our members, I have always believed the indigency ruling meant he could not charge even a penny to the JAC or FCA and he was stuck with his 89K. We've all repeatedly read all the motions that we believe supported that information.

So when FCA filed her BK papers, like everyone else I was shocked and indignant to see Baez claiming he was owed 500K in fees.

We've seen articles from the BK filings that the Trustee was in touch with Baez regarding rumours of income of monies or secret deals, or contracts for future deals. And in the latest hearing, the Judge repeated that FCA "appears destitute". So does this mean the Trustee found no secret deals or contracts?

Baez had to comply with the BK court to file his claim by June 24th/13 and to our shock, he has filed a claim for 300K...

So is he attempting to perpetuate a fraud on the BK court, is he simply mistaken and has made an error, or does he have a loophole that we don't know about?

I get it. There is a ton of information out there that supports no further claims beyond the indigency application. And yes, I have repeatedly read every documentation and article available about his claim and ZG's, Kronks and TES.

Every article supports no more money for Baez. Every opinion supports no more money for Baez.

But, here he is - filing a proof of claim with a federal court in front of a federal judge saying he's owed 300K. So what is going on? Does he think he can just slip it through and automatically get it stamped by the BK court? I don't believe that - the Trustee seems to be receiving information to say many people are watching this case and it is high profile enough to still hit the national media.

So what is going on?

 

[?noanswer]

I guess in the scheme of things even though JB filed a claim for $300,000., he won't receive any money from BK because CA is supposedly still "indigent". What I would like to know if he was entitled to file that claim and if not, will he face any consequences.

Also, if he only received $89,000 from the ABC pictures, where did the other $111,000 come from. (500,000-89,000 = 411,000 - 300,000. =111,000.) Was he legally allowed to collect any more money than the $89,000.?

JMO

 

[ThinkTank]

In my opinion, all we can do on this forum is state our opinions and share our research on varied topics. We share what we know from the evidence that has been made public. We compare notes and ask questions and delve into possibilities.

Bottom line -- it will take people with more legal authority than we have to investigate further on certain matters -- IF they choose to do so. Those people would have to want to get more answers.

The bankruptcy people may just want to get OUT of this case with as little money spent as possible.

The bankruptcy people may not want to use their legal authority to subpoena people and records. They may not want to push past the face value of the protection of "attorney/client privilege" on certain documents, and ask the Judge to issue Orders.

I enjoy the research done by so many on this forum, as we all wait and watch to see what happens next. I enjoy reading different thoughts and opinions and ideas.

 

[logicalgirl]

I guess in the scheme of things even though JB filed a claim for $300,000., he won't receive any money from BK because CA is supposedly still "indigent". What I would like to know if he was entitled to file that claim and if not, will he face any consequences.

Also, if he only received $89,000 from the ABC pictures, where did the other $111,000 come from. (500,000-89,000 = 411,000 - 300,000. =111,000.) Was he legally allowed to collect any more money than the $89,000.?

JMO

If American business taxes are anything like Canadian business taxes - being able to write off 300K in bad debts is quite the plus to write against your income/profits - meaning it will decrease the amount of tax you have to pay substantially. In Canada I can write any business bad debts off as described.

I don't think at this point Baez is expecting to recoup any money - I do suspect he wants the tax write-off. I think he can also spread it over a couple of years if he wants/needs to.

Just on another note here - remember back when the information about the ABC photo sale came through and everyone was yelling ethics? Baez at that time said he had consulted an ethics lawyer about acting as her agent through this.

I know FCA claimed she only signed on fee contract with him - but wouldn't she have had to sign another one agreeing to this agent relationship?

 

[RR0004]

Well, the least she could have done if she reaped any benefits from selling those photos post-release was to pay off some of her tax debt. I wonder who has been in touch with the IRS "for her" 'cause it really isn't cool to ignore the taxman.

 

[RR0004]

If American business taxes are anything like Canadian business taxes - being able to write off 300K in bad debts is quite the plus to write against your income/profits - meaning it will decrease the amount of tax you have to pay substantially. In Canada I can write any business bad debts off as described.

I don't think at this point Baez is expecting to recoup any money - I do suspect he wants the tax write-off. I think he can also spread it over a couple of years if he wants/needs to.

Just on another note here - remember back when the information about the ABC photo sale came through and everyone was yelling ethics? Baez at that time said he had consulted an ethics lawyer about acting as her agent through this.

I know FCA claimed she only signed on fee contract with him - but wouldn't she have had to sign another one agreeing to this agent relationship?

IIRC, that's where the conflict of interest lay...and Baez was NOT supposed to be in the position of acting as her "agent"...which the judge found wasn't the case (THEN).
Now, well, ITA, she would have had to sign another agreement with him, IMO.

 

[logicalgirl]

IIRC, that's where the conflict of interest lay...and Baez was NOT supposed to be in the position of acting as her "agent"...which the judge found wasn't the case (THEN).
Now, well, ITA, she would have had to sign another agreement with him, IMO.

Thanks RROOO4 - I'm going to have to go back and look at the documentation because my understanding of that event is that he consulted an ethics lawyer and found he was not in a conflict of interest position and was able to proceed with the sale - under certain instructions from the ethics lawyer which we were not privy to at the time.

 

[?noanswer]

If American business taxes are anything like Canadian business taxes - being able to write off 300K in bad debts is quite the plus to write against your income/profits - meaning it will decrease the amount of tax you have to pay substantially. In Canada I can write any business bad debts off as described.

I don't think at this point Baez is expecting to recoup any money - I do suspect he wants the tax write-off. I think he can also spread it over a couple of years if he wants/needs to.

Just on another note here - remember back when the information about the ABC photo sale came through and everyone was yelling ethics? Baez at that time said he had consulted an ethics lawyer about acting as her agent through this.

I know FCA claimed she only signed on fee contract with him - but wouldn't she have had to sign another one agreeing to this agent relationship?

BBM

First of all he has to have income!! I don't think he has had many cases since CA, at least none that have been high profile enough to command a big fee. He does a few appearances on TV making comments, but I don't know if that pays any money or maybe he does it for publicity.

JMO

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM

First of all he has to have income!! I don't think he has had many cases since CA, at least none that have been high profile enough to command a big fee. He does a few appearances on TV making comments, but I don't know if that pays any money or maybe he does it for publicity.

JMO

That depends on how he is working his tax, capital gains, etc. and whether he is back -dating it against past, current or future IRS assessments doesn't it?

Clearly he's got some angle he's working here and I want to know what it is. No I don't think he should get any more money or credit or tax deductions from this whole fiasco but he must have something up his sleeve to have waltzed up to a federal court and slapped down a 300K on their counter.

And I want to know what it is he is using that makes him think he can get away with this.

 

[zippitydoda]

That depends on how he is working his tax, capital gains, etc. and whether he is back -dating it against past, current or future IRS assessments doesn't it?

Clearly he's got some angle he's working here and I want to know what it is. No I don't think he should get any more money or credit or tax deductions from this whole fiasco but he must have something up his sleeve to have waltzed up to a federal court and slapped down a 300K on their counter.

And I want to know what it is he is using that makes him think he can get away with this.

BBM -

If we've learned from his past - I'd suggest he's using an attorney with a strong background in ethics -

eta - so he'll know just how far he can push it

 

[jane the dood]

BBM -

If we've learned from his past - I'd suggest he's using an attorney with a strong background in ethics.

Sorry, but every time I see the words "ethics" and "lawyer" used in the same sentence as "Baez," I just take a fit of laughing. :floorlaugh:

The only hope I think we have in this case is good ol' Uncle Sam, in the form of the IRS. Unless you're a corporation with a staff of legal eagles who work to keep the IRS off your butt, if you owe them a red cent, they will hunt you down like the hounds of h#ll. They did it to me one year (long ago); I muffed up my tax return and they garnished my wages..and I owed them only a small amount of money. NO sense of humor, that dastardly IRS.

SO...I see this team of not-so-wise guys having to pay the piper one day, a la Al Capone or John Gotti. They got away with murder...but they didn't get away with not paying their taxes!

Here's hoping.

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM -

If we've learned from his past - I'd suggest he's using an attorney with a strong background in ethics -

eta - so he'll know just how far he can push it

Thanks Zippitydoda - - I agree - I'm guessing he's getting his advice from somewhere and we do know he has to hire someone regarding ethics :giggle: and I guess not the last guy he used...

Didn't we see on FCA's bankruptcy filing that his bill for fees hadn't been paid.....:floorlaugh:

 

[logicalgirl]

Sorry, but every time I see the words "ethics" and "lawyer" used in the same sentence as "Baez," I just take a fit of laughing. :floorlaugh:

The only hope I think we have in this case is good ol' Uncle Sam, in the form of the IRS. Unless you're a corporation with a staff of legal eagles who work to keep the IRS off your butt, if you owe them a red cent, they will hunt you down like the hounds of h#ll. They did it to me one year (long ago); I muffed up my tax return and they garnished my wages..and I owed them only a small amount of money. NO sense of humor, that dastardly IRS.

SO...I see this team of not-so-wise guys having to pay the piper one day, a la Al Capone or John Gotti. They got away with murder...but they didn't get away with not paying their taxes!

Here's hoping.

Yes, they are pretty nasty up here - and in my past they made a huge mistake on calculations and then proceeded to tell me they don't make mistakes and even in the unlikely event they had - they had no way of correcting it...

And you are right - Baez has got to be paying someone alright!!

 

[Tink56]

I guess in the scheme of things even though JB filed a claim for $300,000., he won't receive any money from BK because CA is supposedly still "indigent". What I would like to know if he was entitled to file that claim and if not, will he face any consequences.

Also, if he only received $89,000 from the ABC pictures, where did the other $111,000 come from. (500,000-89,000 = 411,000 - 300,000. =111,000.) Was he legally allowed to collect any more money than the $89,000.?

JMO

However, I would hate to see him get a $300,000 write off of funds that were not owed or billed prior to the BK hearings...