Florida Bar Allegedly Prepares Case against Baez

[Novice Seeker]

In Conway's transcript, Conway says that Baez represented to the Court that Conway had seen documents, when Conway reviewed the TES files, that would prove that Caylee's body was not there at the remains site on Suburban, and Conway says that is absolutely not true. Conway says he never told Baez anything like that.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-jose-baez-bar-complaint-20110202,0,3961011,full.story

excerpts

"On the surface of it, Mr. Baez filed a motion with the court in which he claimed that I had had access to Texas EquuSearch records under circumstances that were untrue," Conway said, "and that I was, let's say, given preferential treatment. That was also untrue."

"On the surface, those statements that he basically swore to in filing this with the court, that was untrue," Conway said.

Conway went on to say that Baez also claimed that Conway had information that would corroborate the defense claim that Caylee's remains were not at the location where they were ultimately found in December 2008 during a brief period when Casey Anthony was out of jail.

"And that was not true," Conway told the investigators."

Maybe I'm confused here, BC states to LE that JB's motion which claims BC had access TES records and given preferential treatment is false...However, IMO, BC did receive preferential access to the TES records. BC first says that he didn't bide JB's request then later in the interview admits to going back through the TES documents to search for documents related to LB. One minute BC states he wasn't working with JB, the next he says he went back through the records after JB's request.

1. Should BC have been given access to documents that did not directly
involve the parents?

2. For legal access wouldn't the A's have had to file legal papers explaining
why they wanted access?

3. JS's order regarding access to TES records were very specific to JB. So
wouldn't BC's interview provide evidence that JB did not comply with this
order?

And why would the A's laptop, desktop and journal be in BC's possession? If BC does have these items in his possession what computer is Cindy using?


Novice Seeker

 

[faefrost]

You know, something just occurred to me. When Baez whined about Conway getting to see the documents first, was he setting up Conway as the person who had LB's document first? I can totally see him doing that. I'm starting to wonder what would have happened had TES not doggedly responded that Conway had the same access, and if Conway hadn't resigned. I'm wondering if he wouldn't have accused Conway of tampering with the TES records and placing LB's document there when the sh** hit the fan about her lying and forging a document. She was practically stalking the A's, so it's easy to to see that he would have said or implied that the document came from the A's, who then passed it on to their lawyer, who put it in the TES documents when he saw them first. Wow, did Conway dodge a bullet or what?

The other thing is that Todd Macaluso's words just seem to haunt this defense team. Why did he say there was actual evidence that Caylee's body wasn't there? And why has Baez not been able to get past that statement? All he has done is try to bring forward evidence to exonerate Casey and failed time and again. You'd think he'd try to find a new strategy instead of making the defense team strapped to TM's words. Something was going on there behind the scenes for TM to say that. And things have totally fallen apart for the defense team since then. Maybe Baez promised Casey there was evidence, so he's had to look like he's trying to find it for her? I don't know. He's gone way too far, and I hope this latest bar complaint pans out and he loses his license. Why her, Baez? Why lose everything for a sociopathic baby killer?

Any may I say, tomorrow's hearing should be a doozy.

Don't forget JB was actively, for lack of a better word, harrasing BC about A. searching TES records for LB and B. contacting LB himself. he wanted a third party, BC, to both determine whether there were any LB documents remaining at TES and to be the one to discover and release the LB document. His plan was in fact for BC to have that exculpatory document. he just failed to go off script when BC quietly chose not to follow through on his requests.

As for who called it in to the Bar. I still lean towards MN/TM. If it was BC he would have and should have done it months ago. Whereas we know that MN really wanted to when he informed CM that his partner was a liar. But MN probably did not have enough to work with at that time. It would have been his word against JB's and be seen as a squabble between hostile parties. But with the release of BC's interview (which I doubt MN would have seen before it became public) the game changed. They now had a sworn statement from an officer of the court that he had specifically been misrepresented before the judge and court. Yes MN and everyone with an ounce of sense knew JB lied. But BC's sworn interview coming out, with all of its wonderful details made it actionable. It clearly showed a deliberate pattern of unethical behavior being directed against MN's clients TES. From the misrepresentation of BC, to the inserting himself in with the A's to generate the letter and tampering with witnesses. While he may have misrepresented BC's statements, knowledge and evidence, TES was the adversarial party that the misrepresentations were being used against. He lied to sway a judges decision against them. As such they have very high standing to file a complaint. At least I hope this is where this current complaint stems from, because if so it would be quite strong and credible.

The complaint could be the judge. But I am not sure about that. I don't think the judge would wait months on this? Just doesn't seem his style. At what point would he have seen the documents in this latest release? Would he have seen the BC interviews ahead of time?

The other likely scenario is this complaint is yet another "concerned citizen" submitting things released in the public record. In which case the bar will probably once again simply ignore it.

 

[faefrost]

Maybe I'm confused here, BC states to LE that JB's motion which claims BC had access TES records and given preferential treatment is false...However, IMO, BC did receive preferential access to the TES records. BC first says that he didn't bide JB's request then later in the interview admits to going back through the TES documents to search for documents related to LB. One minute BC states he wasn't working with JB, the next he says he went back through the records after JB's request.

1. Should BC have been given access to documents that did not directly
involve the parents?

2. For legal access wouldn't the A's have had to file legal papers explaining
why they wanted access?

3. JS's order regarding access to TES records were very specific to JB. So
wouldn't BC's interview provide evidence that JB did not comply with this
order?

And why would the A's laptop, desktop and journal be in BC's possession? If BC does have these items in his possession what computer is Cindy using?


Novice Seeker

1. TES entered into the search for Caylee at the parents request. So any documents of Caylee searches may have some degree of reasonable interest to the parents.

2. TES is a private organization. The documents are theirs to allow or restrict access as they see fit. With their own interests in mind, Their primary interest is protecting their members and searchers. But that does not prevent them from allowing parties to the searches reasonable access to documents as a courtesy. If the defense had followed the protocols offered to LE, the SA and the A's and simply gone and examined the docs on site with no notes or copies they would not have had any problems. It was JB's insistence on getting full copies of every piece of paper to be handed over to his control for data mining that became an issue.

3. Oh yeah! Big time. JB was soliciting BC in order to do an end run around the courts order. I can't see that being looked upon favorably.

 

[The World According]

I think by the word of his letter we learn that it was not a verbal statement that Brad is referring to, it was a legal document. I am glad I just read this so I can stop looking through the hearings, Jose gives me a headache!

POSTED: 7:53 am EDT August 9, 2010
Brad Conway Resignation Letter
"With regret I am forced to resign as George and Cindy Anthonys attorney. The defense motion filed on August 9, 2010 contains allegations that are not in fact true. As an officer of the court I cannot stand idly by knowing allegations involving me have been misstated. I am now a witness to an inaccurate legal pleading filed in our court system. As such, I cannot continue in good conscience as a legal representative. George and Cindy Anthony have done nothing improper, it is the failure of the defense to verify the facts alleged in their motion that forces my withdrawal. I will continue to support the Anthonys, will continue to attend hearings and the eventual trial and most importantly I will continue to search for the full truth regarding the killing of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Bradley A. Conway, Esq. Law Office of Bradley A. Conway 189 S. Orange Ave. Suite 1850 Orlando, Fl. Office: 407-246-0803 Fax: 407-386-3114 "

August was some time ago.
Brad Conway On The Today Show detailing the false representations that the defense made about him to the court in documents are why he resigned

http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=h...=9b-Qh75GVe3dJdRHyrhJrubqbnB8MTI5NjgzMDE4Mw==

http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=h...=9b-Qh75GVe3dJdRHyrhJrubqbnB8MTI5NjgzMDE4Mw==

 

[QB.]

I think the word "possession" is the problem.
Conway did not use that word in his LE Interview.
Conway said that Baez told the Judge that Conway "had information" about information in the TES documents that would be exculpatory. Or that Conway knew about such records/documents.
So, IMO, we would not be listening for Baez to say that Conway had documents "in his possession" .... rather that Conway "had information" about documents in TES records that would support the claim that Caylee's body was placed there when Inmate Anthony was in jail. It would most likely be a brief statement that many did not catch, but Conway heard it because it was about himself.

On IS, they are saying that parts of the April 5, 2010 Hearing video have been redacted. May be why nobody can find that reference that Conway spoke of to LE?

The April 5th hearing is wrought with interuptions and virtually impossible to follow. But was BC present at that hearing? I didn't see him

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

You know, something just occurred to me. When Baez whined about Conway getting to see the documents first, was he setting up Conway as the person who had LB's document first? I can totally see him doing that. I'm starting to wonder what would have happened had TES not doggedly responded that Conway had the same access, and if Conway hadn't resigned. I'm wondering if he wouldn't have accused Conway of tampering with the TES records and placing LB's document there when the sh** hit the fan about her lying and forging a document. She was practically stalking the A's, so it's easy to to see that he would have said or implied that the document came from the A's, who then passed it on to their lawyer, who put it in the TES documents when he saw them first. Wow, did Conway dodge a bullet or what?

The other thing is that Todd Macaluso's words just seem to haunt this defense team. Why did he say there was actual evidence that Caylee's body wasn't there? And why has Baez not been able to get past that statement? All he has done is try to bring forward evidence to exonerate Casey and failed time and again. You'd think he'd try to find a new strategy instead of making the defense team strapped to TM's words. Something was going on there behind the scenes for TM to say that. And things have totally fallen apart for the defense team since then. Maybe Baez promised Casey there was evidence, so he's had to look like he's trying to find it for her? I don't know. He's gone way too far, and I hope this latest bar complaint pans out and he loses his license. Why her, Baez? Why lose everything for a sociopathic baby killer?

Any may I say, tomorrow's hearing should be a doozy.

Don't think tomorrows status hearing will have anything to do with these allegations but I am waiting to see His Honors expressions and how he handles anything that comes out of his (Baez') mouth. I doubt they will touch on the allegations, although, with this case, who knows...:innocent:

Could be, Aedrys, could be he was trying to set up BC...but there's also a "witness" tampering allegation as well. I wouldn't put it past him to try something like that. To deliberatly try and ruin peoples reputation seems to flow easily out of his mouth. He's done it with the innocent people he suspects, as he threw those names out there too. ICA goes along with it for she doesn't want to go down without pulling someone down with her. She's totally on board with what Baez says and does...and it appears CA loves him for shouting his client is innocent..humbleness....as she put it...but this is truly a tangled web....and it will bite him hard, when he goes under that microscope...when this case is over and done, Baez might be looking for a new profession....I too want to know WHY folks are willing to throw it all away for this alleged child murderer...JMHO


Justice for Caylee

 

[LambChop]

Not sure this was mentioned in this thread but LDB and JA went through those TES files completely prior to defense so if there was anything about LB being on Suburban they would have caught it. So when LB said she searched they knew there was no sheet for that search in file and were probably not looking for one because LB said she was there on her own. The second sheet is the problem whoever decided to produce it. Defense should have known better for a number of reasons. There never should have been a sheet if LB was not assigned to Suburban and she was there on her own.

I think defense is going to try and wiggle out of this one saying they did not produce the document because they felt she may have made it up on her own. But if they felt she was not credible they never should have put her on their witness list, used her as an excuse to interview hundreds of local TES volunteers and used up JAC's funds on unsubstantiated information about a body not being in that location at the time of the search. Either way it appears they were being deliberately deceitful. jmo

 

[Intermezzo]

Geesh, don't any of you ever sleep?

Came across this but it wouldn't let me copy anything other than the web site. It seems that a judgement was made against the Baez Law Firm in early 2008? Just thought it interesting given that the bar is investigating him, again. Also, wasn't one of the findings the Fl. Bar asserted in denying his admittance was JB's financial records?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10294232/Casey-Anthonys-attorney-has-to-pay-out

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68212901/FLORIDA-BOARD-OF-BAR-EXAMINERS-RE-Jose-Baez

Novice Seeker

Thanks Novice Seeker
1) Small Claims Court Order 2000....was that $837.62 that Small Claims Court Ordered he pay the plaintiff Sir Speedy Printing

2)Thanks for posting that one again...I know it's on WS somewhere.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68212901/FLORIDA-BOARD-OF-BAR-EXAMINERS-RE-Jose-Baez

The above link IMO is a must read

June 29, 2000 JAB asked the the Supreme Court to review the recommendations of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners of Sept 1998 that he not be admitted to the Florida Bar
After Review the Supreme Court approved the Board's recommendation that JAB NOT be admitted to the Florida Bar

May 1997 JAB filed an application for admission to the Florida Bar

Sept 1998 the Florida Bar recommended that JAB NOT be admitted to the Florida Bar...
Why: paraphrasing...

FAILure comply with court ordered child support for his daughter.
FAILure to maintain Health and Life insurance for his daughter as ordered by the court
DEFAULT JUDGMENT entered against him which was still unsatisfied as of April 1998
WORTHLESS CHECK in May 1994 and attended a diversion program to AVOID Criminal Prosecution
DEFAULTED on a student loan in January 1995 (debt satisfied January 2006)
UNNECESSARY AND INORDINATE EXPENSE by voluntarily participating in a foreign study program in the summer of 1995
DELINQUENT in the payment of a health club membership that begun in October 1995 and as of Dec 1997 owed $850
Did not maintain a checking account (1995-August 1997)due to past problems with writing worthless checks
FAILure maintain proper records for his current checking account, opened August 1997, as evidenced by a negative balance in October 1997
EXTRAVAGANT expense for transportation by currently leasing a Mazda Miata for $340 per month.

An answer on JAB's Law School application, he FAILED to disclose a 1989 charge of simple assault and a 1994 charge of passing worthless checks, was false and misleading

The Board found that JAB's misrepresentations and lack of candor in his answer to the specifications and during his formal hearing testimony were further grounds for disqualification.
Despite being practicing attorneys, none of JAB's witnesses offered any written documentation , and their credibility was diminished by their equivocating and uncertain recollection of material matters

 

[Macushla]

Going to repeat myself because there is still a lot of confusion about BC. the phrase 'in possession of records' came not from any deposition or court hearing, but from K. Belich when she interviewed B. Shaffer. Because she used the phrase in possession of records, B. Shaffer answered using the same phrase. K. Belich misread or misunderstood BC's deposition, where he said that JB stated BC was AWARE of TES records.

I figured this was going to happen as soon as I heard her ask the question and heard B. Shaffer's reply.

Thanks to all the posters who have been pointing this all out. We can hope that K. Belich steps up and admits her mistake.

 

[nums24]

Not sure this was mentioned in this thread but LDB and JA went through those TES files completely prior to defense so if there was anything about LB being on Suburban they would have caught it. So when LB said she searched they knew there was no sheet for that search in file and were probably not looking for one because LB said she was there on her own. The second sheet is the problem whoever decided to produce it. Defense should have known better for a number of reasons. There never should have been a sheet if LB was not assigned to Suburban and she was there on her own.

I think defense is going to try and wiggle out of this one saying they did not produce the document because they felt she may have made it up on her own. But if they felt she was not credible they never should have put her on their witness list, used her as an excuse to interview hundreds of local TES volunteers and used up JAC's funds on unsubstantiated information about a body not being in that location at the time of the search. Either way it appears they were being deliberately deceitful. jmo

BC never had posession of any real LB docs. BC went through the records first, then SA, then the defense. The LB forms were not contained in those files, they were retrieved by LE December 2009 in Texas.

Page 2: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/propertformTXEQsearch.pdf

 

[nums24]

Puzzling isn't it?! If the comments were made at a sidebar wouldn't BC had to have been included in that sidebar as well, otherwise how would he know about it?

Which is why I think MN may have made the complaint. MN participated in thse hearings. JMO

 

[Aedrys]

Don't think tomorrows status hearing will have anything to do with these allegations but I am waiting to see His Honors expressions and how he handles anything that comes out of his (Baez') mouth. I doubt they will touch on the allegations, although, with this case, who knows...:innocent:

Could be, Aedrys, could be he was trying to set up BC...but there's also a "witness" tampering allegation as well. I wouldn't put it past him to try something like that. To deliberatly try and ruin peoples reputation seems to flow easily out of his mouth. He's done it with the innocent people he suspects, as he threw those names out there too. ICA goes along with it for she doesn't want to go down without pulling someone down with her. She's totally on board with what Baez says and does...and it appears CA loves him for shouting his client is innocent..humbleness....as she put it...but this is truly a tangled web....and it will bite him hard, when he goes under that microscope...when this case is over and done, Baez might be looking for a new profession....I too want to know WHY folks are willing to throw it all away for this alleged child murderer...JMHO


Justice for Caylee

Well, yeah, I know they won't directly address the allegations, but I just know HHJP is going to slip some gems in there to let JB know he knows what's going on. I can't wait for that, LOL. And I swear, if JB is all smirky tomorrow, the man has to be on some good drugs. No way should he be smiling. He does have some kind of ego, though. He really seemed to think he could get away with a lot in this case. I wonder how Cheney Mason is taking all of this...

Something else I'm wondering about is Casey's role in all of this. Did she give him the go ahead to destroy her family, her parent's lawyer, do whatever it takes to get her off the hook? I wonder if at some point he's just going to blame his client, saying he did what she wanted him to do? I guess my question is, could he get out of this by blaming Casey at some point? Or is that not reasonable?

 

[sumbunny]

slightly o/t but at tomorrow's hearing will HHJP hear any of those motions that were filed by the defense regarding the extension of time? It's too quiet on that front!

And as far as Casey being there. Do you think she'll be made to show up tomorrow, if they in fact plan to talk about anything other then the status hearing?

To make this post not o/t. I hope these latest allegations have Baez slinking in behind the desk and keeping his trap shut the entire time.

 

[Chiquita71]

Here I am friend. I have never heard Jose Baez say that Brad had docs in his possession. In the depo, Brad was pretty ticked off, to put it politely and he made some statements, but I did not hear him say that. If he said that exactly in his depo, he could very well be talking about something that was said at sidebar or in chambers when they all were alone with the judge.

Jose complained early on about why was Brad being offered to look at the documents when the defense was not. Indeed Mark said in the hearing and Brad confirmed it in his depo that Mark offered up the records to Brad before ANYONE had reviewed them. That one part is true. The part Jose is wrong about is Brad was not allowed to look at them in any manner different than the State AND, and this part is important, nor was it in a manner different than Mark Nejame had offered to the defense. If you recall it wound up being scandalous how long those records sat there in Nejame's office, available to the defense and Jose never ever came to review them. Even when the info on the 32 was agreed he could have , he never came to pick those up. Mark wound up having them hand delivered to Baez. ON THOSE documents, at the top of one of the pages is JOE JORDAN's name.

That is something else they tried to misrepresent , they wanted to imply that TES, Mark, hid this very important name, and therefore likely others that were relevant. The state proved in a hearing that indeed they had his name all along. Then Jose tried to claim on his copy the name was cut off. Judge Strickland said, no, I can make the name out clearly.

We aren't to call names here, but I do not know a polite way to put it. Who knows what he said that we didn't overhear,all I know is the record is replete with examples of them fudging the truth that we did hear. If Mark Nejame walked out of a meeting and says Jose sat in there and told bold faced lies, I believe him.

THIS WAS PRICELESS MARK MOPPED THE FLOOR WITH THOSE MISREPRESENTATIONS.
Nejame slaps down defense motion, asks for fees - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Nejame slaps down defense motion, asks for fees
http://www.wftv.com/news/22535671/detail.html

The defense made knowingly false allegations about Mark to the judge regarding Mark having let a reporter review the TES documents. The reporter even called up Baez and said no sir, you have it wrong, I was only shown what has been released , the 32 . EVEN AFTER THAT, THE DEFENSE STILL WENT AHEAD WITH THEIR KNOWINGLY FALSE ALLEGATIONS. IT WAS RIDICULOUS!!!
The lawyer for TES expected that the defense would retract their accusation that he released the TES documents to the press. When they did not, he filed a motion with the court, responding to that and their requests for all of the documents. The very experienced Mr. Nejame, sets out the defense is out of line, and has their facts wrong. Again. I love Mark, he is basically saying here...I gave them a chance to take it back and they did not....so ...It's ON!!!!

He is asking for attorney fees ;because, this was BS for them to put that out in the public in bad faith. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, that they misunderstood what went on with the journalist and the documents, when they were informed of what really happened....and still they did not retract it. Mark is waaaaay too experienced for them to try this against. One shouldn't accuse another lawyer of impropriety when they are not positive they can substantiate it.....especially when your own team members are under investigation!!!

Nejame asks the court to award TES attorney fees.
snip

"He has caused unnecessary attorney time and Court time to be wasted, especially since he has been fully advised of its misrepresentations and inaccuracies and nevertheless continues to proceed," NeJame wrote.

Baaaaam!

Defense Motion On NeJame
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/24581279/detail.html

NeJame To Defense | Response
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/24581670/detail.html

EMAILS: Cindy, Baez, Conway NeJame
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/24581702/detail.html

Do you remember when there was going to be a hearing on the bad faith of the defense team regarding TES? The judge pulled everyone up to the bench, for a long while, then the hearing never happened in open court. The judge did tell Mark Nejame he could bring up the bad faith at a later time. The parties all met in chambers and reached an agreement on how the TES records were going to be reviewed and the stipulations order emerged.

I believe for the reasons he had then and the new reasons the complaint could have been made by Mark. I know he had his ducks in a row when he walked into the hearing I am speaking of. He knows how to prepare a legal document. If the complaint is from him, I concur with our member upthread that said something to the effect of ut oh for Mr. Baez. If as and when Mark Nejame decides the proper forum to handle Baez is the Florida bar.....it will be very comprehensive manner, I trust.

All Texas Equusearch-Related Filings #1 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

2010.09.16 Tim Miller on Issues with Jane Velez Mitchel - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Certainly they made misrepresentations about the experts. WOW! http://websleuths.com/forums/blog.php?b=884
...about the experts being invited to view the evidence http://websleuths.com/forums/blog.php?b=764

Certainly they did about the proof and 100 witnesses they had.Repeatedly!

I know the defense made misrepresentations to the judge about just finding out mom and pop filled out questionnaires about Casey for the federal agents. Mrs Drane Burdick stood up and told the judge, not only is that not true, but IN THE DEPO Jose commented on having seen that mentioned in the video of the FBI interviews.

Also, there was the little gem about mom's co workers. http://websleuths.com/forums/blog.php?b=763

Yes, there have been several "misrepresentations". Please don't make me list them all. To answer your question what was Mark referring to saying Baez lied....take your pick.

Respectfully Quoted TheWordAccording :blowkiss:
BBM

That is what I thought! I am happy with myself for thinking something like that-it's just I remember that stuff with BC. I had remembered that MN had been a part of that and even that reporter stuff. I didn't want to post that yesterday because I didn't want to say something like that about MN when I have zero idea what I am talking about.

I only thought that because I have been following along and when I read this thread yesterday that is what popped into my head. I couldn't see how BC could do nothing about what happened-he had been used in a ruse. My understanding is Cindy wanted him to lie for her and he couldn't so he had to quit. And, why do I remember MN having to answer to the idea that he did something inappropriate? Because he did. And, again I know zero about this but even I can see that MN is a professional. I never heard of the man before this case and only know what I know about him from this case but there is a real lawyer.

With the statement by the bar that this is just being looked into, I understand that is exactly that: it has to be investigated. So for now, there will be no more information about this until grounds are either found or found to have no foundation. (ha. ha. laugh at my awkwardness...I am...)

BS said that the bar will make sure this has no affect on Casey's trial. This is considered something completely separate. I will go back and listen to what he said again but as I remember hearing him: he stressed this has nothing to do with Casey's case, he even said the appeal process(?)IIRC. I will go listen again.

TWA: I am just proud of myself that I followed along enough to come to any conclusion even close to the information that you have retained in this case, and the information you already had and bring to the plate. :wave:

Is there a "pleased with myself" emoticon? A "narcissist" emoticon? There should be one of those, the narcissist one...that could come in handy on some cases.

ETA: I took it like this, the defense was saying (between the lines I got but it seemed loud and clear)that MN and BC both had and looked at (whatever you want to call it)and even let a reporter come a look and...it was totally dancing around some kind of accusing them of something type thing. From what I see BC had to quit being the As lawyers because of this and MN had represented them, and I can see a whole thing behind all of this. I don't see this getting investigated and nothing being found because we already know that Cindy wanted BC to lie about something and that can't be right or good.

...js...

 

[pip]

Something tells me Baez knows his back is seriously up against a wall this time. He is FINALLY quiet. No Comment. :shutup::shutup:

 

[beach]

Going to repeat myself because there is still a lot of confusion about BC. the phrase 'in possession of records' came not from any deposition or court hearing, but from K. Belich when she interviewed B. Shaffer. Because she used the phrase in possession of records, B. Shaffer answered using the same phrase. K. Belich misread or misunderstood BC's deposition, where he said that JB stated BC was AWARE of TES records.

I figured this was going to happen as soon as I heard her ask the question and heard B. Shaffer's reply.

Thanks to all the posters who have been pointing this all out. We can hope that K. Belich steps up and admits her mistake.

I remember it like Mac.

I don't have time right now to read through all the posts since I last viewed this thread last night, but just want to say -

It appears we are getting hung up on the word "possession". It is a moot point.

If JB (or any other member of the defense team) proffered to the Court that they knew that BC was AWARE of exculpatory evidence, when in fact he was NOT aware, then it is still a LIE. As an attorney, you just do not lie to the Court.

The bottom line is - it appears the defense intentionally misrepresented the facts to the Court and dragged BC into the mess by attributing it to him.

 

[LambChop]

BC never had posession of any real LB docs. BC went through the records first, then SA, then the defense. The LB forms were not contained in those files, they were retrieved by LE December 2009 in Texas.

Page 2: http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/propertformTXEQsearch.pdf

This is what I was saying that if the form from LB was in those TES files someone would have found it including SA because they did go through those files and Suburban would have popped out at them. Technically LB would never have had a sheet from TES because she was never assigned to that location. Admittedly those searchers went there on their own. So there never should have been a second sheet. But how aware was the defense of that, that they would have missed that little detail. If LB had not produced that second sheet (for whatever reason she felt she had too, solicited or not) they would be going on her statement only and she would still be a witness for the defense provided she would have been able to give a credible deposition.

A case of "too much information" and it has come back to bite them. I am really surprised at CM for not catching that. Or maybe he did but it was too late. jmo

 

[sumbunny]

After this latest debacle I hope HHJP advises the defense to allow CM to be lead attorney.
Can a judge force JB to step aside?

 

[ynotdivein]

Don't think tomorrows status hearing will have anything to do with these allegations but I am waiting to see His Honors expressions and how he handles anything that comes out of his (Baez') mouth. I doubt they will touch on the allegations, although, with this case, who knows...:innocent:

(snip)

Justice for Caylee

RSBM... You make me think, will this be another hearing where CM does all the talking? (The thought of which makes me wince.) Given the latest revelations it seems to me the defense team would best be served by keeping JB's butt in his seat with a bag over his head to cover his inappropriate smirks.

 

[Chiquita71]

Don't forget JB was actively, for lack of a better word, harrasing BC about A. searching TES records for LB and B. contacting LB himself. he wanted a third party, BC, to both determine whether there were any LB documents remaining at TES and to be the one to discover and release the LB document. His plan was in fact for BC to have that exculpatory document. he just failed to go off script when BC quietly chose not to follow through on his requests.

As for who called it in to the Bar. I still lean towards MN/TM. If it was BC he would have and should have done it months ago. Whereas we know that MN really wanted to when he informed CM that his partner was a liar. But MN probably did not have enough to work with at that time. It would have been his word against JB's and be seen as a squabble between hostile parties. But with the release of BC's interview (which I doubt MN would have seen before it became public) the game changed. They now had a sworn statement from an officer of the court that he had specifically been misrepresented before the judge and court. Yes MN and everyone with an ounce of sense knew JB lied. But BC's sworn interview coming out, with all of its wonderful details made it actionable. It clearly showed a deliberate pattern of unethical behavior being directed against MN's clients TES. From the misrepresentation of BC, to the inserting himself in with the A's to generate the letter and tampering with witnesses. While he may have misrepresented BC's statements, knowledge and evidence, TES was the adversarial party that the misrepresentations were being used against. He lied to sway a judges decision against them. As such they have very high standing to file a complaint. At least I hope this is where this current complaint stems from, because if so it would be quite strong and credible.

The complaint could be the judge. But I am not sure about that. I don't think the judge would wait months on this? Just doesn't seem his style. At what point would he have seen the documents in this latest release? Would he have seen the BC interviews ahead of time?

The other likely scenario is this complaint is yet another "concerned citizen" submitting things released in the public record. In which case the bar will probably once again simply ignore it.

Respectfully Quoted faefrost :cool2:
BBM

If that is true, I don't doubt what you say, then I would think that ties into the whole LB stuff in the other threads. Over there it is being debated as to whether LB had the idea to "add notes" to her TES document of her own accord and then used by the defense or if she was put up to it.

If Jose is innocent of this it would have to be that LB contacted him and then he wanted to push getting that record. BUT!! Even I know that the defense didn't bother to walk, let alone run to look at those records(I am starting to understand some stuff now)and I would think if they were so important in an up and up sense we wouldn't have heard all the stories about the defense "avoiding" looking at the records.

Oh, sorry they were not allowed to look at them? Isn't that what they said, and then something about not having enough pens. I remember JS talked about color tabs for them, they could put all the ones that were needed by them in a file, etc. but (please correct me if I am wrong, they never went and looked).

Then it is said that LB forged this document...all the joe jordan stuff, going after TES...I'm sorry you can't be this misunderstood. Meaning what someone else said here "a minute ago": if it walks like a duck...

I don't know who put in the complaint but the point is: someone did. And, it is easy for a lay person to see that Jose tries to make a fool out of the system. That is what it was looking like to me, an ordinary citizen. It seemed a "differently ethical thinking" officer of the court could run around the system as he pleased and the court was powerless to do anything.

That is exactly what I have been thinking. How can our courts, our system be so powerless before the likes of Jose Baez, Casey and Cindy Anthony? I am an iconoclast by nature but it still disturbed me deeply that one of America's greatest institutions was set up to be so powerless.

:twocents: