S.A. Concerned Defense will Sell Pics of Caylee's Remains

[SeriouslySearching]

I'm talking about a direct quote taken from the paperwork filed by Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick. Did you read the 2nd article? It makes things much clearer.

It is the entire point of the motion!!! It is very clear.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I'm talking about a direct quote taken from the paperwork filed by Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick. Did you read the 2nd article? It makes things much clearer.

I still think you are confused...I've read both articles....are you saying the SA put a rumour in their paperwork before the Court and the second article makes this clear to you? Again, I don't believe the SA would do that.

 

[Chilly Willy]

I still think you are confused...I've read both articles....are you saying the SA put a rumour in their paperwork before the Court and the second article makes this clear to you? Again, I don't believe the SA would do that.

"It has been widely reported the major media outlets have paid substantial sums of money for 'licensing fees' for photographs and videos of Caylee Marie Anthony depicting her image while she was still alive," Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick wrote in the motion. "It is imperative that this court take steps to prevent any image of her remains from being used for commercial gain. This request is not to suggest or infer that defense counsel will engage in such conduct." :waitasec:

 

[SuziQ]

NBC News told Eyewitness News late Wednesday that it "does not and will not pay for interviews" and said it paid a "nominal fee" to license photos, which is standard practice. ABC also told Eyewitness News it paid licensing fees for videos and photos that aired on the network's 20/20 program.

http://www.wftv.com/news/17965652/detail.html

Lol, I wonder what ABC considers to be nominal? The SA says it was substantial.

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/18422273/detail.html
In this motion, the state argues that substantial licensing fees have been paid for pictures and video of Caylee taken while she was alive

 

[tangerinemoon]

So, technically Casey can profit from photos, post-trial interviews of herself? 'Cause, you know she will be offering interviews after she is found guilty or not guilty. It is her nature.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Jointly held property and homestead can be considered excluded from the lien (so the spouse doesn't lose everything too if they are innocent). In the situation you reference above they would probably pursue getting the assets back if they can show that the intent was for the receiving party to shield the convict's assets.

Of course in this case, Casey owns nothing.

Exactly...so theoretically, if she was on bail, she could spend it all and provided the persons who received the money had no intention or knowledge that they were assisting her in "shielding" assets, she could spend all she wanted? So there's no problem with her spending the money, just a problem if she tries to hide it and keep it? Seems a lot of loopholes are available in your laws. I have known a few criminals that would quite happily spend their money before going away for a long stint!

 

[donnam]

Where in the article does it say the A's have made money selling photos or that the A's intend to sell these photos? Defense = Casey and her lawyers.

EDIT to add: Looks like little Caylee's funeral will be held up even longer.

I was just going to ask that same thing Chilly.

 

[impatientredhead]

So, technically Casey can profit from photos, post-trial interviews of herself? 'Cause, you know she will be offering interviews after she is found guilty or not guilty. It is her nature.

She can do the interviews, but if convicted the money would go to the state and the victims reimbursement funds. She is not in a position to spend the money, JB can't be paid from funds related to a crime, so he couldn't receive it until aquittal (never), and she can't transfer to mom and dad to shield it. The state will get it eventually if Casey is the payee.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

"It has been widely reported the major media outlets have paid substantial sums of money for 'licensing fees' for photographs and videos of Caylee Marie Anthony depicting her image while she was still alive," Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick wrote in the motion. "It is imperative that this court take steps to prevent any image of her remains from being used for commercial gain. This request is not to suggest or infer that defense counsel will engage in such conduct." :waitasec:

The article that we are referring to is the one I linked to the first post on this thread...it doesn't refer to that passage, but says this....

In this motion, the state argues that substantial licensing fees have been paid for pictures and video of Caylee taken while she was alive.

I don't really care if the press are reporting that the press reported that this happened, we are discussing the fact the SA says this happened and has put it before the Court! Please just read the article!

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Originally Posted by bunnyphoenix1
I still think you are confused...I've read both articles....are you saying the SA put a rumour in their paperwork before the Court and the second article makes this clear to you? Again, I don't believe the SA would do that.

I agree!! They are NOT going to put it in the motion to the court without PROOF to back it up. It is ridiculous to even suggest the SA Office would file a motion and say, "We heard this from Joe Blow down the street on the corner that they sold photos, Your Honor!". LOL Not going to happen, imo. (However, JB might file such a motion.)

 

[SuziQ]

She can do the interviews, but if convicted the money would go to the state and the victims reimbursement funds. She is not in a position to spend the money, JB can't be paid from funds related to a crime, so he couldn't receive it until aquittal (never), and she can't transfer to mom and dad to shield it. The state will get it eventually if Casey is the payee.

Which is why I've always felt Casey gave her parents or LA permission to sell the pics and whatever else they needed to.

 

[Chilly Willy]

The article that we are referring to is the one I linked to the first post on this thread...it doesn't refer to that passage, but says this....

In this motion, the state argues that substantial licensing fees have been paid for pictures and video of Caylee taken while she was alive.

I don't really care if the press are reporting that the press reported that this happened, we are discussing the fact the SA says this happened and has put it before the Court! Please just read the article!

I read the articles. What you are quoting is a reporter's version of events. What I quoted was taken directly from the paperwork filed by the state. It's clear as day.

 

[tangerinemoon]

She can do the interviews, but if convicted the money would go to the state and the victims reimbursement funds. She is not in a position to spend the money, JB can't be paid from funds related to a crime, so he couldn't receive it until aquittal (never), and she can't transfer to mom and dad to shield it. The state will get it eventually if Casey is the payee.

Thanks !

 

[countzero]

Lol, I wonder what ABC considers to be nominal? The SA says it was substantial.

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/18422273/detail.html
In this motion, the state argues that substantial licensing fees have been paid for pictures and video of Caylee taken while she was alive

From personal experience with the media, both TV and print, payment is made for only photos used, not the story itself. The amount paid depends on the interest in the story. The amounts do vary. They will make payment payable to the owner of the photos. Usually the owner of the photos is the person who took them. In some cases the owner could be an employee of another media company.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I was just going to ask that same thing Chilly.

Please read the article before saying it's not in there!!! Jeezzz. Is this paragraph invisible on your screens or something??????

In this motion, the state argues that substantial licensing fees have been paid for pictures and video of Caylee taken while she was alive.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

She can do the interviews, but if convicted the money would go to the state and the victims reimbursement funds. She is not in a position to spend the money, JB can't be paid from funds related to a crime, so he couldn't receive it until aquittal (never), and she can't transfer to mom and dad to shield it. The state will get it eventually if Casey is the payee.

LOL...there are lots of ways for criminals to spend money other than on their lawyers. Many are on bail before their trial and many aren't convicted for years.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I read the articles. What you are quoting is a reporter's version of events. What I quoted was taken directly from the paperwork filed by the state. It's clear as day.

The article you are referring to is referring to a different paragraph of the Motion.....I thought that would have been obvious. You keep posting the quote from the article YOU are referring to that says that the media reported that they had been paid for pics...the article I am talking about refers to the SA (NOT THE MEDIA) saying substantial licensing fees had been paid. I don't think I can make it any clearer for you and if you don't get it, I hope someone else explains it to you...I give up...lol.

 

[ThoughtElf]

I agree!! They are NOT going to put it in the motion to the court without PROOF to back it up. It is ridiculous to even suggest the SA Office would file a motion and say, "We heard this from Joe Blow down the street on the corner that they sold photos, Your Honor!". LOL Not going to happen, imo. (However, JB might file such a motion.)

Bombshell! New lows for the D Team as motion filed from the Tip Line!

 

[Chilly Willy]

It's a different paragraph.....I thought that would have been obvious.

What? It's 2 different articles, the one from WESH that you're referring to does not quote the motion at all, it's simply a reporter's take on what was said. The second article, in the Sentinel, directly quotes the motion which uses the words "widely reported". What is it that's supposed to be obvious?

 

[jnTexas]

I think they are trying to keep from releasing their photos to JB. They want him to have to pay for his defense team to fly down to Fl and take their own photos. Which to me is fair. The defense should have to fork out the money (which they don't have) to get their own evidence.
I also believe that they are worried about the crime scence photos with the remains and evidence will be sold and come out for all to see.
Absolutely sad that this family was not the one to file the court order for the pictures to not be sold. Of course, I agree with most that the A Family are the ones getting paid (IMO) of course.