Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 1/9-1/12 Break

[dog.gone.cute]

They link to Kiefer's tweets at that god awful site of hers- so I am told.

Yes, they do ... lol !

I took a looksee over there last night and OMG, what a bunch of :crazy::crazy: and more :crazy: !

 

[Hope4More]

About her annoyance/concern yesterday and then those silly deluded tweets.

Is it possible she believes her own propaganda and thinks she's gonna win on appeal and walk one day? Precious.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

About her annoyance/concern yesterday and then those silly deluded tweets.

Is it possible she believes her own propaganda and thinks she's gonna win on appeal and walk one day? Precious.

:seeya: Yes ... Yes ... and another Yes !

Well, at least her supporters believe her carp ... but seriously, I think she does believe her own carp !

 

[Nosey Parker]

Yes, they do ... lol !

I took a looksee over there last night and OMG, what a bunch of :crazy::crazy: and more :crazy: !

You're very brave. I'm too afraid of picking up a porn virus

 

[Frigga]

About her annoyance/concern yesterday and then those silly deluded tweets.

Is it possible she believes her own propaganda and thinks she's gonna win on appeal and walk one day? Precious.

I believe so.

She lives her life in one big delusion. It must be near impossible (by all past accounts of her behavior) to penetrate her delusional bubble. Travis was probably the first (after her own family) and look where it got him!

It must be a total trip to live like that... one big, constant acid trip. No wonder she is suicidal all the time when she comes down from it for brief moments... and then it's right back up, for Jodi!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

You're very brave. I'm too afraid of picking up a porn virus

:hilarious: :hilarious: :hilarious: Yes, ya never know visiting a place like that ... lol !

But seriously, what a delusional bunch ... they have absolutely NO clue what is really going on in that courtroom !

 

[Caylee Advocate]

First and foremost you must be Cougarlicious.

And once again I ask?

 

[Meemaw12]

@FOX10Phoenix: JUST IN: We will be allowed to use todays video from the #JodiArias motions hearing. @SKrafftFox10 will have it for you this afternoon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Frigga]

@FOX10Phoenix: JUST IN: We will be allowed to use todays video from the #JodiArias motions hearing. @SKrafftFox10 will have it for you this afternoon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, this is quite the turn of events.

 

[Truth Detector]

I checked the invoices from my last trial in Maricopa County Superior Court. Transcript fees were paid to the court reporters personally. Charges were $8 per page (!) for daily transcript originals, $4 per page for "expedited" transcript copies (meaning the "originals" had already been ordered by our opposing counsel), and $4 per page for "take your time" originals (which took 6 weeks for the full transcript of a 9-day trial, some of which had already been transcribed during the trial on a "daily" or "expedited" basis). So $1 per page is apparently a steal.

I was pretty shocked. Normally I never see these invoices--they go straight to my paralegal and our managing partner cuts the checks.



No. She has not ruled on prosecutorial misconduct, and no one has asked her to rule whether there was kiddie porn.



I'm not sure I understand the question, but if JSS wasn't sitting in that chair another judge would be sitting there and everything would continue on. Probably faster.

BBM

I don't see how it could be any s...l...o...w...e...r... :snail::snail:

 

[Frigga]

I wanted to add that David Bodney, and his firm are quite impressive. I would think he would be very vested in obtaining those transcripts today.

 

[Truth Detector]

You're very brave. I'm too afraid of picking up a porn virus

Porn?

Virus?

I think they used to call that VD.

Now it's an STD.

 

[Nosey Parker]

@FOX10Phoenix: JUST IN: We will be allowed to use todays video from the #JodiArias motions hearing. @SKrafftFox10 will have it for you this afternoon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why, all of a sudden?

 

[Zuri]

Question:
Can CMJA turn around and use the fact that John Smith testified under a Pseudonym on appeal? And JSS allowed it, therefore some impropriety?

 

[katydid23]

:seeya: Yes ... Yes ... and another Yes !

Well, at least her supporters believe her carp ... but seriously, I think she does believe her own carp !

Yep. The last time I visited JodiLand the supporters were arguing about where she should move when she is soon released. :nuts:

 

[Sweet Fox]

I apologize, I guess I was wrong! I thought I remembered reading that if the Judge was somehow removed (for impropriety, I suppose) that it would be a mistrial. I should have paid closer attention... I would have saved myself a good deal of unnecessary stress! Some sleuther I am!

ETA Not too long ago, someone was mentioning a phone number (it wasn't here) to call and complain about JSS. Along with other posts I got a bit worried. My bad!

Thanks for your response Frigga. With so much going on, it’s impossible to remember everything correctly all the time but I’m glad to know that if a judge is rescued, the trial would just continue.

I found an interesting article titled “Deciding Recusal Motions, Who Judges the Judges” which stated in part, “Judicial impartiality is a significant element of justice. Judges should decide legal disputes free of any personal bias or prejudice. As a result of a conflict of interest, a judge may be unable to maintain impartiality in a case and thus should be disqualified. Even where a judge is impartial, but appears not to be, recusal is necessary.”

I think any reasonable person following this case couldn’t deny at the very least, that Sherry gives the appearance of being bias.

 

[Frigga]

^^^ At this point Zuri, I think almost anything in Ariasland is possible.

 

[Truth Detector]

What kind of damages is JSS talking about? What could Jodi have said that would cause JSS to become emotionally involved?

See Maria De La Rosa, Gus Searcy, Richard Samuels, and William Zervakos.

 

[Frigga]

Thanks for your response Frigga. With so much going on, it’s impossible to remember everything correctly all the time but I’m glad to know that if a judge is rescued, the trial would just continue.

I found an interesting article titled “Deciding Recusal Motions, Who Judges the Judges” which stated in part, “Judicial impartiality is a significant element of justice. Judges should decide legal disputes free of any personal bias or prejudice. As a result of a conflict of interest, a judge may be unable to maintain impartiality in a case and thus should be disqualified. Even where a judge is impartial, but appears not to be, recusal is necessary.”

I think any reasonable person following this case couldn’t deny at the very least, that Sherry gives the appearance of being bias.

I agree with you very much.

 

[Myvice]

Why, all of a sudden?

I sure hope it's not because she's going to grant the motion!!