Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Dignity4Victims]

I brought up the Judge saying Kc anthony and the truth are strangers because it is in this motion. I am not turning quickly about anything. Did you wish to debate something? Then be specific and not throw out accusations. I love to debate in good spirits.

The appropriate thread to debate Kc's lies is the Kc lies thread.
The appropriate thread to debate the Js news story and motions is here. IMO

Consecutively read both bolded sentences.

Just as I stated, you brought up Judge Strickland's comment about Casey's lies because it's in the Motion, and you further stated that Casey didn't lie, which of course, set off a power-storm of sleuthers here bombarding you with many of Casey's lies.

Of course since that time, you have finally admitted that you're here to "defend Casey", so again, don't change the tune just because you don't like the fact that Casey did lie like a dirty rug and did not cooperate with LE, just as JS stated, and that Casey and the truth are strangers.

 

[RR0004]

We haven't seen the investigative interview of DC, have we? How come we haven't heard about any of this? I think something's coming folks...and it's got nothing to do with the judge. The defense is running scared. Their behavior screams it! Hey, if they were to present the real killer, we wouldn't have to worry about who is sitting on the bench come trial date.

 

[Aedrys]

I think the 10 days began to toll after the facts were discovered in the defense interview with MD. I think the motion meets the 10 day requirement.

So the requirement is ten days after the defense becomes aware of impropriety, even if it happened six months ago? I'm trying to understand exactly what the time frame is. I thought it was ten days from when the impropriety happened, not ten days from when the defense found out about it.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just heavily confused on when this ten day time period was supposed to start. It seems ludicrous to me that six months could go by and they not notice this, and then they have ten days after finding out about it to make a motion? This doesn't seem fair or legal.

And do we know exactly when that supposed telephone call happened? I've heard talk about it, but not exactly when it allegedly happened. I don't think it happened less than ten days ago unless I'm wrong.

I also wanted to say I really respect your opinion, and you've clarified a lot things for all of us here. Thanks so much for being here with us!

 

[RR0004]

With all respect due to Marinade, Dave - did any of you watch the clip of M,Dave and think - You're the man Dave - and what a shame you are in the middle of this firestorm? I think you did nothing - NOTHING - to bring this upon yourself and this fine judge?

I guess it's true what they say - any press is good press!

IMO of course!

Like minds...LG. I was thinking exactly this last night. There is no such thing as bad publicity.

 

[notthatsmart]

Have you ever been in a court room following a criminal trial?

No, do you have authority on this matter? Do you work in the criminal court system? Do you disagree with the ethical rules laid out in the motion? This can be solved easily. If you feel it is okay for a Judge to say such a thing as Kc Anthony and the truth are strangers, is okay and you have no issue with it at all, then just say so. I feel the opposite. I want Judge's to be responsible and impartial. That is my opinion.

 

[RR0004]

No, do you have authority on this matter? Do you work in the criminal court system? Do you disagree with the ethical rules laid out in the motion? This can be solved easily. If you feel it is okay for a Judge to say such a thing as Kc Anthony and the truth are strangers, is okay and you have no issue with it at all, then just say so. I feel the opposite. I want Judge's to be responsible and impartial. That is my opinion.

Don't ya know that you're not supposed to answer a question with a question? (oops...I just did...lol).

 

[RR0004]

I don't think the motion has ANYTHING to do with the ethics of the judge. This is all a game...unfortunately. I believe it was SOTS who pointed this out earlier in the thread. It gets ugly...especially if you have nuttin...which I believe to be true of the defense. Lawyers have their opinions of judges...judges have their opinions of lawyers...but when it's time...everyone puts their game face on and gets down to the business they're being paid to do.

 

[logicalgirl]

Let me give this one a try.

JS made that statement when confirming Casey's charges, after admitting her own testimony that she lied to officers, after testimony was submitted to the court disproving Casey's statements about how and where she left Casey, and after Casey refused to give LE any further statements.

JS wasn't making a flippant general comment, he was commenting on the content of that particular hearing. That nothing had been submitted by either the SA OR the defense that verified Casey was telling the truth about anything. Thus JS's comment the truth and Miss Anthony are strangers.

That was the truth for that particular hearing. confirmed by Casey herself. I'm not understanding why there is an issue with that.

 

[beach]

Then it most definitely wasn't JB that filed it. He doesn't respect deadlines.

Oh, please read it if you haven't already. (pg. 1 of this thread)

It is quite clear that JB did not draft this motion. The words have been chosen carefully, it is well-formatted and a spell/grammar check appears to have been done.

 

[miss plum]

Oh, please read it if you haven't already. (pg. 1 of this thread)

It is quite clear that JB did not draft this motion. The words have been chosen carefully, it is well-formatted and a spell/grammar check appears to have been done.

Also there was a faint tinge of enjoyment to it, it read as if the writer was having FUN!

 

[Aedrys]

Oh, please read it if you haven't already. (pg. 1 of this thread)

It is quite clear that JB did not draft this motion. The words have been chosen carefully, it is well-formatted and a spell/grammar check appears to have been done.

I wonder if JB saw it and thought, wow, is this what a motion is supposed to look like? Yep, if you're correct and I believe you are, he most certainly did NOT write this motion.

Which makes me think this is retaliation by CM because Judge Strickland wouldn't trust him in that last hearing. So this is CM's way of saying, you should have trusted me, judge! See what you made me do because you didn't trust me?

It also makes me wonder if the defense really does want Judge Strickland off of the case. What is of more use to them, a judge that stayed on so they can use that for appeal later, or possibly risking getting a judge that's not near as fair and won't put up with near as much BS from the defense? I think they're hoping he stays because that's the only possibly advantage they could get here.

 

[JBean]

You guys. Knock it off with the personal back and forth. Stop digging into each other on such a personal level , it is distracting and counter productive. Let's get back to the important stuff, please.


where this post lands is entirely random

 

[logicalgirl]

LOL - we didn't want to mention all that other "stuff" like formatting, correct terminology, etc., et., out of respect for Baez's motions Beach!

 

[Dignity4Victims]

No, do you have authority on this matter? Do you work in the criminal court system? Do you disagree with the ethical rules laid out in the motion? This can be solved easily. If you feel it is okay for a Judge to say such a thing as Kc Anthony and the truth are strangers, is okay and you have no issue with it at all, then just say so. I feel the opposite. I want Judge's to be responsible and impartial. That is my opinion.

Well gosh, since you have outlined your criteria of "working within the criminal court system", it is my pleasure to re-quote AZlawyer's post about this subject for you. You do know AZlawyer means she really is a lawyer, right?

Pay particular attention to what is bolded in the color blue for you.

I agree that the defense wishes they could have disqualified JS for his comment "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers." But judges are not supposed to show neutrality when they are explaining their rulings--rulings are obviously in favor of one side or another. So there's nothing wrong with the judge explaining that one reason he ruled as he did is that KC had provided no truthful information about her daughter's whereabouts.

 

[JBean]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4472622#post4472622"]Best Practices Dealing with your fellow posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

So the requirement is ten days after the defense becomes aware of impropriety, even if it happened six months ago? I'm trying to understand exactly what the time frame is. I thought it was ten days from when the impropriety happened, not ten days from when the defense found out about it.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just heavily confused on when this ten day time period was supposed to start. It seems ludicrous to me that six months could go by and they not notice this, and then they have ten days after finding out about it to make a motion? This doesn't seem fair or legal.

And do we know exactly when that supposed telephone call happened? I've heard talk about it, but not exactly when it allegedly happened. I don't think it happened less than ten days ago unless I'm wrong.

I also wanted to say I really respect your opinion, and you've clarified a lot things for all of us here. Thanks so much for being here with us!

This (if you can understand it better than I can) is the wording from the rule:

"(e) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling. . ."

nancy said she thought it was 10 days from when they interviewed MD. The term "discovery of the facts" is not really clear to me. Couldn't it also mean when they first heard about it? Does it have to mean a formal confirmation of what they first heard and suspected? It's just not clear enough for me (with 0 legal experience or knowledge) to understand!

 

[spqr]

Even better.....didn't a WSer even pull up and post that Cheney's commission is actually current, that he renewed it but that he had to personally pay for a new stamp and either used the wrong one, or didn't have a new stamp yet?

But the commission is NOT expired.....

But the "stamp" is what makes the notary. The expired stamp, I believe makes the document it was placed on invalid. Also, a notary can NOT notarize their own signature.

Any notaries onboard for clarification??

 

[Kimster]

This thread is closed so everyone gets a chance to review the rules here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91915"]Best Practices Dealing with your fellow posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Stop using the word "YOU" in your posts and you'd be amazed at how smoothly things roll.

 

[JBean]

Wasn't he notarizing Casey Anthony's signature?

I have been out of pocket and just checking in on this latest business.
Yes it was KC's signature that he was notarizing and not his own.
IMO, the stamp situation will be rectified and be a big nothing.

But just so I understand what is going on, JS told MD that he had a fair and balanced site? The only exposure I have ever had has been pretty much against KC, so I kind of understand why this is an issue. If the judge think s things like "KC must die" represents fair and balanced blogging,isn't that a bit telling?yikes.(no offense MD)
Disclaimer I am NOT up to speed I am still on time out so I may be missing much.
Tell me what I am missing please

 

[JBean]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg[/ame]