Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[AZlawyer]

Which brings us back to the question of why Lippman and associate have filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Anthonys in Casey's criminal trial...

Let's review the last few days...

On 8/24/10 Baez files his Notice of Objection in regards to the media

On 8/25/10, a Notice of Appearance is filed by the attorney(s) on behalf of Cindy and George Anthony, victims of the crime against their granddaughter.

On 8/25/10 Cindy Anthony emails local media concerning the "charity/shoe issue", immediately creating a firestorm against the founder of the charity.

On 8/26/10 the founder of charity speaks out on behalf of charity, disassociating with Cindy Anthony, but also mentioning the mass of "hateful emails and phone calls" from "protestors"

On 8/26/10, Cindy Anthony again emails media with her "explanation" of wanting to only help charity (re: insert Cindy the victim again story here)

So is it possible, from a legal standpoint, that all these incidents over last few days are completely related and planned in advance?

Is it possible that Lippman is going to use this latest incident with the media involving Cindy (with Cindy spin of course) in order to try and lend credence to Baez motion, under the guise of the media not only harassing ICA, but also the victims grandparents, Cindy and George Anthony????

Imagine this:

"Your honor, I am here today to speak on behalf of the grandparents of Caylee Anthony who are also victims in this crime, but are continually being victimized yet again by the media surrounding this case. As an example, my client recently attempted to assist a charitable children's organization....." and so on...

Possible? Just got me thinking after receiving link in google alert to 48 Hours Mystery website and now they are reporting on this charity issue....weren't the Anthonys working in conjunction with 48 Hours?

Casey Anthony Update: Charity Distances Itself from Family After Offer to Donate Caylee's Shoes

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20014789-504083.html

I agree that this might all be part of JB's "show" to demonstrate how the As are picked on due to constant media coverage. But I don't think HHJP is going to allow the As' new attorney to make any statements about that in court. And I would be pretty amazed if the As' attorney has the cojones to ask. (Can I say cojones on WS? Someone ask a mod, quick!)

 

[Kathy1964]

Former Casey Anthony boyfriend Anthony Lazzaro filed a motion in court Thursday trying to block a subpoena for his phone records from January 2009 to the present.

The motion to quash, filed by Lazzaro attorney William Jay, states Lazzaro received a copy of a subpoena without deposition for phone records from January 2009 to the present.

An earlier ruling in the case held that this time frame was "not permitted to be the subject of a subpoena," according to the motion. The timeframe permitted by the court ran from June 1, 2008, through Dec. 18, 2008, the filing states.

"Therefore, Anthony Lazzaro is requesting the court to enter an order quashing this subpoena," the motion states.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ony-boyfriend-motion-20100826,0,3498582.story

What does this mean? The only thing I understand is "requesting the court to enter an order quashing this subpoena".

 

[AZlawyer]

Former Casey Anthony boyfriend Anthony Lazzaro filed a motion in court Thursday trying to block a subpoena for his phone records from January 2009 to the present.

The motion to quash, filed by Lazzaro attorney William Jay, states Lazzaro received a copy of a subpoena without deposition for phone records from January 2009 to the present.

An earlier ruling in the case held that this time frame was "not permitted to be the subject of a subpoena," according to the motion. The timeframe permitted by the court ran from June 1, 2008, through Dec. 18, 2008, the filing states.

"Therefore, Anthony Lazzaro is requesting the court to enter an order quashing this subpoena," the motion states.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ony-boyfriend-motion-20100826,0,3498582.story

What does this mean? The only thing I understand is "requesting the court to enter an order quashing this subpoena".

As near as I can figure out, the defense had requested (a long time back) Tony L's phone records up through sometime in 2009. The judge said no, you can only have them up until 12/18/08. Now the defense subpoenaed Tony L's phone records from Jan. 2009 through the present, and Tony L's lawyers are saying, um, 2009 is still after 12/18/08.... :waitasec:

 

[my_tee_mouse]

I agree that this might all be part of JB's "show" to demonstrate how the As are picked on due to constant media coverage. But I don't think HHJP is going to allow the As' new attorney to make any statements about that in court. And I would be pretty amazed if the As' attorney has the cojones to ask. (Can I say cojones on WS? Someone ask a mod, quick!)

BBM. But...didn't she contact the media? Wouldn't this be akin to me knocking on "Fred's" door, and when he answers, me running and screaming that "Fred" is stalking me?

ETA: Or to put it on an even more primer level: Is this not a bit like tapping your kid brother on the shoulder and when he turns around, saying, "Ma!!! He's looking at me!"

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM. But...didn't she contact the media? Wouldn't this be akin to me knocking on "Fred's" door, and when he answers, me running and screaming that "Fred" is stalking me?

ETA: Or to put it on an even more primer level: Is this not a bit like tapping your kid brother on the shoulder and when he turns around, saying, "Ma!!! He's looking at me!"

Yeah. It's pretty much like that.

 

[Paintr]

I have been looking back over the case and I have a question about the Grand Jury. Does the SA produce general evidence to the GJ and the GJ decides who should be charged? Or does the SA's office say here is the evidence against KC. Do you agree that wee have enough to charge her with murder?

IOW is the evidence presented to the Grand Jury directed towards one person in particular?

ETA Thank you kindly in advance for the answer.

 

[Jomo]

Could the C & G's lawyers be necessary for deposition purposes?

Would the Anthonys be using the presentation of new lawyers to show the prosecution that they are represented in case of obstruction charges in relation to the case? After all in a recent Blog Radio interview, BC mentioned that the Anthonys at one point were facing possible obstruction charges...maybe they are still in hot water. I guess I am asking if the Anthonys need lawyers to submit NOA in KC's case to possibly defend charges against them in relation to KC's case? (I would assume not)

Thanks

 

[ohiogirl]

Which brings us back to the question of why Lippman and associate have filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Anthonys in Casey's criminal trial...

Let's review the last few days...

On 8/24/10 Baez files his Notice of Objection in regards to the media

On 8/25/10, a Notice of Appearance is filed by the attorney(s) on behalf of Cindy and George Anthony, victims of the crime against their granddaughter.

On 8/25/10 Cindy Anthony emails local media concerning the "charity/shoe issue", immediately creating a firestorm against the founder of the charity.

On 8/26/10 the founder of charity speaks out on behalf of charity, disassociating with Cindy Anthony, but also mentioning the mass of "hateful emails and phone calls" from "protestors"

On 8/26/10, Cindy Anthony again emails media with her "explanation" of wanting to only help charity (re: insert Cindy the victim again story here)

So is it possible, from a legal standpoint, that all these incidents over last few days are completely related and planned in advance?

Is it possible that Lippman is going to use this latest incident with the media involving Cindy (with Cindy spin of course) in order to try and lend credence to Baez motion, under the guise of the media not only harassing ICA, but also the victims grandparents, Cindy and George Anthony????

Imagine this:

"Your honor, I am here today to speak on behalf of the grandparents of Caylee Anthony who are also victims in this crime, but are continually being victimized yet again by the media surrounding this case. As an example, my client recently attempted to assist a charitable children's organization....." and so on...

Possible? Just got me thinking after receiving link in google alert to 48 Hours Mystery website and now they are reporting on this charity issue....weren't the Anthonys working in conjunction with 48 Hours?

Casey Anthony Update: Charity Distances Itself from Family After Offer to Donate Caylee's Shoes

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20014789-504083.html

I would think any judge would have to say that if they wanted to be left alone about the shoe donation, then why would you email the media? I don't think they could use this as a persecution issue, she notified the media herself. imo

 

[ohiogirl]

Sorry, didn't see this had already been answered.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have been looking back over the case and I have a question about the Grand Jury. Does the SA produce general evidence to the GJ and the GJ decides who should be charged? Or does the SA's office say here is the evidence against KC. Do you agree that wee have enough to charge her with murder?

IOW is the evidence presented to the Grand Jury directed towards one person in particular?

ETA Thank you kindly in advance for the answer.

It is possible to have a less goal-directed GJ procedure, but in this case and in most cases the evidence is presented regarding a specific defendant, and a specific set of charges is requested.

Could the C & G's lawyers be necessary for deposition purposes?

Would the Anthonys be using the presentation of new lawyers to show the prosecution that they are represented in case of obstruction charges in relation to the case? After all in a recent Blog Radio interview, BC mentioned that the Anthonys at one point were facing possible obstruction charges...maybe they are still in hot water. I guess I am asking if the Anthonys need lawyers to submit NOA in KC's case to possibly defend charges against them in relation to KC's case? (I would assume not)

Thanks

CA and GA have already been deposed, so they don't need a lawyer for that purpose. And even if they did, there would be no need for the lawyer to file a Notice of Appearance in order to represent someone at a deposition.

I really don't think CA or GA is in any serious danger of being charged with obstruction, and I don't think the SA is considering or threatening such charges. And if they were charged, it would be in an entirely separate proceeding from Casey's case. And again, there would be no need to file a Notice of Appearance in a case in which your clients are not parties to notify the SA that they are represented. A letter would work just fine. IMO the Notices were filed for attention.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Which brings us back to the question of why Lippman and associate have filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Anthonys in Casey's criminal trial...

Let's review the last few days...

On 8/24/10 Baez files his Notice of Objection in regards to the media

On 8/25/10, a Notice of Appearance is filed by the attorney(s) on behalf of Cindy and George Anthony, victims of the crime against their granddaughter.

On 8/25/10 Cindy Anthony emails local media concerning the "charity/shoe issue", immediately creating a firestorm against the founder of the charity.

On 8/26/10 the founder of charity speaks out on behalf of charity, disassociating with Cindy Anthony, but also mentioning the mass of "hateful emails and phone calls" from "protestors"

On 8/26/10, Cindy Anthony again emails media with her "explanation" of wanting to only help charity (re: insert Cindy the victim again story here)

So is it possible, from a legal standpoint, that all these incidents over last few days are completely related and planned in advance?

Is it possible that Lippman is going to use this latest incident with the media involving Cindy (with Cindy spin of course) in order to try and lend credence to Baez motion, under the guise of the media not only harassing ICA, but also the victims grandparents, Cindy and George Anthony????

Imagine this:

"Your honor, I am here today to speak on behalf of the grandparents of Caylee Anthony who are also victims in this crime, but are continually being victimized yet again by the media surrounding this case. As an example, my client recently attempted to assist a charitable children's organization....." and so on...

Possible? Just got me thinking after receiving link in google alert to 48 Hours Mystery website and now they are reporting on this charity issue....weren't the Anthonys working in conjunction with 48 Hours?

Casey Anthony Update: Charity Distances Itself from Family After Offer to Donate Caylee's Shoes

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20014789-504083.html

Quoting my own post from few days ago to add today's press release from Lippman Law Firm.

Lippman Law Offices, P.A., takes the firm position that excessive exposure in the news media adds undue burdens on the court in its constitutional responsibility to administer justice fairly and equitably. Further, excessive media coverage and resulting speculation is detrimental to the interests of our clients.

We are sensitive to the important role of the news media in informing the public, and we do not wish to dissuade or prevent news media representatives from fulfilling their responsibilities. We will answer all appropriate questions as we are able.

http://www.zimbio.com/Top+News/articles/tUvN3mVeG-o/Orlando+Attorney+Mark+Lippman+Issues+Media


This is pretty much what I was speculating as to why they have filed a NOA and intend to attempt to address the court in regards to Baez recent motion.

So my question....if a hearing is held in regards to Baez motion, can he call Lippman, as legal counsel/representative of Anthonys as witnesses to try to argue for his motion (Lippman basically stating above)??

Just seems coincidentally/odd that newly released statement seems to fall in place....

 

[beach]

"Further, excessive media coverage and resulting speculation is detrimental to the interests of our clients."

While you are considering Kent's question, could you please elaborate and explain to me exactly what he is referring to when he speaks of CA & GA's "interests"?

 

[Kentjbkent]

"Further, excessive media coverage and resulting speculation is detrimental to the interests of our clients."

While you are considering Kent's question, could you please elaborate and explain to me exactly what he is referring to when he speaks of CA & GA's "interests"?

And is it possible that by stating "detrimental to the interests of our clients" that he is referring to a 'perceived' quest by his clients who are victims, for Justice in the murder of their granddaughter....by someone OTHER than their daughter, but that due to excessive media coverage and resulting speculation, justice cannot be admininstered fairly and equitably?

In layman terms, my clients here are victims of this crime and do seek justice for their granddaughter, although the perp is NOT their daughter, but the media and bloggers continue to taint a jury to believe otherwise!

 

[AZlawyer]

Quoting my own post from few days ago to add today's press release from Lippman Law Firm.

Lippman Law Offices, P.A., takes the firm position that excessive exposure in the news media adds undue burdens on the court in its constitutional responsibility to administer justice fairly and equitably. Further, excessive media coverage and resulting speculation is detrimental to the interests of our clients.

We are sensitive to the important role of the news media in informing the public, and we do not wish to dissuade or prevent news media representatives from fulfilling their responsibilities. We will answer all appropriate questions as we are able.

http://www.zimbio.com/Top+News/articles/tUvN3mVeG-o/Orlando+Attorney+Mark+Lippman+Issues+Media


This is pretty much what I was speculating as to why they have filed a NOA and intend to attempt to address the court in regards to Baez recent motion.

So my question....if a hearing is held in regards to Baez motion, can he call Lippman, as legal counsel/representative of Anthonys as witnesses to try to argue for his motion (Lippman basically stating above)??

Just seems coincidentally/odd that newly released statement seems to fall in place....

If there were to be an evidentiary hearing--and I don't expect one, because I don't see that there would be any legal basis to suspend the Sunshine Laws in this case--then JB could call the As as witnesses, but could not call their lawyer to help him argue.

"Further, excessive media coverage and resulting speculation is detrimental to the interests of our clients."

While you are considering Kent's question, could you please elaborate and explain to me exactly what he is referring to when he speaks of CA & GA's "interests"?

Their interest in not looking like idiots, perhaps? :waitasec:

And is it possible that by stating "detrimental to the interests of our clients" that he is referring to a 'perceived' quest by his clients who are victims, for Justice in the murder of their granddaughter....by someone OTHER than their daughter, but that due to excessive media coverage and resulting speculation, justice cannot be admininstered fairly and equitably?

In layman terms, my clients here are victims of this crime and do seek justice for their granddaughter, although the perp is NOT their daughter, but the media and bloggers continue to taint a jury to believe otherwise!

Maybe he means CA/GA's interest in not allowing the truth about Casey to get out to the public?

I really don't see how "media speculation" about Casey's commissary orders, for example, could harm CA/GA's quest to find the Invisinanny.


Remember that JB is NOT asking for the media to stop covering and speculating about this case. He is asking for the State to stop giving the media TRUTHFUL PUBLIC RECORDS (as required by the Sunshine Laws), in hopes that the media will then give in and stop talking about Casey because there will be nothing new to talk about.

 

[RR0004]

Which brings us back to the question of why Lippman and associate have filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of the Anthonys in Casey's criminal trial...

Let's review the last few days...

On 8/24/10 Baez files his Notice of Objection in regards to the media

On 8/25/10, a Notice of Appearance is filed by the attorney(s) on behalf of Cindy and George Anthony, victims of the crime against their granddaughter.

On 8/25/10 Cindy Anthony emails local media concerning the "charity/shoe issue", immediately creating a firestorm against the founder of the charity.

On 8/26/10 the founder of charity speaks out on behalf of charity, disassociating with Cindy Anthony, but also mentioning the mass of "hateful emails and phone calls" from "protestors"

On 8/26/10, Cindy Anthony again emails media with her "explanation" of wanting to only help charity (re: insert Cindy the victim again story here)

So is it possible, from a legal standpoint, that all these incidents over last few days are completely related and planned in advance?

Is it possible that Lippman is going to use this latest incident with the media involving Cindy (with Cindy spin of course) in order to try and lend credence to Baez motion, under the guise of the media not only harassing ICA, but also the victims grandparents, Cindy and George Anthony????

Imagine this:

"Your honor, I am here today to speak on behalf of the grandparents of Caylee Anthony who are also victims in this crime, but are continually being victimized yet again by the media surrounding this case. As an example, my client recently attempted to assist a charitable children's organization....." and so on...

Possible? Just got me thinking after receiving link in google alert to 48 Hours Mystery website and now they are reporting on this charity issue....weren't the Anthonys working in conjunction with 48 Hours?

Casey Anthony Update: Charity Distances Itself from Family After Offer to Donate Caylee's Shoes

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20014789-504083.html

How can you go on tv one week and then shortly thereafter you participate in a motion trying to muzzle the media? Huh? It's not the media's fault that Cindy's created this nightmare in her own image.
Sorry...understand this thread is meant for the lawyers...but I cannot wait for the day that this becomes totally about Caylee.
AZ...does this motion have a prayer?

 

[AZlawyer]

How can you go on tv one week and then shortly thereafter you participate in a motion trying to muzzle the media? Huh? It's not the media's fault that Cindy's created this nightmare in her own image.
Sorry...understand this thread is meant for the lawyers...but I cannot wait for the day that this becomes totally about Caylee.
AZ...does this motion have a prayer?

The motion is not to muzzle the media. It is to stop the media from getting access to public records. (All of them? Some of them? Who knows? :waitasec

I don't see how this motion can be granted. It contains no citation to any authority that would allow HHJP to suspend the Sunshine Laws just for Princess Casey.

 

[beach]

The motion is not to muzzle the media. It is to stop the media from getting access to public records. (All of them? Some of them? Who knows? :waitasec

I don't see how this motion can be granted. It contains no citation to any authority that would allow HHJP to suspend the Sunshine Laws just for Princess Casey.

Heck, I said on another thread that the reason there weren't any citations is because the primary authority in FL (Florida Supreme Court?) has obviously found the Sunshine Laws to be constitutional. I don't think there is any FL case law to back up their request, iykwim. lol

I guessed he was planning on challenging the Sunshine Laws as a federal matter.

 

[zoey]

Heck, I said on another thread that the reason there weren't any citations is because the primary authority in FL (Florida Supreme Court?) has obviously found the Sunshine Laws to be constitutional. I don't think there is any FL case law to back up their request, iykwim. lol

I guessed he was planning on challenging the Sunshine Laws as a federal matter.

I'm thinking this has already be suggested by one of the Judges...

 

[beach]

I am curious about something....

I've lost count, but I do believe this is at least the 3rd time Baez has voiced the objection about the release of jail info (visitors, commissary purchases, etc...). Judge Perry has told him at least once that he has no jurisdiction over the jail and that he needs to include them on the notice of service. Still, not once has he done that. Even this last objection does not include the jail on the certificate of service.

I realize this standing objection is basically for the record and appellate reasons. My question is, how can it help him on appeal if he never once noticed proper authority?

 

[Numbers]

I am curious about something....

I've lost count, but I do believe this is at least the 3rd time Baez has voiced the objection about the release of jail info (visitors, commissary purchases, etc...). Judge Perry has told him at least once that he has no jurisdiction over the jail and that he needs to include them on the notice of service. Still, not once has he done that. Even this last objection does not include the jail on the certificate of service.

I realize this standing objection is basically for the record and appellate reasons. My question is, how can it help him on appeal if he never once noticed proper authority?

Piggybacking my post on 'Beach's.....

I thought Judge Perry said something about it being a Federal issue, too, and to file something "across the street." ???