Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[strawberry]

I thought so.

I'm sure you're right. I knew someone did but didn't who.

 

[strawberry]

Okay, now I have a question about the new motion. The part with KC's signature is dated yesterday, but the date at the end of the motion reads Friday. Would that cause an issue?

Maybe they will have to refile their refile!

 

[strawberry]

I think you are right too.

:woohoo:

 

[FaerieB]

Maybe they will have to refile their refile!

I live in hope. :innocent:

 

[Oakley]

I am not even prepared to debate what words were spoken by the judge. I was not there and MD certainly has reason enough to stretch the truth in order to stretch his own 15.

I am just shocked that JS would put himself in a position that he could even be accused of such an impropriety. I make no comment or judgment as to whether any impropriety exists.

I don't see how JS put himself in any 'position' at all!
For all we know Marinade Dave might have sought out JS prior to when he was summoned at/after the close of the hearing and JS was simply following up. Since NO ONE knows exactly what was said (other than JS and MD) I have wondered since that day if it was a reprimand of some kind.

I have a real hard time believing a man of JS's stature would put himself in the position to give the impression of impropriety, as some have said. What he actually said could have been anything at all. I think the defense is grasping at this point. And I, too, am chomping at the bit for the next doc dump.

 

[sleutherontheside]

The part that retains the Friday signature is the Memorandum not the actual motion and does not require a notary. To be 100% consistent I personally would have done it all over again with a consistent date to be safe as the memo is in support of the motion. Why didn't they submit an amended memo as well?..... I don't know.

Whether or not the court wanted to be really picky and enter into a "which came first....the chicken or the egg?" would be up to them. But as picky as I tend to be......I would ask.......If the motion is dated 4/19 and the memo in support of the motion is 4/16....would it not have been prudent to go ahead and make everything nice and clean with consistent dates / signatures / and up to date stamps? Additionally, if I were being VERY picky...I might have made sure that Mr. Mason notarized this document as well WITH a current stamp. But....that's just me.

Like I said...with a family full of attorneys......some thought processes tend to rub off.

 

[FaerieB]

The part that retains the Friday signature is the Memorandum not the actual motion and does not require a notary. To be 100% consistent I personally would have done it all over again with a consistent date to be safe as the memo is in support of the motion. Why they didn't submit an amended memo as well I don't know.

I understand what you're saying. If I were the client it would have all been redone. Just saying...

I also notice that in "Certification of Attorneys" section, Baez claims to have hand delivered the motion to the judge and the SA yesterday. Really? On a Sunday??

 

[LambChop]

Thank you so much for posting all 4 of those signatures. To me I see that the first and fourth are more than likely to truly be Casey's. The second and third appear to be from someone who has tried to copy Casey's signature. So again, if it can be proven that Casey did not in fact sign the latest motion then is it really a legal document that must be ruled on by Judge Strickland? If Baez or someone else signed Casey's name does it make that motion null and void? Would that also make the motion strictly a publicity stunt to have people suspect that Judge Strickland is biased and has done something wrong? I don't understand how someone can have that much of a difference in their signatures as there are always tells even when we try to disguise our identity. The Ys are very clearly not the same.

A notary can not notarize someone else signing for KC. It's KC trying to sign her signature like JB signs his. Scribble. Look at her statement two years ago she signed her whole name. It's part of her legal persona.

 

[sleutherontheside]

A notary can not notarize someone else signing for KC. It's KC trying to sign her signature like JB signs his. Scribble. Look at her statement two years ago she signed her whole name. It's part of her legal persona.

Let's consider the possibility that if KC was particularly annoyed or feeling inconvenienced by having to sign "AGAIN".....her signature may reflect her mood.

 

[Oakley]

So does this mean we will see another motion tomorrow asking that the prosecuters be removed from the case? JMO

Didn't the defense already try that? I know this is tongue-in-cheek but I swear I have a memory of that. They have filed just about every other kind of frivolous motion.

 

[Sparky]

Did MD go to the SA's office, buy a gun or answer questions for WESH?

http://www.wesh.com/news/23197786/detail.html

This also says there was an amended motion filed on Sunday, but it's not showing up at the Clerks office.

Defense attorneys for Casey Anthony filed an amended motion on Sunday to have Judge Stan Strickland removed from the case.

 

[LambChop]

This motion did trump the Maya/chloroform interview for discussion this weekend so maybe chloroform is a big hurdle for the defense to get over. JMO

 

[LambChop]

Let's consider the possibility that if KC was particularly annoyed or feeling inconvenienced by having to sign "AGAIN".....her signature may reflect her mood.

Well, it is her fault. She's just not a very good "teacher". LOL

 

[sleutherontheside]

Did MD go to the SA's office, buy a gun or answer questions for WESH?

http://www.wesh.com/news/23197786/detail.html

This also says there was an amended motion filed on Sunday, but it's not showing up at the Clerks office.

Defense attorneys for Casey Anthony filed an amended motion on Sunday to have Judge Stan Strickland removed from the case.

And quoted in that story is LeRoy Pernell , Dean of the FAMU College of Law IN ORLANDO....where Baez teaches......and whose students are currently volunteering on this case.

Snip below....

"Any judge would want to be very careful about what they do in terms of how it's going to be perceived by others," Florida A&M University Law School professor LeRoy Pernell said.

Pernell wouldn't say if Strickland should recuse himself, but he said the relationship with the blogger is questionable.

"Particularly a judge in a high-profile case has to always consider the impact of what they say or do, whether it's intentional or not," Pernell said.

For the love of Pete.....can they not get a quote from someone without a connection to this case? Can they not find an attorney to weigh in and validate the motion without pooling from their own sandbox? SHEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Anais]

I truly hope that the honorable Judge did nothing improper and therefor has no need to recuse himself, and then he does wayyyyyyyy more than just silly wrist slap Jose Baez when he behaves like a moron in the courtroom, which is of course inevitable!!!! Me thinks this is a great big defense game so that they can have all their lost motions re-ruled upon. I think the TES loss was the very worst for them and think they really thought they would get that one in their favor!

Honestly it's really about MD opening his big mouth and stating things that may or may not be true. I would expect the Judge to be reading the blogs and news etc.

 

[RR0004]

I think you are right too.

Thanks! Also good to know we have company. KWIM

 

[beach]

Did MD go to the SA's office, buy a gun or answer questions for WESH?

http://www.wesh.com/news/23197786/detail.html

This also says there was an amended motion filed on Sunday, but it's not showing up at the Clerks office.

Defense attorneys for Casey Anthony filed an amended motion on Sunday to have Judge Stan Strickland removed from the case.

BBM

Well, that IS what the article says, but Sunday ??? :waitasec:


me thinks the media got it wrong again. looks like they were using JB's date as a reference....they should always refer to the clerk's date/time stamp.

 

[OneLostGrl]

Well, it is her fault. She's just not a very good "teacher". LOL

 

[RR0004]

Didn't the defense already try that? I know this is tongue-in-cheek but I swear I have a memory of that. They have filed just about every other kind of frivolous motion.

Yup...they did try it with the SA.

 

[miss plum]

I guess writing well is important. Lol but is it a requirment by law? Many have complained about the poorly written motions in this case. I am just curious. Is it required by law? If the point gets across, does the Judge acknowledge it? Of course he does. If he cant understand it, he will send it back and ask for clarification. People should be able to represent themselves even without a lawyer or good writing skills. IMO

There seems to be a strong correlation between good writing skills and good reading skills. I've taught at college level and the students who write badly tend to also have difficulty with reading comprehension. It makes sense that someone who has trouble stringing together a coherent sentence will also have difficulty when reading something nuanced or complicated; they will miss key points and then give far too much weight to something that is not especially relevant, or they will not understand that particular words have been carefully selected by the writer because they have precise meanings within the context they are used. While it may be true that people should be able to represent themselves regardless of their skills, if I ever retained a lawyer I would want to know they were capable of parsing difficult documents and writing with precision. This would be especially true if I had paid them what KC has paid JB so far. I wonder if she understands how little bang she has got for her blood buck.