How is the Defense Spending the Taxpayer's Money?

[Sun]

Look at Exhibit D - The landscape pages. I added the number of hours from that list.

Gotcha! Thanks! The pages that have now caused a crick in my neck.

 

[Snaz]

I know I am going to sound completely computer illiterate by asking this, but is there a way to rotate the sideways pages in docstoc? I'm sure there must be, but I am just not seeing it... :no:

TIA!

 

[Numbers]

The number of hours rejected/questioned is 350.5 of the 481.7 hours billed!

Go JAC!!!!!

I got the same number, nums24. That's 74.416% of all billed hours.

My only question is why pay, THEN question? This should have been done before releasing any funds.

 

[nums24]

I know I am going to sound completely computer illiterate by asking this, but is there a way to rotate the sideways pages in docstoc? I'm sure there must be, but I am just not seeing it... :no:

TIA!

I download the files and open with Adobe where I can rotate the page.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Look at Exhibit D - The landscape pages. I added the number of hours from that list.

I think they were paid anyway:

 

[Nore]

LOL One of my favorite itemizations is the $100 he charged on Aug 3, 2010:

"Interview Witness and work on another"

. . . Makes it sound like he was trying to wear some witness down. :slap:

--------------------------
OMG you hit my funny bone!!!:great::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::great:

 

[nums24]

I got the same number, nums24. That's 74.416% of all billed hours.

My only question is why pay, THEN question? This should have been done before releasing any funds.

I don't know, I don't get it! :banghead:

I guess it will be up JB to provide the "details" of this version or ultimately his firm is responsible for this.

Invoice 10-029 is for 11.5 hours of mitigation investigation, I couldn't figure out how they were reporting 471 hours.

 

[Numbers]

I don't know, I don't get it! :banghead:

I guess it will be up JB to provide the "details" of this version or ultimately his firm is responsible for this.

Invoice 10-029 is for 11.5 hours of mitigation investigation, I couldn't figure out how they were reporting 471 hours.

I haven't run a full total yet, but I'll get to it.

Sooooooo, if the JAC refuses a certain number of hours, does Baez get these hours back? Judge Perry gave him 470, and if 150 are denied, will Baez get to run this PI around for a "freebie" 150 hours (assuming they are JAC_approved activities)?

 

[Sun]

I see a whole lot of "attempts" at interviewing witnesses, and am questioning the wisdom of Baez's decision to "interview" witnesses, rather than to take their depos. I see a lot of investigative hours spent that don't appear to be successful at getting interviews.

 

[nums24]

I think they were paid anyway:

They were definitely paid for these!

What is also interesting is that they billed JAC for these 360 hours when they filed for additional hours and were given 60.

The additional 110 from the last phone hearing did not give them anything additional.

I wonder if the JAC can or will bounce the excessive, non-court ordered hours?

 

[chefmom]

Here's the JAC Notice of filing. Exhibit A was 26 pages and just the JAC Investigator guidelines, I skipped that since I thought it's already available here somewhere. Looked like a PowerPoint presentation, printed out.

Exhibit C is Lyons' billing statements; Exhibit D is the JAC response to specific bills, usually "Not enough detail provided." heh

2010.12.28 JAC Notice of Filing and Exhibit B - Court Orders
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68091997/20101228-JAC-Notice-of-Filing-and-Exhibit-B---Court-Orders

2010.12.28 JAC Notice of Filing Exhibits C and D
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/68092096/20101228-JAC-Notice-of-Filing-Exhibits-C-and-D

MM :rocker:

Love Exhibit D! Finally! Someone is at least trying to hold them to some type of standards! :great:

 

[nums24]

I haven't run a full total yet, but I'll get to it.

Sooooooo, if the JAC refuses a certain number of hours, does Baez get these hours back? Judge Perry gave him 470, and if 150 are denied, will Baez get to run this PI around for a "freebie" 150 hours (assuming they are JAC_approved activities)?

I think I wasn't clear in what you were replying to LOL! (kinda like now)

I've got it now, 481.7 billed, of those 11.5 are for mitigation, media reports 471 hours not 482 hours. I couldn't understand where the 471 came from in the media, now I do and I need a drink!

 

[nums24]

I haven't run a full total yet, but I'll get to it.

Sooooooo, if the JAC refuses a certain number of hours, does Baez get these hours back? Judge Perry gave him 470, and if 150 are denied, will Baez get to run this PI around for a "freebie" 150 hours (assuming they are JAC_approved activities)?

It appears that the JAC already paid for these, I have not looked at those policies or procedures yet.

 

[Mystic]

"Read and sign Affidavit - 1.5 hours."

The man seriously needs Evelyn Woods.

:floorlaugh:

 

[Sun]

What's Judge Perry going to think when he sees the JAC's Response, with the vague details of billings? I'm not seeing that Baez is attempting to be frugal with the taxpayers' dollars.

 

[Mystic]

The PI also didn't bother to confirm addresses and drove around aimlessly? and blamed the State for quote 'bad addresses'.

Guess he like JB wanted someone else to do the work for him. sheesh

 

[LambChop]

You know it seems to me when reading the billing that Lyons could save a lot of time and JAC money if he simply called witnesses he wanted to talk to beforehand and set up a suitable time. Is there any reason it would be necessary for him to turn up uninvited and unexpectedly on their doorstep?

For billing purposes???????

 

[Numbers]

I think I wasn't clear in what you were replying to LOL! (kinda like now)

I've got it now, 481.7 billed, of those 11.5 are for mitigation, media reports 471 hours not 482 hours. I couldn't understand where the 471 came from in the media, now I do and I need a drink!

I do believe I will join you.

A toast to the JAC for *finally* calling Baez on the rug.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

LOL One of my favorite itemizations is the $100 he charged on Aug 3, 2010:

"Interview Witness and work on another"

. . . Makes it sound like he was trying to wear some witness down. :slap:

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

 

[LambChop]

The PI also didn't bother to confirm addresses and drove around aimlessly? and blamed the State for quote 'bad addresses'.

Guess he like JB wanted someone else to do the work for him. sheesh

With the long, long, long list of "no one home", "no one lives there", "home is gutted". He's not a very good PI. It would have been easier for JB to place an ad in the paper asking for anyone with information please call his office. And cheaper, too.