Tony Padilla Q&A

[abel]

If I was the SA I would have followed JB back to the office and retrieved the doc right then and there! The fact that it is going to be submitted directly to the SA leads me to believe that JB's motion is going absolutely nowhere. TP, LP, and Tracy were not an extension of the defense. Period. I really do think it's up to TP to bring this matter to the Florida Bar...if he so chooses.

I just watched that part of the hearing again and JB said in his rebuttal that he would have brought the original if the SA would have submitted a written response, or words to that effect. The judge seemed to agree with him by saying "I hear what you're saying about the written responses" (shouldn't quote it I guess, since I'm not 100% sure about the exact words used).

Anyway, I know nothing about how these motions work but as a law layman I got the impression that this whole thing could have already been resolved right there at the hearing if the SA would have requested the originals in writing before the hearing. Is that true? And if that is true, why do you think that wasn't done?

JB didn't seem to have a problem with producing the originals. I didn't see him get flustered or anything when asked to do that. It's just that I can't see taking this kind of risk with the false documents etc., especially with AL's sig on that motion with his. Seems like some major trouble could be gotten into.

 

[RR0004]

I've followed mp cases for only a short time here. Haven't made it to the trial process yet in any of them (unfortunately...and it's been a year and a half). Is there always this much "drama"? I understand that Casey's life is it at stake here (not that I think they'll give her the dp), but then wouldn't you think that the last thing her attorney should be doing is calling so much negative attention to himself? How does his lack of credibility serve his client? They (the defense) repeatedly state that if it wasn't for the fact that the State brought back the dp they could have x,y, and z(d). Enough! They truly need to start taking this VERY seriously and quit all this BS. JMHO

 

[Brini]

My take on this is-
I believe Tony's agenda here is simply to try and destroy Lenny's credibility and then appear as a witness for the defense.

He states that his "lightbulb moment" came about a week after she was bailed, when "some of the evidence came back" - at that point you should have realized you had been duped by a sociopath and revised your opinion of little Miss Anthony..

I don't agree. It appears to me that TP loves his uncle, but gets annoyed by LP's occasional showboating.

And, neither TP nor LP wouldn't be of any use as a defense witness. He only directly encountered KC for about two hours.

All TP can attest to is that KC behaved herself while in his presence. Period.

As was posted earlier, JB appears to be concerned about what Tracy might say.. on the state's side.

 

[JBean]

well so much for this being a Q&A thread LOL. .

If Tony should return please ask him if he would like a separate Q&A thread or if he would like to continue on this freeform thread. If he would like his own thread, please someone feel free to start it for him. if he wants to contiue here and wade through all the chat , that is fine too.

 

[lin]

Thank you for your intelligent reply - I get what you are saying.
And thank you for the technical tips - appreciate it. Was not aware of that multi-quote feature.
Do you believe that if Judge S. rules that there was NO attorney/client privilege and that the testimony of all the Padilla crew will NOT be barred - as his ruling on the defense Motion - will that be the end of this whole fake-or-not-fake agreement scandal?

I certainly hope it won't be the end of it and that simply withdrawing that part of his motion won't end the inquiry. But that's going to depend on the filing of complaints with the bar and/or the state attorney's office. The state, as well as the judge, have an ethical obligation to not let fabricating evidence slide but unless LDB notifies the judge, the judge doesn't know it happened. It's possible imo, that even if made aware that the court could simply order JB to withdraw that part of his motion as being unproven without ruling one way or the other on it being fraudulent. This type of thing happens a lot; a ruling is made without a finding of fault/fact on certain things. In fact, it happened at Friday's hearing that a finding wasn't made or the necessity of making a finding reached.

The prosecution may decide that it's better for them to not report the incident to the bar for several reasons including the big hay JB tried to make about their last bar complaint. And if the fraudulent document is withdrawn they could justify to themselves that the document no longer exists, so to speak. IMO, the state is not likely to fall into that childish trap of failing to report something so as to avoid being called a tattle tale but I have suggested TP file a separate complaint to make sure the incident is investigated by the bar. To my mind, this is very serious. But then again, I think perjury, obstruction, etc. are serious matters that are rarely prosecuted. It's been posited many times that if the state got into the business of prosecuting liars, there'd be no time to prosecute "real" criminals.

So, in answer to your question, I don't think this is going to hinge on the court's ruling whether or not privilege exists but on whether or not the other people involved, the prosecutors, TP, et al, decide to pursue it.

You're welcome about the tip; it's a pretty unusual feature so one doesn't expect to find it, imo. But it certainly makes it a lot easier to quote multiple posts and respond to them as a group or bring other posts to our attention to illustrate/answer as you've been so kindly taking the trouble to do.

 

[lin]

[ snipped by me ]

Thank you for the info on multi-quotes - sure is a lot easier than doing it manually as I have been! Your tip wasn't directed to me, but I certainly am benefiting from it. Thanks again!

I would have directed a post with instructions to you (being a fan of yours and all) but you were just too clever about it and I didn't catch on you weren't doing it the easy way!

 

[RR0004]

I just watched that part of the hearing again and JB said in his rebuttal that he would have brought the original if the SA would have submitted a written response, or words to that effect. The judge seemed to agree with him by saying "I hear what you're saying about the written responses" (shouldn't quote it I guess, since I'm not 100% sure about the exact words used).

Anyway, I know nothing about how these motions work but as a law layman I got the impression that this whole thing could have already been resolved right there at the hearing if the SA would have requested the originals in writing before the hearing. Is that true? And if that is true, why do you think that wasn't done?

JB didn't seem to have a problem with producing the originals. I didn't see him get flustered or anything when asked to do that. It's just that I can't see taking this kind of risk with the false documents etc., especially with AL's sig on that motion with his. Seems like some major trouble could be gotten into.

He also knew exactly what the SA was getting at. I think that SA wasn't aware that there was an "issue" until shortly before the hearing...and realizes this doc has no legs regardless of any shenanigans. I'd like TP to answer whether or not he was contacted before the hearing by SA office. If he wasn't, then I would say they were remiss in not doing so. I have to go back over the motions...find out when exactly the "final" one was filed.

Can the SA bring a complaint to the Bar?

 

[Intermezzo]

AND, if he can't find it, it doesn't exist! I see that on Judge Judy all the time. Don't bring the Real McCoy, she doesn't allow for it's existence. I don't think the documents were forged, per se, he just did a little "creative" cutting and pasting.

I agree.

I don't see any siggy/initials or anything that IMO links the privacy agreement pages and signature pages and proves to me that these pages are part of the same document. :twocents:


Hope my post isn't confusing.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

well so much for this being a Q&A thread LOL. .

If Tony should return please ask him if he would like a separate Q&A thread or if he would like to continue on this freeform thread. If he would like his own thread, please someone feel free to start it for him. if he wants to contiue here and wade through all the chat , that is fine too.

Hey...I tried JBean! LOL

Off Topic: Do you know that eye in your avatar has no eyelashes and looks wasted? LOL Freaky!

 

[CuriousTwo]

I would have directed a post with instructions to you (being a fan of yours and all) but you were just too clever about it and I didn't catch on you weren't doing it the easy way!

LOL! It took me FOREVER - I would move each quote to a Word document and cut and paste it back. You saved me hours of work! haha!

WOW - I have a fan! :blowkiss:

 

[JBean]

well so much for this being a Q&A thread LOL. .

If Tony should return please ask him if he would like a separate Q&A thread or if he would like to continue on this freeform thread. If he would like his own thread, please someone feel free to start it for him. if he wants to contiue here and wade through all the chat , that is fine too.

bada bing bada bump

 

[ThinkTank]

well so much for this being a Q&A thread LOL. .

If Tony should return please ask him if he would like a separate Q&A thread or if he would like to continue on this freeform thread. If he would like his own thread, please someone feel free to start it for him. if he wants to contiue here and wade through all the chat , that is fine too.

I personally think it is important for Tony to read all of the discussion on the issue that he brought to forefront - being that Baez allegedly submitted fake documents to the Court. I would like to know what Tony thinks of all of our discussion on the matter, and would like to know if Tony is going to file a complaint with the FL Bar?

 

[Intermezzo]

If the copy was forged, the forger cut, pasted and rearranged the original signatures so it would look like a copy of an original document.

I don't think anybody tried to forge an actual sig.

BBM
I agree Jolynna,

 

[lin]

He should come here and read more often. LOL

ETA: why didn't the prosecutor get in touch with him before Friday's hearing? (Perhaps, they did.) You would think they would have wanted to verify the contents with him. Also, news about the intent to bar the Padilla's and Tracy's testimony made national news. Even if the media hadn't made him aware before the hearing, they most certainly would have afterwards. Wasn't the motion just filed anyway?

Back to that honor thing being assumed... The state had no reason to think JB may have altered any documents filed with the court until they were made aware by someone else; TP in the instant case.

TP wasn't given a copy of this document or any notice at all. TP is in CA and likely doesn't hear about this case on his local news channels very much. Any info he gets on the case likely has to be brought to his attention or sought by him, such as coming here to read. (Get that Tony? If you'd make more time for us, you'd be in the loop!) So TP may very well have "heard" about the motion regarding privilege but like the state, he'd have no reason to assume that JB would actually fabricate documents and is much more likely to have assumed that any representations JB made about TP were accurate.

It's really a lucky happenstance that this issue came to light at all, when one thinks about it. I don't get the impression that TP has the time to follow the case as closely as do some of us and don't get the impression that he reads every word of every document filed with the court looking for errors, as do some of us. So whomever suspected something fishy and brought it to TP's attention deserves a lot of credit and I hope he gives that person my big thanks!

 

[JBean]

Hey...I tried JBean! LOL

Off Topic: Do you know that eye in your avatar has no eyelashes and looks wasted? LOL Freaky!

hey that's me with my Charger's contacts in and I was NOT wasted.

 

[JBean]

I personally think it is important for Tony to read all of the discussion on the issue that he brought to forefront - being that Baez allegedly submitted fake documents to the Court. I would like to know what Tony thinks of all of our discussion on the matter, and would like to know if Tony is going to file a complaint with the FL Bar?

Tony can read whatever he likes. But he may not want to wade through 50 pages of chit chat to find a question to answer. So time spent answering questions may just be spent reading your discussion. Out of our hands that's for sure.

 

[Friday]

Thank you for clearing that up, Bree.

Lambchop: I'm going by what Tony said about LP making stuff up to get on camera. But I will say that LP has weaved so many different tales in various media outlets that it is almost hard to decipher fact from fiction, and speculation from actuality. Credibility will sink LP if he is put on the stand, that is why I ponder if it will reflect onto the rest of the group.

Wow - Snapping fingers! - I think I just figured something out!! ...

I started to reply to your message by saying that whatever else can be said of LP, there is no denying that he knows how to keep his cool under the most extreme circumstances, and so I'm sure he'll keep it on the witness stand too. I was mentally basing my opinion on his unflappable behavior on network TV during the Great Blanchard Park Debacle. Tim Miller was so furious and upset over what Leonard did that day that Tim was virtually incoherent and did not come off well at all on TV (despite the fact that he was being totally honest IMO), but 'ol Leonard just leaned back in his chair and smiled unconcernedly about everything--including the FBI's alleged insistence that LP take a lie detector test!

That reminded me that the FBI never forced the issue of the lie detector test... AND THEN IT HIT ME: It would have been folly for any branch of LE to publicly insult the integrity of a probable witness for the prosecution (Leonard) by insisting he take a lie detector test over that meaningless Blanchard Park fiasco. I can hear the defense when LP gets on the stand saying, "Your friends in Law Enforcement didn't even believe you, but now the State's Attorney wants the jury to believe whatever you say."

By George, I think we've got it.... LOL

 

[Numbers]

hey that's me with my Charger's contacts in and I was NOT wasted.

Chargers??? Well, *there's* the problem!

 

[SeriouslySearching]

hey that's me with my Charger's contacts in and I was NOT wasted.

Off Topic: Then those contacts are eating your eyes and maybe are not a good idea! How about you go for a tat on your cheek instead?! :blowkiss:

 

[lin]

Thanks! That is GREAT information. Never knew how to do multi=quotes.

Another thing that will not help JB is that ther Padilla team has been on TV, spoken to the press, and has never been held to stringent confidentiality.

Judge S has already brought that up. JB's response,
"I was busy." For months and months and months, apparently.

ITA. Even before we heard the states brilliant (imo) argument and TP's damning (imo) allegation I posted that paper wasn't worth the paper it's printed on, much less the ink wasted on it. I don't think LP would face any repercussions from that doc if he decided to write a book about this case and I certainly hope he does! <hint, hint>