Florida Bar Allegedly Prepares Case against Baez

[LolaMoon08]

Good point. IIRC during Cindys deposition with the State she was asked about something. Cindy attempted to answer the question several times while Baez interrupted her. At one point JB tells Cindy to shut up(or something like)


Novice Seeker

He told her to "Zip it." :floorlaugh:

If it were only that easy!

 

[doogiesgirl]

Good point. IIRC during Cindys deposition with the State she was asked about something. Cindy attempted to answer the question several times while Baez interrupted her. At one point JB tells Cindy to shut up(or something like)


Novice Seeker

Oh I do remember that. It was the famous "ZIP IT!" line!:crazy:

moo

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Gosh, JB and CM -- can't even comment on what's for lunch! LMAOROF

http://www.wesh.com/video/26731329/detail.html

 

[Novice Seeker]

Cheney Mason, for the love of GOD, take your forty years of experience and step up, officially you are first chair.....act like it. If you are in, be in big and take over. Someone has GOT TO!!! Watching Mrs. Finnel that fist time in a hearing, it seemed to be what she was thinking. I don't want to hear one more word out of Jose at the podium.
In the words of Richard Horsby, "He is a clown. He has become a legal clown."

This is a death penalty trial, step up Mr. Mason and be the dp qualified expert you were brought on to be. Bench Jose, effectively if he cannot literally be removed. This, imo, isn't even a close call.

Didn't the defense or reporters do some sort of survey months ago about the question of does Jose's notoriety precede him and will it affect the jurors?

:clap::blowkiss::clap:


Novice Seeker

 

[TiaM]

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

Great summary!

I also had to giggle at the vision of JB trying to shoehorn himself in and out of a Mazda Miata in the mid '90's. How very "Miami Vice" LOL.

 

[ynotdivein]

Gosh, JB and CM -- can't even comment on what's for lunch! LMAOROF

http://www.wesh.com/video/26731329/detail.html

Wow! You know they're in trouble when WESH/Kealing gets the Belich Cold Shoulder from both JB and CM!

 

[Novice Seeker]

Oh I do remember that. It was the famous "ZIP IT!" line!:crazy:

moo

Yeah. Does anyone remember what the issue was about? I want to say it related to one of the car seats or a batch of photos that had been published that Cindy had not been aware of.


Novice Seeker

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Cheney Mason, for the love of GOD, take your forty years of experience and step up, officially you are first chair.....act like it. If you are in, be in big and take over. Someone has GOT TO!!! Watching Mrs. Finnel that fist time in a hearing, it seemed to be what she was thinking. I don't want to hear one more word out of Jose at the podium.
In the words of Richard Horsby, "He is a clown. He has become a legal clown."

This is a death penalty trial, step up Mr. Mason and be the dp qualified expert you were brought on to be. Bench Jose, effectively if he cannot literally be removed. This, imo, isn't even a close call.

Didn't the defense or reporters do some sort of survey months ago about the question of does Jose's notoriety precede him and will it affect the jurors?

Will I be put in Time Out if I suggest 'Duct tape'?

 

[faefrost]

Do we even know if the bar complaint has anything to do with BC or the tampering charges. Could it be related to funds and JAC as JP alluded to - or warned of?

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

Seems to me that we are really speculating what the complaint pertains to - unless I missed where the bar said what it was!

(I do seem to remember hearing JB mouth off about BC having two boxes of docs in his office during court one day -- uggggggg. Real or learned memory?)

Some of the news reports, particularly the coments from Bill Shaefer and Kathi Belich have been pretty clear in stating outright that the the current complaint revolves around misrepresenting facts to the court. Some news sources have also indicated that the complaint did not originate with BC. Given the clear indication that the media sources seem to know more than they can actually say on air, and given the timing, right after the bombshell document dump, it is pretty easy to draw the reasonable conclusion that it stems from the TES related filings and statements to the court and is in some way related to the tampering investigation.

I am pretty much ruling out the JAC. If it was from them we would see a host of other concurrent actions. They have a fairly high amount of independent power, or a good deal of influence within the courts. They would not simply file a Bar complaint. We would be seeing full JAC investigations and audits of the defense books, and a series of motions to HHJP.

While the SA is a possibility, I don't think it matches with the timing. I think they would have filed it as soon as they had BC's statement, if they felt they had appropriate standing to do so.

And that keeps bringing me back to TES. They have solid standing to lodge a complaint. While it may be another officer of the court, BC, that was misrepresented, those misrepresentations were made in an effort to sway or influence a court proceeding that was directed at TES. We know that MN was furious at the assorted lies. But at the time he may not have had sufficient information to lodge a formal complaint. BC's sworn testimony coupled with some of the included documentation that was released Friday reveal a clear patern of dishonest, disingenuous or unethical behavior that is targeted at effecting the outcome of the KC vs TES court proceedings and gaining access to private TES records under fraudulent circumstances. Now the Bar complaint could have come from anyone associated with TES, be it a searcher wrongly harrased because of this or TM himself. But my money still says that if this particular complaint is not from MN, than there is already another one in the pipeline with his name on it.

 

[Novice Seeker]

RAW VIDEO: Anthonys' Attorney Before, After Meeting With Judge
Friday morning the Anthonys' attorney, Brad Conway, hand-delivered what could be evidence in the case against Casey. (07/24/09)

http://www.wftv.com/video/20166417/index.html




http://www.wftv.com/news/20205386/detail.html

Thank you for pulling this up. It appears that the A's were told to turn over their documents to the SA during the time BC and JB had discussed the LB fiasco. IMO, it's starting to smell a bit fishy here. BC has had the A's computers since April '09. So why did it take BC so long to submit these documents? BC informed LE during the 10/2010 interview that JB had wanted BC to turn over their computers to him but BC refused.

Now, I don't have a Phd in rocket science but it seems to me that BC has been involved/aware of JB's antics for quite some time. Perhaps BC didn't contribute to the forged documents, motions that were based on lies and deceit BUT he sure didn't do anything to stop it like um..notifying the judge or the SA's.


Novice Seeker

 

[strawberry]

Gosh, JB and CM -- can't even comment on what's for lunch! LMAOROF

http://www.wesh.com/video/26731329/detail.html

This and the fact that he hung up on the reporter says it all IMO.

 

[faefrost]

Thank you for pulling this up. It appears that the A's were told to turn over their documents to the SA during the time BC and JB had discussed the LB fiasco. IMO, it's starting to smell a bit fishy here. BC has had the A's computers since April '09. So why did it take BC so long to submit these documents? BC informed LE during the 10/2010 interview that JB had wanted BC to turn over their computers to him but BC refused.

Now, I don't have a Phd in rocket science but it seems to me that BC has been involved/aware of JB's antics for quite some time. Perhaps BC didn't contribute to the forged documents, motions that were based on lies and deceit BUT he sure didn't do anything to stop it like um..notifying the judge or the SA's.


Novice Seeker

To be fair to BC, he runs into a problem with where his information comes from. And he as much as says this in his interview. Much of his info regarding JB's antics comes to him via his (now ex) clients the A's. As such he can't talk to anyone about that information. This could also explain his reluctance to press the issue or lodge a complaint on those direct communications he has had with JB, or the stuff he found out through alternate means (such as the MN letter). Anything he does ends up dancing extremely close to client confidentiality. Yeah! In hindsight we can all agree that he should have acted more firmly and taken the issue to the bar back then. And failing to do so does damage his credibility as a professional. But you can see why he might have been reluctant to take that step. Thanks to JB and the A's manipulations he was placed in a true no win situation. With no real out that would not compromise him and his professional standing in some way.

 

[logicalgirl]

Some of the news reports, particularly the coments from Bill Shaefer and Kathi Belich have been pretty clear in stating outright that the the current complaint revolves around misrepresenting facts to the court. Some news sources have also indicated that the complaint did not originate with BC. Given the clear indication that the media sources seem to know more than they can actually say on air, and given the timing, right after the bombshell document dump, it is pretty easy to draw the reasonable conclusion that it stems from the TES related filings and statements to the court and is in some way related to the tampering investigation.

I am pretty much ruling out the JAC. If it was from them we would see a host of other concurrent actions. They have a fairly high amount of independent power, or a good deal of influence within the courts. They would not simply file a Bar complaint. We would be seeing full JAC investigations and audits of the defense books, and a series of motions to HHJP.

While the SA is a possibility, I don't think it matches with the timing. I think they would have filed it as soon as they had BC's statement, if they felt they had appropriate standing to do so.

And that keeps bringing me back to TES. They have solid standing to lodge a complaint. While it may be another officer of the court, BC, that was misrepresented, those misrepresentations were made in an effort to sway or influence a court proceeding that was directed at TES. We know that MN was furious at the assorted lies. But at the time he may not have had sufficient information to lodge a formal complaint. BC's sworn testimony coupled with some of the included documentation that was released Friday reveal a clear patern of dishonest, disingenuous or unethical behavior that is targeted at effecting the outcome of the KC vs TES court proceedings and gaining access to private TES records under fraudulent circumstances. Now the Bar complaint could have come from anyone associated with TES, be it a searcher wrongly harrased because of this or TM himself. But my money still says that if this particular complaint is not from MN, than there is already another one in the pipeline with his name on it.

Beautifully stated as usual Faefrost. Kathy B. is always a little unorganized with her questioning and phrasing when she does a sit down with Bill S., however, given his association with the Bar Committee and his reputation in the legal community, I cannot imagine him being so incensed and on point with his comments if he didn't know exactly who made this complaint. He was pretty clear in his assessment it was not Conway who filed this.

 

[Novice Seeker]

There is so much going on in this case outside of court I have lost track of what WILL be discussed at this upcoming status meeting that ICA apparently will not attend.

So this is just about whether or not both sides are meeting their deadlines? What about Baez's request for that lengthy extension? Cause if they are just doing their usual blabbing back and forth without accomplishing anything, I'm not going to book the time off to watch it - it can wait until what is "my evening".:banghead::banghead::banghead:

:therethere: these players would make anyone :crazy: :rocker:ullhair:




Novice Seeker

 

[TotallyObsessed]

http://www.wftv.com/news/26717189/detail.html

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Casey Anthony's lead attorney, Jose Baez, was hit with another ethics complaint. This one is so severe, he could lose his ability to practice law if it proves to be true.
WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer says it shouldn't impact Casey's criminal case, because the investigation probably won't be done until after Casey's murder trial is over. The Florida Bar Association might make sure of that so it doesn't affect her trial, but it could affect Baez's credibility with the judge.

*snort*

ETA: "If this is true, other than stealing or being accused of stealing a client's money, there is no more serious charge that a lawyer can face," Sheaffer said.

 

[logicalgirl]

:therethere: these players would make anyone :crazy: :rocker:ullhair:




Novice Seeker

Maybe just the ullhair: ullhair: ullhair:

I'm partial to the ones that have lots of oke: :viking: and HHJP :gavel::gavel::gavel: and lots of the word "Denied" and Baez :argue: so we can :toast:

But instead I am left with :waiting: instead of :skip: Sigh.....

 

[mysteriew]

http://www.wftv.com/news/26717189/detail.html

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Casey Anthony's lead attorney, Jose Baez, was hit with another ethics complaint. This one is so severe, he could lose his ability to practice law if it proves to be true.
WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer says it shouldn't impact Casey's criminal case, because the investigation probably won't be done until after Casey's murder trial is over. The Florida Bar Association might make sure of that so it doesn't affect her trial, but it could affect Baez's credibility with the judge.

*snort*

ETA: "If this is true, other than stealing or being accused of stealing a client's money, there is no more serious charge that a lawyer can face," Sheaffer said.

But here is my question. If the bar holds this till after the trial, how will this affect KC's appeal rights? My thinking is that KC might possibly have cause to appeal on "ineffective counsel" grounds. If after trial if/when she gets convicted, if JB gets disciplinary action, could she use this as grounds for "ineffective counsel?" Or would the court look at this as counsel went over and above in representing KC?

I really wish they had done all of this last year, rather than wait until almost the eve of the trial.

 

[AlwaysShocked]

Yuh know what? Even though I think Casey is guilty as sin and even though I really, really don't want to see this trial delayed, I honestly would like to see Baez somehow removed from the case at this time. And if it means a delay, it means a delay.

Unless Private Investigator Mort Smith is going to come out and 'fess up to HIM being the one who totally made up the fudged Laura Buchanan documents - and I suppose he could possibly do just that, and "fall on his sword" so to speak - then Baez is in some deep do-do.

Enough to get him thrown off the case by the Judge? I think I'll have to go over to the "Verified Lawyer" thread to ask that!

 

[TotallyObsessed]

But here is my question. If the bar holds this till after the trial, how will this affect KC's appeal rights? My thinking is that KC might possibly have cause to appeal on "ineffective counsel" grounds. If after trial if/when she gets convicted, if JB gets disciplinary action, could she use this as grounds for "ineffective counsel?" Or would the court look at this as counsel went over and above in representing KC?

I really wish they had done all of this last year, rather than wait until almost the eve of the trial.

Look, there are some cases that are going to be appealed NO MATTER WHAT. This is one of them. Of course, if she is convicted, she gets an automatic appeal anyway. But the ineffective counsel argument would have to show that due to the attorney's action or inaction, it hindered her defense. Yep, IMO, this is one of those cases, but she would most definitely be retried, with ANOTHER defense lawyer, and who in their right mind would take this case second time around besides a public defender. AND appeal process takes years and years and years and years. So however you rate it...KC will be toast. No matter how hard she tries. Tough cookies.

 

[logicalgirl]

Yuh know what? Even though I think Casey is guilty as sin and even though I really, really don't want to see this trial delayed, I honestly would like to see Baez somehow removed from the case at this time. And if it means a delay, it means a delay.

Unless Private Investigator Mort Smith is going to come out and 'fess up to HIM being the one who totally made up the fudged Laura Buchanan documents - and I suppose he could possibly do just that, and "fall on his sword" so to speak - then Baez is in some deep do-do.

Enough to get him thrown off the case by the Judge? I think I'll have to go over to the "Verified Lawyer" thread to ask that!

I agree we have seen lots of things that Baez has pulled that have disgusted us and have us questioning his ability, but we are talking about what the court, HHJP, and the Bar consider legal.

AZ and others have said over and over again that sleazy behavior does not reach the bar of being removed from a case as long as ICA repeats she is satisfied with her representation.

It is my understanding that it is only this event that will be considered by the legal community as questionable. So if there are any appeals, while I will bow to more experienced opinions, it would only be this particular piece of "evidence" that would be appealable - although it will probably never see the light of day in a court room at ICA's trial.

So I don't think it warrants removing Baez from the case, but as Bill S. says, the bar for Baez will be a lot higher when he is submitting anything at all to the court, than it has been in the past. I think HHJP will have Baez in a lock-step, however I'm assuming the offender is considered innocent until proven guilty - even and especially by the Bar.

So far, we have rumors, a document of a depo, and a lot of assumptions. Not enough to pull Baez. And Baez can't step down even if he wanted to. Rock - meet hard place. :loser: