This is gonna be a doosey !!!
Baez has set forth one hell of a yarn.
So, your kid/grandkid drowns in back pool and no one calls 911. Then they go through machinations on the scale of "War and Peace" to cover up ... an ACCIDENT. omg
Quote from: billyjean on May 24, 2011, 04:16:32 PM
This is gonna be a doosey !!!
Baez has set forth one hell of a yarn.
So, your kid/grandkid drowns in back pool and no one calls 911. Then they go through machinations on the scale of "War and Peace" to cover up ... an ACCIDENT. omg
Think it will devolve into a "Monkey Trial"? berwynson
There are a million stories out there regarding trials. We all sat through the OJ trial and watched as attorneys worked their magic, and that's what I am more interested in than the actual case itself.
I KNOW we have defense attorneys on BTF, and aside from discussion of whether Casey is innocent or guilty, I am more interested in tactics, since I love playing strategy games.
No one knows, since it was not conclusively established at time of autopsy, manner of death. We do know the remains had duct tape over mouth and nose.
I think we can all agree that a defense attorney never asks his client if they did the crime. At least that's the way I know it. What has always bothered me is how a defense attorney will come out with a story. In this story, Baez came out with the child drowned in backyard pool. That Casey came around the corner to see her father holding the dead child in his arms. I assume, since Baez was not there to witness it, he is going on the word of his client, who has a very long history of lying. Like Dr. Drew talks about addicts so goes for Casey. "If their lips are moving they are lying". Ok, that's all my opinion. So other than word of his client, and without no proof whatsoever (cause he doesn't have to prove it) Baez says she drowned, and further drags the father into the story, AND further drags the meter reader into the story. He leaves it there knowing now he doesn't have to prove ANYTHING of what he just said.
So we have Baez throwing out a story as a strategy to put reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. OK, now instead of prosecutors sticking with the accumulation of FACTS as THEIR case, they now seem to be put in a position of disproving the story of Baez, a story that has NO facts to support it.
Why would you need to put duct tape over the mouth and nose of a child that drowned?
In any event, I assume prosecution will stick to their guns, using FACTS, to systematically demonstrate that it was Casey that murdered the child. Let Baez's story fad into the sunset.
I just never understood why defense attorneys are allowed to make up a story that has no facts to support it in an attempt to get a client off.
Any of you guys want to take a crack at explaining why they are allowed to do it?
At the end of the day, the jury is asked to look at the FACTS. If Baez has no evidence to support his story, then the jury should be instructed to dismiss his theory of drowning ... right?
If there was duct tape over the nose and mouth, how could you drown?
The United States is still one of the last places on earth where ppl still hold certain things dear.
Example: Outside of the British, Americans hold their pets in a very high place, treating them as if they were children part of the family.
It's been asked over and over on TV why the fascination with the Anthony case. I have yet to hear my answer to that question. I believe that the USA is still one of the last places on earth where harm to children is considered the lowest form of crime. Disdain for ppl who hurt or kill children is so great, that the perp doesn't even find safe haven in prison, cause as we know, child rapists and killers are prime targets for vengeance by other inmates. So even the worst of the worst in prison don't welcome those that kill or harm children into the fold.
So to me, the fascination, is a woman who refutes she killed her child so she could party. But is willling to implicate her own father stating it was a pool accident. I think if a pole was taken, she would be totally convicted in the court of public opinion. Have others killed their children? Yes. Like Susan Smith who let her car slide into a large pond killling her boys inside. If memory serves me correctly, Susan Smith initially told investigators her boys were kidnapped after a carjacking of some sort. She later broke down and told the truth. Ppl can give some sort of credit to an individual if they have done wrong ... terrible wrong ... unthinkable wrong .... but admit it. It's another thing when an individual tells lie after lie and is willing to destroy her entire family because she wants to save her own butt. I think ppl have a gut reaction that you then are truly evil, and must be removed from society. If you are willing to kill your own kid not sure we want you walking around free.
Her mental state has been discussed. I thought you HAD to pass a mental eval, yet I also heard she refused to talk to the appointed shrink.
The bottomline to me is that ppl want justice for the little girl. They see Casey as the one person who should have done everything in the world to protect and nurture her child, give her OWN life for the child. Instead, Casey turned on a little 3 year old girl. It's the ultimate betrayal, and that's what Americans cannot and will not stand for.
It's amazing to me how we have all these posters yet not any comments on this trial considering it's reported non-stop on the news.
Well, the verdict is the verdict. It's done.
I only have a couple questions, and if the legal minds on this board can help to answer, I would appreciate.
1. I realize it was the state that brought the slate of charges. Couldn't they have brought a charge (not knowing Florida law) charges of neglect? She was the last person with the child. Gave no explanation of how the child disappeared from her care (she did, but it was proven to be a lie), and her child ends up dead. Isn't there something in the area of negligence? It's hard to believe that she has charge of the child, refuses to say what happened to her, and the child ends up dead. There should be something that makes her responsible for the welfare of the child. You can add the not reporting for 31 days as well. BTW, ever wonder how this 31 days was arrived at. It came from Casey.
2. Baez in his opening statement said ... well, the child drowned. Didn't Baez have a duty to tell law enforcement at the moment he was told that by his client that the child drowned? If he knew, why were all these ppl called in to find Caylee, at great expense.
those were just a few things I was thinking about.
I know, as you probably do too, that lawsuits are going to be flying from every direction.
Quote from: billyjean on July 06, 2011, 04:11:40 PM
It's amazing to me how we have all these posters yet not any comments on this trial considering it's reported non-stop on the news.
They're unavoidable and all over Facebook. Yikes.
I just hope she takes Vivid up on their offer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-gets-porn-offer_n_891339.html
Quote from: Bonster on July 06, 2011, 04:17:29 PM
Quote from: billyjean on July 06, 2011, 04:11:40 PM
It's amazing to me how we have all these posters yet not any comments on this trial considering it's reported non-stop on the news.
They're unavoidable and all over Facebook. Yikes.
no, Dear ... I'm talking about BTF. Not that we have to take over the entire forum on this subject, but it would be interesting to see what some of you think. I just basically had those few questions which I hope someone will address.
Quote from: Bonster on July 06, 2011, 04:18:32 PM
I just hope she takes Vivid up on their offer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-gets-porn-offer_n_891339.html
why would you want to watch a woman who killed her kid? ewwww
Funny how her body changed in prison. Take a peek.
So this time the Justice system worked the way its supposed to. Too bad the prosecution failed.
Quote from: Bonster on July 06, 2011, 04:18:32 PM
I just hope she takes Vivid up on their offer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-gets-porn-offer_n_891339.html
Bon, Vivid just withdrew that offer and made a statement. Gosh, when the porn industry rejects you that's when you know that you are now a person without a country.
Quote from: billyjean on July 06, 2011, 04:11:40 PM
2. Baez in his opening statement said ... well, the child drowned. Didn't Baez have a duty to tell law enforcement at the moment he was told that by his client that the child drowned?
Absolutely NOT. He would probably lose his law license if he did, as the aforementioned communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Quote from: billyjean on July 06, 2011, 05:37:01 PM
Quote from: Bonster on July 06, 2011, 04:18:32 PM
I just hope she takes Vivid up on their offer:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-gets-porn-offer_n_891339.html
Bon, Vivid just withdrew that offer and made a statement. Gosh, when the porn industry rejects you that's when you know that you are now a person without a country.
That's too bad; hope someone picks her up. She could always do home movies, too.
Quote from: The Jackal on July 06, 2011, 06:57:41 PM
Quote from: billyjean on July 06, 2011, 04:11:40 PM
2. Baez in his opening statement said ... well, the child drowned. Didn't Baez have a duty to tell law enforcement at the moment he was told that by his client that the child drowned?
Absolutely NOT. He would probably lose his law license if he did, as the aforementioned communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege.
Well, Texas Equisearch (sp?) apparently feels Baez will be included in a future lawsuit to recoup $$$ that was donated to TE to pay for TE to look for the child on the behalf and the request of the Anthonys, who Baez was working closely with at that time .
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good luck with all that....!!!
Quote from: The Jackal on July 06, 2011, 10:34:11 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Good luck with all that....!!!
I'm not suing anybody. They are. So is the State of Florida to recoup search and investigation costs.
Good luck to them...LOL!!!
Juror states there was no cause of death. Wait a minute. Ppl have been convicted of murder when the body has never been found ! I don't get it.
Another juror stated that she based her decision on the fear that Casey would get death penality. It wasn't her job to worry about the death penalty. It was her job to decide guilty or not guilty. I think we had a Jaywalking crew of jurors here.
Oh one last thing. Don't forget now to lie your ass off to law enforcement. It's only one year and $1,000. Most of you could do that standing on your head. For the 1 year and $1,000 you can avoid death or life in prison. Sounds good to me. Didn't realize it was that easy. You learn alot by watching this stuff. Now I know how to avoid being convicted for murder.
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 10:21:35 AM
Juror states there was no cause of death. Wait a minute. Ppl have been convicted of murder when the body has never been found ! I don't get it.
You don't get it because you fail to comprehend the difference between the CAUSE OF DEATH and the corpus delicti (body) of the crime.
QuoteAnother juror stated that she based her decision on the fear that Casey would get death penalty. It wasn't her job to worry about the death penalty. It was her job to decide guilty or not guilty. I think we had a Jaywalking crew of jurors here.
On ONE count only...in any event, maybe that's evidence that the prosecutor OVERCHARGED the case?
QuoteOh one last thing. Don't forget now to lie your ass off to law enforcement. It's only one year and $1,000. Most of you could do that standing on your head. For the 1 year and $1,000 you can avoid death or life in prison. Sounds good to me. Didn't realize it was that easy. You learn a lot by watching this stuff. Now I know how to avoid being convicted for murder.
NOBODY on these forums could do a year standing on their heads, much the less over three like Anthony has served.
Think about it for a minute...Anthony was given MAXIMUM one year misdemeanor sentences, running CONSECUTIVELY, on all four counts, despite not having any previous criminal history (from what I understand). I've NEVER seen that before, but can't say I'm surprised. In fact, its EXACTLY the sentence I expected. The Judge covered his ass well, understandably so.
Quote from: The Jackal on July 07, 2011, 11:12:13 AM
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 10:21:35 AM
Juror states there was no cause of death. Wait a minute. Ppl have been convicted of murder when the body has never been found ! I don't get it.
You don't get it because you fail to comprehend the difference between the CAUSE OF DEATH and the corpus delicti (body) of the crime.
QuoteAnother juror stated that she based her decision on the fear that Casey would get death penalty. It wasn't her job to worry about the death penalty. It was her job to decide guilty or not guilty. I think we had a Jaywalking crew of jurors here.
On ONE count only...in any event, maybe that's evidence that the prosecutor OVERCHARGED the case?
QuoteOh one last thing. Don't forget now to lie your ass off to law enforcement. It's only one year and $1,000. Most of you could do that standing on your head. For the 1 year and $1,000 you can avoid death or life in prison. Sounds good to me. Didn't realize it was that easy. You learn a lot by watching this stuff. Now I know how to avoid being convicted for murder.
NOBODY on these forums could do a year standing on their heads, much the less over three like Anthony has served.
Think about it for a minute...Anthony was given MAXIMUM one year misdemeanor sentences, running CONSECUTIVELY, on all four counts, despite not having any previous criminal history (from what I understand). I've NEVER seen that before, but can't say I'm surprised. In fact, its EXACTLY the sentence I expected. The Judge covered his ass well, understandably so.
Wrong. She has previous criminal history.
"Casey Anthony found guilty of several check fraud charges
By Bianca Prieto and Sarah Lundy
Orlando Sentinel
Updated: 3:27 p.m. Monday, Jan. 25, 2010
Posted: 11:43 a.m. Monday, Jan. 25, 2010
Casey Anthony was found guilty this afternoon in several of the 13 check fraud charges she faced.
The 23-year-old woman entered a plea this afternoon to Orange Circuit Judge Stan Strickland.
The judge found her guilty in six of the charges and withheld adjudication in seven. She was given credit for 412 days of time served in jail and one year of probation.
Casey Anthony was also ordered to pay $348 in court fees and $5,517.75 in investigative fees.
Anthony was accused of stealing hundreds of dollars from a friend, Amy Huizenga, in July 2008. Investigators have said Anthony used Huizenga's checks to buy more than $400 worth of clothes and groceries at area Target and Winn-Dixie stores.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/casey-anthony-found-guilty-of-several-check-fraud-194235.html
Further, she stole hundreds of checks from her mother and raided her grandfather's retirement home fund. It was shortly after that her mother and her got in a big fight where Casey's mother tried to choke Casey out. Casey left with the kid, and was never seen till Cindy made the 911 call when she told dispatches she wanted her daughter arrested for the theft of the checks and the retirement fund and told them the car smelled like a dead body. Apparently, she didn't follow through with the complaint.
The defense had Cindy and George both LIE on the stand, so their original statements about Casey, car smelling like body (w/Cindy on tape to dispatcher and w/George on video to investigators). That testimony was damning so they got the Anthonys to agree to make themselves look like total liars on the stand so that it would wipe out the damning statements they gave to authorities. George was already pointed to by defense as a monster, with no proof. Cindy was the only question mark. So they sent the SON to seal it and call his own mother a liar.
Sorry, Jackal. I think most ppl survive one year in a 6 x 8. There is no real penalty for lying to law enforcement. Casey's lies setup the Defense for a win.
I'm NOT saying they can just in the courtroom change the law on the max sentence for lying to law enforcement. The Judge did all he was allowed to do under the law. What I AM saying is what's on the books is not enough. One year and $1,000 is not going to scare anybody. It certainly didn't scare Casey, her mother or her father. It's perjury is it not to lie under oath? Cindy was proved to be a lying when she said she was at home doing computer search (which is what Defense wanted her to do ... lie). Her employement records proved she was not home but at work. That is perjury. Yet she won't be charged because the consensus is from the talking head lawyers is that they wouldn't have enough room in the jails for all those that lie on the stand. What a system.
Was waiting for this to happen, and if reports are true, Bozo Baez should be disbarred. It's been reported (I have to see more tho) that Baez has signed with William Morris agency with him and Casey as a package deal. If that is true, OMG. He should either step down and reliquish his right to practice or the State of Florida should step in and disbarr him. If it's true, he is the kind of defense attorney that gives other defense attorneys a bad rep. If Casey wants to sign ... fine. If she wants to have him at her side when she talks to the various entities ... fine. Then whatever she makes ... she pays him for his time. Not him using her to make money in a contracted deal. That is wrong ... I don't care what you say.
These reports are being denied. I hope it's not true.
Lastly, lil Caylee will not rest in peace till someone is brought to justice for her murder. That said, it is unlikely her killer will ever be brought to justice. Here's the justice. Like lil Caylee ... finding no peace ..... neither will any of the Anthonys. There's nowhere to run ... nowhere to hide. Lawsuits will be coming out of the woodwork, and only the bloodsuckers will cozy up.
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 12:26:43 PM
Was waiting for this to happen, and if reports are true, Bozo Baez should be disbarred. It's been reported (I have to see more tho) that Baez has signed with William Morris agency with him and Casey as a package deal. If that is true, OMG. He should either step down and reliquish his right to practice or the State of Florida should step in and disbarr him. If it's true, he is the kind of defense attorney that gives other defense attorneys a bad rep. If Casey wants to sign ... fine. If she wants to have him at her side when she talks to the various entities ... fine. Then whatever she makes ... she pays him for his time. Not him using her to make money in a contracted deal. That is wrong ... I don't care what you say.
These reports are being denied. I hope it's not true.
Lastly, lil Caylee will not rest in peace till someone is brought to justice for her murder. That said, it is unlikely her killer will ever be brought to justice. Here's the justice. Like lil Caylee ... finding no peace ..... neither will any of the Anthonys. There's nowhere to run ... nowhere to hide. Lawsuits will be coming out of the woodwork, and only the bloodsuckers will cozy up.
Why is Baez a bozo and under what theory should he be disbarred? Where in the Florida Rules of professional conduct do you see ANY authority that he should be disbarred? If my memory serves me correctly, Marcia Clark and Chris Darden BOTH wrote books after the OJ trial, correct? Where you jumping up and down and asking for their disbarment as well?
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 12:00:25 PM
Wrong. She has previous criminal history.
"Casey Anthony found guilty of several check fraud charges
By Bianca Prieto and Sarah Lundy
Orlando Sentinel
Updated: 3:27 p.m. Monday, Jan. 25, 2010
Posted: 11:43 a.m. Monday, Jan. 25, 2010
Casey Anthony was found guilty this afternoon in several of the 13 check fraud charges she faced.
The 23-year-old woman entered a plea this afternoon to Orange Circuit Judge Stan Strickland. The judge found her guilty in six of the charges and withheld adjudication in seven. She was given credit for 412 days of time served in jail and one year of probation.
Casey Anthony was also ordered to pay $348 in court fees and $5,517.75 in investigative fees.
Anthony was accused of stealing hundreds of dollars from a friend, Amy Huizenga, in July 2008. Investigators have said Anthony used Huizenga's checks to buy more than $400 worth of clothes and groceries at area Target and Winn-Dixie stores.
Check fraud is a financial crime where the sentencing goal is primarily restitution, especially for minimal amounts. Its not a crime of violence, nor does it include deceiving the police. Nonetheless, even for a defendant with misdemeanor convictions on a previous case, FOUR CONSECUTIVE max term misdemeanor sentences is unheard of.
QuoteFurther, she stole hundreds of checks from her mother and raided her grandfather's retirement home fund. It was shortly after that her mother and her got in a big fight where Casey's mother tried to choke Casey out.
So what was she charged with in THIS ^^^^ matter?
QuoteThe defense had Cindy and George both LIE on the stand, so their original statements about Casey, car smelling like body (w/Cindy on tape to dispatcher and w/George on video to investigators). That testimony was damning so they got the Anthonys to agree to make themselves look like total liars on the stand so that it would wipe out the damning statements they gave to authorities. George was already pointed to by defense as a monster, with no proof. Cindy was the only question mark. So they sent the SON to seal it and call his own mother a liar.
You have absolutely NO CLUE what the defense did or didn't do, but you DO weave quite a tangled, schizo web.
QuoteSorry, Jackal. I think most ppl survive one year in a 6 x 8.
No they wouldn't. You wouldn't and nobody else on this forum would, either. There's a little more to it than sitting in a 6 x 8.
QuoteThere is no real penalty for lying to law enforcement.
Sure there's a penalty for lying to law enforcement....FOUR years of your personal liberty taken away from you. Or do you forget the time Anthony has spent locked up?
QuoteI'm NOT saying they can just in the courtroom change the law on the max sentence for lying to law enforcement. The Judge did all he was allowed to do under the law. What I AM saying is what's on the books is not enough. One year and $1,000 is not going to scare anybody.
Its a msidemeanor, what part of that don't you understand? in Illinois, the max on a misdemeanor is 364 days in county and a $2, 500.00 fine.
QuoteIt's perjury is it not to lie under oath? Cindy was proved to be a lying when she said she was at home doing computer search (which is what Defense wanted her to do ... lie). Her employement records proved she was not home but at work. That is perjury. Yet she won't be charged because the consensus is from the talking head lawyers is that they wouldn't have enough room in the jails for all those that lie on the stand.
......including quite a few cops........and prosecutors OFF the stand.
QuoteWhat a system.
Know of a better one?
Here's just a sampling.......
In the Matter of Danielle M. Muscatello, admitted as Danielle Marguerite Muscatello, an attorney and counselor-at-law. Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts, petitioner; Danielle M. Muscatello, respondent. (Attorney Registration No. 4479754) DISCIPLINARY proceeding instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts. By decision and order on application dated June 1, 2010, this Court authorized the Grievance Committee to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent based on the petition dated January 29, 2010, directed the respondent to submit an answer to the petition, and referred the issues raised to the Hon. Jerome M. Becker, as Special Referee to hear and report. The respondent was admitted to the bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on March 28, 2007. Diana Maxfield Kearse, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mark F. DeWan of counsel),2010–01808Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.July 5, 2011for petitioner.
Michael S. Ross, New York, N.Y. for respondent.A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J. WILLIAM F. MASTRO REINALDO E. RIVERA PETER B. SKELOS DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, JJ. OPINION & ORDERPER CURIAM. The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts (hereinafter the Grievance Committee) served the respondent with a petition dated January 29, 2010, containing two charges of professional misconduct. A hearing was held on August 24, 2010. Following the hearing, the Special Referee sustained both charges. The Grievance Committee now moves to confirm the report and supplemental report of the Special Referee, and for imposition of discipline upon the respondent as the Court deems just and appropriate. The respondent joins in the motion to confirm and contends that the appropriate sanction under the circumstances is a public censure. Charge one alleges that the respondent by misrepresenting evidence to the Grand Jury, engaged in: (1) conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, (2) conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, and (2) conduct that adversely reflects on her fitness as lawyer, in violation of Rules 8.4(c), (d) and (h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). The respondent was employed as an Assistant District Attorney with the Office of the District Attorney for Kings County. On November 5, 2009, she was presenting evidence to a Kings County Grand Jury in relation to a defendant who had been arrested on October 18, 2009, for driving while intoxicated. As part of the presentation, she moved into evidence a New York City Police Department form known as the Chemical Test Analysis (hereinafter the Form). The Form is an official document that reports, inter alia, the defendant's blood alcohol content at the time the breathalyser test is performed. The police officer who administered the test is required to certify on the Form that its contents are true, accurate, and complete. After moving the Form into evidence, the respondent realized that it was incomplete, in that the space where the number reflecting the defendant's blood alcohol content should have been, was blank. Nonetheless, the respondent told the Grand Jury that the form reflected a blood alcohol content of .08%, a fact she knew from other evidence previously introduced before the Grand Jury. Charge two alleges that the respondent altered a document that had been entered into evidence before a Grand Jury, thus, violating rules 8.4(c), (d) and (h) of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200.0). On or about November 12, 2009, the respondent subpoenaed the police officer who had prepared the Form. On that date, knowing that her supervisor was out of the office, the respondent entered and searched that office for the Form. The respondent found the Form in her supervisor's briefcase and removed it. She then directed the police officer to fill in the blank to reflect the defendant's blood alcohol content, and returned the altered Form to her supervisor's briefcase without her supervisor's knowledge. Based on the evidence adduced and the respondent's admissions, the Special Referee properly sustained the charges. Accordingly, the motion to confirm is granted. In mitigation, the respondent asks the Court to take into consideration the fact that she was a young lawyer who had been practicing law for less than three years, that she panicked in a high-pressure situation and doubted herself, and that the conduct was isolated and aberrational. Further, she maintains that she has been punished enough as she was terminated from her position as an Assistant District Attorney, which she considered to be an ideal job. She is deeply remorseful and ashamed of her misconduct. Numerous character letters were submitted on the respondent's behalf, all of which attested to her reputation for honesty and integrity. The respondent's present employer, who hired her after full disclosure was made to him of the grand jury incident, indicated in a letter that the respondent "consistently has expressed remorse ... and displayed a high standard of ethical and moral character during her employment with me at my firm." Notwithstanding the respondent's candor, youth, remorse, and lack of a prior disciplinary history, we conclude that the circumstances of this case warrant the respondent's suspension from the practice of law for a period of one year. PRUDENTI, P.J., MASTRO, RIVERA, SKELOS and ANGIOLILLO, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the petitioner's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report is granted; and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Danielle M. Muscatello, admitted as Danielle Marguerite Muscatello, is suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year, commencing August 5, 2011, and continuing until further order of this Court. The respondent shall not apply for reinstatement earlier than February 6, 2012. In such application, the respondent shall furnish satisfactory proof (1) that during the said period she refrained from practicing or attempting to practice law, (2) that she has fully complied with this order and with the terms and provisions of the written rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10), (3) that she has complied with the applicable continuing legal education requirements of 22 NYCRR 691.11(c), and (4) that she has otherwise properly conducted herself; and it is further, ORDERED that the respondent, Danielle M. Muscatello, admitted as Danielle Marguerite Muscatello, shall promptly comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended, and resigned attorneys ( see 22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further, ORDERED that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, during the period of suspension and until such further order of this court, the respondent, Daneille M. Muscatello, admitted as Danielle Marguerite Muscatello, shall desist and refrain from (l) practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk, or employee of another, (2) appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission, or other public authority, (3) giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) holding herself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law. ORDERED that if the respondent, Danielle M. Muscatello, admitted as Danielle Marguerite Muscatello, has been issued a secure pass by the Office of Court Administration, it shall be returned forthwith to the issuing agency, and the respondent shall certify to the same in her affidavit of compliance pursuant to 22 NYCRR 691.10(f). ENTER:
Matthew G. KiernanClerk of the Court N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,2011.
--- N.Y.S.2d ----, 2011 WL 2624002 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05812
Jackal her wonderful mother didn't bring the charges for the hundreds of stolen checks, credit cards, and raid of the retirement fund for the grandfather, she just threatened to in the 911 call.
Right...I thought so...the schizo mother made claims/threats against the schizo daughter...gotcha. And this is what you take as gospel. What the mother may or may not have done/thought has NO BEARING whatsoever on Casey's criminal history for sentencing purposes.....NONE.
Jackal, are you nutty. If I'm convicted of any crime that puts me in prison whether 6 x 8 or in general pop ... you do your time. If you survive, and your time is up .... you leave. What are we going to do ... drop dead of fright the moment the cell door is closed? If Martha Stewart ... so can I.
Martha Stewart went to FEDERAL, not STATE, prison. Nonetheless, of course one is going to physically survive...the question is, at what cost?
Quote from: The Jackal on July 07, 2011, 05:22:43 PM
Right...I thought so...the schizo mother made claims/threats against the schizo daughter...gotcha. And this is what you take as gospel. What the mother may or may not have done/thought has NO BEARING whatsoever on Casey's criminal history for sentencing purposes.....NONE.
I never said it did, did I? I gave you what she was charged with. I just told you a little of the history of things she did she was not charged with.
Quote from: The Jackal on July 07, 2011, 05:27:30 PM
Martha Stewart went to FEDERAL, not STATE, prison. Nonetheless, of course one is going to physically survive...the question is, at what cost?
Whether state or federal, if you do the crime and are convicted you have to do the time ... and that would include BTF posters also, unless we are exempt somehow and no one told me.
Btw, take a look at the above scenario involving prosecutorial misconduct. Now lets play a little make believe and transfer this case to Cook County and assume its a first time misdemeanor offense. Lets also assume this prosecutor alters evidence to obtain a wrongful conviction.
As a result bj, and utilizing YOUR criterion of max sentences/penalties for misdemeanor offenses, this poor soul would get 364 days in Cook County, $2,500.00 in fines and fees, mandatory drug and alcohol counseling from anywhere between 10 and 75 hours, plus attendance at a Victim Impact Panel AND........REVOCATION (not suspension) of his/her driving privileges...for GOOD (with a minimum one year bar to reinstatement).
All for a first time Class A misdemeanor..
Quote from: The Jackal on July 07, 2011, 03:42:52 PM
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 12:26:43 PM
Was waiting for this to happen, and if reports are true, Bozo Baez should be disbarred. It's been reported (I have to see more tho) that Baez has signed with William Morris agency with him and Casey as a package deal. If that is true, OMG. He should either step down and reliquish his right to practice or the State of Florida should step in and disbarr him. If it's true, he is the kind of defense attorney that gives other defense attorneys a bad rep. If Casey wants to sign ... fine. If she wants to have him at her side when she talks to the various entities ... fine. Then whatever she makes ... she pays him for his time. Not him using her to make money in a contracted deal. That is wrong ... I don't care what you say.
These reports are being denied. I hope it's not true.
Lastly, lil Caylee will not rest in peace till someone is brought to justice for her murder. That said, it is unlikely her killer will ever be brought to justice. Here's the justice. Like lil Caylee ... finding no peace ..... neither will any of the Anthonys. There's nowhere to run ... nowhere to hide. Lawsuits will be coming out of the woodwork, and only the bloodsuckers will cozy up.
Why is Baez a bozo and under what theory should he be disbarred? Where in the Florida Rules of professional conduct do you see ANY authority that he should be disbarred? If my memory serves me correctly, Marcia Clark and Chris Darden BOTH wrote books after the OJ trial, correct? Where you jumping up and down and asking for their disbarment as well?
I was objecting if they were on media as a package deal contracted together. If she goes, then pays him as her attorney to sit next to her fine. But to sell yourself as a package, I would think messes with his relationship with her as a client. Is is acceptable that you as an attorney be in business (show business) with your client? If you represent the head of Apple, is it OK if you share money making interests with your client? IDK ... can you tell me? If not, what scenario would be improper in this light?
There is NO IMPROPRIETY there...none whatsoever. The deal was made AFTER trial, no?
Quote from: The Jackal on July 07, 2011, 06:10:02 PM
There is NO IMPROPRIETY there...none whatsoever. The deal was made AFTER trial, no?
you don't need to yell. settle down. If he is still her lawyer, if he has NOT severed the lawyer/client relationship is it proper for him to be in business with her? That's all I'm asking.
The trial is OVER. There is no surviving atty/client relationship, nor ANY indicia of impropriety.
You make an absurd and unfounded claim that Baez should be disbarred, yet have no idea whatsoever what the ethical standards and/or facts are. Ridiculous.
Quote from: The Jackal on July 07, 2011, 06:24:52 PM
The trial is OVER. There is no surviving atty/client relationship, nor ANY indicia of impropriety.
You make an absurd and unfounded claim that Baez should be disbarred, yet have no idea whatsoever what the ethical standards and/or facts are. Ridiculous.
Jackal, the trial maybe over, but he is STILL her attorney. You know that ! Why does the end of a trial signal automatically that he is not her attorney any longer. He is her attorney NOW, and will continue to be her attorney for some time to come. I asked you a question. Since he is still her attorney, would it be improper for him to contractually go into business with her as a team. I already told you that if he signs a contract on his own, and she her own, or she her own, and pays him for his attorney time to sit next to her, I have no problem with that, although I still think it unethical in the case of signing on your own. I am speaking strickly of a "package" deal, making him and her, "together", a show business entity, while he is her attorney. You tell me ... I'm waiting.
For instance, from a website:
"Lawyers in Business with their Clients
Some lawyers go into business with their clients, something which the ethics rules discourage. There are several things lawyers have to do if they want to be partners with their clients, and they can be sued if the venture fails. While not all business ventures with cheats are technically a conflict of interest, the Supreme Court has warned lawyers repeatedly of the dangers.
Lawyers often know the intimate details of their client's lives, especially their finances. Lawyers often have the trust of their clients. Some lawyers may then use that trust and insight to get their clients to invest in businesses that benefit the lawyer."
Now the above doesn't say you cannot, but it does suggest it is discouraged. So I ask again, if you sign a contract .... lawyer/client ... as a "package deal" ... would that be closer to some degree of improper? ... or totally OK?
Here is the article ...
http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/paradigm-signs-casey-anthonys-attorney/
he did not sign as package deal but on his own. Now the blood sucker will make millions. She hasn't even gotten out of jail and he's already made his deals. What a low life. There is still the matter of his disregarding Judge Perry's Order early on in the trial. At that time, the Judge said he would deal with the issue of contempt by Baez at the end of the trial. Fat chance of that happening.
ABC Nightline, by Jessica Harper
Like many attorneys defending a client facing the death penalty, Casey Anthony's attorney recently moved for a mistrial. While the strategy is common, Jose Baez's reasoning was not. He claimed the evidence disparaged his character.
By stepping into the spotlight of the Florida courtroom, Baez went from being a local lawyer with a past that includes child support battles, bad checks and bikini businesses to the defense attorney in the most high profile case in the country at the moment.
Baez, 42, is defending Casey Anthony from charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, a crime that could warrant her a death sentence.
Richard Hornsby, a defense attorney who has followed the case closely, was president of the Central Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers when he first learned about Casey Anthony's hiring of Baez in 2008.
"I first said, 'Jose who?" Hornsby said. "I had no idea who he was."
It has taken a while for Baez to establish himself as a defense lawyer. Despite graduating from law school in 1997, the Navy veteran was denied admission to the Florida bar for eight years until 2005.
An order by the Supreme Court of Florida states that he was denied admission because of his failure to pay child support to his ex-wife and secure life and health insurance for his teenage daughter. It states that he had previously declared bankruptcy, written bad checks and defaulted on student loans, the court said.
The Florida Supreme Court said his financial mishaps coupled with failure to pay child support "show a lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law."
http://tonilynntrottier.com/2011/06/10/casey-anthonys-lawyer-jose-baez-has-trials-of-his-own/
boy, I guess the bar accepts just about anybody.
What I enjoyed most is how all the legal experts on tv were so totally wrong about everything they said would happen. After the verdicts they were whining why her attorneys didn't ask for her release at that very time. They also said judges NEVER give jail time for the misdemeanors she was convicted of. DUH, wrong again guys. And apparently her own attorneys knew she would get time served and a little more because they did not ask for her immediate release. I'm no lawyer but by what little I do see of court cases I would never bet on a jury's decision or the ruling or sentencing of a judge. As shocked as I was about this verdict I gotta admit I was just as shocked when 11 woman and 1 guy convicted Blago on so many counts. I think I would rather gamble in a Casino these days than a courtroom.
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 07:24:54 PM
What I enjoyed most is how all the legal experts on tv were so totally wrong about everything they said would happen. After the verdicts they were whining why her attorneys didn't ask for her release at that very time. They also said judges NEVER give jail time for the misdemeanors she was convicted of. DUH, wrong again guys. And apparently her own attorneys knew she would get time served and a little more because they did not ask for her immediate release. I'm no lawyer but by what little I do see of court cases I would never bet on a jury's decision or the ruling or sentencing of a judge. As shocked as I was about this verdict I gotta admit I was just as shocked when 11 woman and 1 guy convicted Blago on so many counts. I think I would rather gamble in a Casino these days than a courtroom.
The whole process because of attorney strategies and manuevers has turned the whole process into a crap shoot.
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 07:40:23 PM
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 07:24:54 PM
What I enjoyed most is how all the legal experts on tv were so totally wrong about everything they said would happen. After the verdicts they were whining why her attorneys didn't ask for her release at that very time. They also said judges NEVER give jail time for the misdemeanors she was convicted of. DUH, wrong again guys. And apparently her own attorneys knew she would get time served and a little more because they did not ask for her immediate release. I'm no lawyer but by what little I do see of court cases I would never bet on a jury's decision or the ruling or sentencing of a judge. As shocked as I was about this verdict I gotta admit I was just as shocked when 11 woman and 1 guy convicted Blago on so many counts. I think I would rather gamble in a Casino these days than a courtroom.
The whole process because of attorney strategies and manuevers has turned the whole process into a crap shoot.
Its always been a crap shoot but I think maybe with all these CSI type programs and Criminal Minds on tv plus all the DNA stuff they have now it has made jurors look to be even more sure and want more proof to convict. Plus good defense attorneys have learned how to poke holes better in evidence through technology and helping create more of a reasonable doubt. I also think in a case like this one where the death penalty is involved jurors want to be totally convinced. Being a juror in a case as complex as this one isn't easy.
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 06:39:04 PM
Jackal, the trial maybe over, but he is STILL her attorney. You know that !
No, he's not STILL her attorney...no matter how many times you try to say it and convince yourself. The scope of his representation extended up to her sentencing. There are no post conviction motions or appeals to file. In short, there's NOTHING else to do in the criminal case.
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 06:39:04 PM
For instance, from a website:
"Lawyers in Business with their Clients
Some lawyers go into business with their clients, something which the ethics rules discourage. There are several things lawyers have to do if they want to be partners with their clients, and they can be sued if the venture fails. While not all business ventures with cheats are technically a conflict of interest, the Supreme Court has warned lawyers repeatedly of the dangers.
Lawyers often know the intimate details of their client's lives, especially their finances. Lawyers often have the trust of their clients. Some lawyers may then use that trust and insight to get their clients to invest in businesses that benefit the lawyer."
Now the above doesn't say you cannot, but it does suggest it is discouraged. So I ask again, if you sign a contract .... lawyer/client ... as a "package deal" ... would that be closer to some degree of improper? ... or totally OK?
How many cases have you tried? How many legal ethics courses have you taken? How many times have you read the Florida Rules of professional responsibility?
If you can't answer any of the above, stop wasting people's time with your bullshit.
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 07:03:12 PM
Here is the article ...
http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/paradigm-signs-casey-anthonys-attorney/
he did not sign as package deal but on his own. Now the blood sucker will make millions. She hasn't even gotten out of jail and he's already made his deals. What a low life. There is still the matter of his disregarding Judge Perry's Order early on in the trial. At that time, the Judge said he would deal with the issue of contempt by Baez at the end of the trial. Fat chance of that happening.
ABC Nightline, by Jessica Harper
Like many attorneys defending a client facing the death penalty, Casey Anthony's attorney recently moved for a mistrial. While the strategy is common, Jose Baez's reasoning was not. He claimed the evidence disparaged his character.
By stepping into the spotlight of the Florida courtroom, Baez went from being a local lawyer with a past that includes child support battles, bad checks and bikini businesses to the defense attorney in the most high profile case in the country at the moment.
Baez, 42, is defending Casey Anthony from charges that she killed her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, a crime that could warrant her a death sentence.
Richard Hornsby, a defense attorney who has followed the case closely, was president of the Central Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers when he first learned about Casey Anthony's hiring of Baez in 2008.
"I first said, 'Jose who?" Hornsby said. "I had no idea who he was."
It has taken a while for Baez to establish himself as a defense lawyer. Despite graduating from law school in 1997, the Navy veteran was denied admission to the Florida bar for eight years until 2005.
An order by the Supreme Court of Florida states that he was denied admission because of his failure to pay child support to his ex-wife and secure life and health insurance for his teenage daughter. It states that he had previously declared bankruptcy, written bad checks and defaulted on student loans, the court said.
The Florida Supreme Court said his financial mishaps coupled with failure to pay child support "show a lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law."
http://tonilynntrottier.com/2011/06/10/casey-anthonys-lawyer-jose-baez-has-trials-of-his-own/
boy, I guess the bar accepts just about anybody.
Yes, this blood sucking-high school dropout-deadbeat dad-failed businessman-bad check writer beat the living bejeezus out of the arrogant, smug, pompous Florida prosecutors who had the temerity to smirk at his closing. Baez has become an overnight national celebrity and millionaire while his imbecile opponent just "retired".
Now YOU tell ME who the real "loser" is?
for God's sake, darden and clark lost a dead bang winner and penned book deals...but you didn't say a PEEP about them, did you? Didn't piss you off that their incompetence helped acquit OJ? Instead, you focus on the ONE guy that actually did his job?
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 07:40:23 PM
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 07:24:54 PM
What I enjoyed most is how all the legal experts on tv were so totally wrong about everything they said would happen. After the verdicts they were whining why her attorneys didn't ask for her release at that very time. They also said judges NEVER give jail time for the misdemeanors she was convicted of. DUH, wrong again guys. And apparently her own attorneys knew she would get time served and a little more because they did not ask for her immediate release. I'm no lawyer but by what little I do see of court cases I would never bet on a jury's decision or the ruling or sentencing of a judge. As shocked as I was about this verdict I gotta admit I was just as shocked when 11 woman and 1 guy convicted Blago on so many counts. I think I would rather gamble in a Casino these days than a courtroom.
The whole process because of attorney strategies and manuevers has turned the whole process into a crap shoot.
again, you're entirely CLUELESS....
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
Plus good defense attorneys have learned how to poke holes better in evidence through technology and helping create more of a reasonable doubt.
Baez didn't have to do anything of the sort...there was no evidence to support ANY of the charges to begin with.
Quote from: The Jackal on July 07, 2011, 11:41:15 PM
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
Plus good defense attorneys have learned how to poke holes better in evidence through technology and helping create more of a reasonable doubt.
Baez didn't have to do anything of the sort...there was no evidence to support ANY of the charges to begin with.
I don't know if you watched the interviews with any of the so called legal experts before the verdicts were read but every one of em ripped Baez to shreads for the way they thought he defended the case. Maybe those stations should now hire Baez and let those so called experts go!
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 07:24:54 PM
What I enjoyed most is how all the legal experts on tv were so totally wrong about everything they said would happen. After the verdicts they were whining why her attorneys didn't ask for her release at that very time. They also said judges NEVER give jail time for the misdemeanors she was convicted of. DUH, wrong again guys.
You have to be a complete imbecile and/or entirely unqualified to think the judge wasn't going to max her out on the four misdemeanors.
QuoteAnd apparently her own attorneys knew she would get time served and a little more because they did not ask for her immediate release.
The MAX was four years...and by operation of law, jail time counts towards the ultimate sentence...I would have let her sit also.
QuoteAs shocked as I was about this verdict I gotta admit I was just as shocked when 11 woman and 1 guy convicted Blago on so many counts. I think I would rather gamble in a Casino these days than a courtroom.
I wasn't shocked AT ALL with the Blago verdict. People forget two things: 1) ONE SINGLE hold out juror saved Blago from a similar fate the first time around, and 2) you NEVER, EVER want to give the Feds a second shot at you. EVER.
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 11:44:50 PM
I don't know if you watched the interviews with any of the so called legal experts before the verdicts were read but every one of em ripped Baez to shreads for the way they thought he defended the case. Maybe those stations should now hire Baez and let those so called experts go!
That's why they were on their couches playing "armchair expert" and brass cojones Baez was in the courtroom getting an NG on a potential death penalty case.
Jeffrey Toobin on CNN predicted no jail time and said Baez should have asked for her release after the verdicts. Before the verdicts he was ripping the guy for how he defended the case. The only thing he was right about was the cockiness of the prosecutors.
Quote from: The Jackal on July 07, 2011, 11:49:09 PM
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 11:44:50 PM
I don't know if you watched the interviews with any of the so called legal experts before the verdicts were read but every one of em ripped Baez to shreads for the way they thought he defended the case. Maybe those stations should now hire Baez and let those so called experts go!
That's why they were on their couches playing "armchair expert" and brass cojones Baez was in the courtroom getting an NG on a potential death penalty case.
They should have been on their couches instead they were gettin a paycheck on tv to make predictions about as good as I can cook!
Got 2 questions for ya Jackal. 1. How much time you think Blago will get? and 2. Now that they're done with him who is next?
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 11:58:58 PM
Got 2 questions for ya Jackal. 1. How much time you think Blago will get? and 2. Now that they're done with him who is next?
1. My guess is about 12 years
2. Daley got out of Dodge at the right time..and fast. Cellini is already under indictment. Burke might be the next logical target, but he's no dummy (Blago)...and I'm not sure he's ever left himself exposed.
Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 12:02:50 AM
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 11:58:58 PM
Got 2 questions for ya Jackal. 1. How much time you think Blago will get? and 2. Now that they're done with him who is next?
1. My guess is about 12 years
2. Daley got out of Dodge at the right time..and fast. Cellini is already under indictment. Burke might be the next logical target, but he's no dummy (Blago)...and I'm not sure he's ever left himself exposed.
Stroger?
Quote from: mustang54 on July 08, 2011, 12:03:33 AM
Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 12:02:50 AM
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 11:58:58 PM
Got 2 questions for ya Jackal. 1. How much time you think Blago will get? and 2. Now that they're done with him who is next?
1. My guess is about 12 years
2. Daley got out of Dodge at the right time..and fast. Cellini is already under indictment. Burke might be the next logical target, but he's no dummy (Blago)...and I'm not sure he's ever left himself exposed.
Stroger?
I'm not sure he's worth going after....
Jackal, since you OPS, and mustang were the only ppl interested in making at least one comment on this thread, if you notice, I did not post on it much. I could have, but I didn't.
If you think that my eye is only trained on Baez the sleaze ball, you're wrong. The prosecution had an epic fail. I can't even watch Ashton on TV cause I wanna smack him around, and it's just the system itself.
Somehow cause you hire a bountyhunter to bail out your client, this automatically means the bountyhunter is on YOUR side. Why? It's a private business and any testimony that bountyhunter can provide I would think would be important. But, no, by way of motion and citing attorney/client privilege the Court doesn't allow it. I have a problem with that, and since it was by way of motion, and not just assumed, and no doubt that motion was rebutted by the prosecution, the prosecution was not able to bring some very important information.
The info they could have gotten from Padilla and his team, was that George lied about seeing Casey leave the next day before he went to work. Lee told Padilla directly that Casey left the night that Cindy choked her out after a big fight about stolen checks and money. Further, if this team could have testified, they could have neutralized the testimony of River Cruz who said George told her it was an accident that snowballed out of control. It was Padilla's right hand man (cause it was a 3 person team at that house), who told George outright something to effect of .... you know George, this may have been an accident that got out of hand. Telling this to a man who could not reconcile anything at this point, and a possibility was given to him. To discount the testimony of 3 ppl who were with the Anthonys at their home for weeks, and what all went on there is just a travesty. This is as close as they were going to come to eyewitnesses as to what went on over there ... and the prosecution was shut out. That said, I think the prosecution would have bumbled that too.
I didn't see Ashton's opening statement. All I heard from the talking heads was how masterful it was. I didn't see his closing statement ... I heard that was masterful too. I did see his shared rebuttal, however. I wasn't impressed, and when he laughed during Baez's rebuttal, I would have beat him over the head with a baseball bat. To have all the hard work that many entities put into this case, go this far, and pull a stunt like that ... there was absolutely no excuse for it, other than he is an arrogant ass, and that winning a high profile case was far more important to him than justice for Caylee. So make no mistake, I dislike Ashton ALMOST as much as I dislike Baez.
Max Cady .... YOU WERE MY LAWYER !!!!!
Bj, honestly in my opinion there is not much to comment on. There simply was not enough evidence
In my mind to convict her. Had I been on that jury I couldn't have convicted her on murder and lived with
My decision on her life in prison or the death penalty.
Justice was done here, it's upon her death that her maker will decide her real fate.
Regarding the making money off of cases for those directly involved in the case (in the courtroom), like Marcia Clark and Darden, and now Baez, jury, etc. ... there should be like a 5 year buffer from the time the case is over till the point they are allowed to benefit monitarily from writing a book, a TV show, or movie, or appearances of any kind. If you want to go and do it for nothing ... go ahead. But no monies should be paid to anyone for anything until a good time has passed. And this would extend to say maybe Casey doesn't write the book, or Baez, but they have someone else write it for them, or movie rights for the future (you can sign 5 years from now), or anything else. Bottomline, no monetary gain for whatever length of time.
Quote from: The Jackal on July 07, 2011, 11:31:12 PM
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 06:39:04 PM
For instance, from a website:
"Lawyers in Business with their Clients
Some lawyers go into business with their clients, something which the ethics rules discourage. There are several things lawyers have to do if they want to be partners with their clients, and they can be sued if the venture fails. While not all business ventures with cheats are technically a conflict of interest, the Supreme Court has warned lawyers repeatedly of the dangers.
Lawyers often know the intimate details of their client's lives, especially their finances. Lawyers often have the trust of their clients. Some lawyers may then use that trust and insight to get their clients to invest in businesses that benefit the lawyer."
Now the above doesn't say you cannot, but it does suggest it is discouraged. So I ask again, if you sign a contract .... lawyer/client ... as a "package deal" ... would that be closer to some degree of improper? ... or totally OK?
How many cases have you tried? How many legal ethics courses have you taken? How many times have you read the Florida Rules of professional responsibility?
If you can't answer any of the above, stop wasting people's time with your bullshit.
Thanks for directly answering the question, Jackal.
Quote from: Berwyn Patsy on July 08, 2011, 01:48:53 PM
Bj, honestly in my opinion there is not much to comment on. There simply was not enough evidence
In my mind to convict her. Had I been on that jury I couldn't have convicted her on murder and lived with
My decision on her life in prison or the death penalty.
Justice was done here, it's upon her death that her maker will decide her real fate.
I've already said none of the Anthonys will find peace. That's good enough for me. My comments Patsy are more about the system. Forget about Casey. It was a character study of the system we have in place.
Patsy, I guess there is more to comment on:
Casey Anthony Case Fuels Push in States for 'Caylee's Law'
Published July 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com
The trial and acquittal of Casey Anthony has spawned a slew of proposed laws named after her 2-year-old daughter Caylee, as lawmakers and their constituents try to extract some measure of reform out of a case that ended -- for many onlookers -- with frustration.
The state proposals, which sprung up after an Oklahoma woman started an online petition drive Tuesday, would generally make it a felony for a parent not to report the death or disappearance of his or her child in a certain period of time.
Lawmakers have been drafting the bills at a furious pace since the Florida mother was found not guilty Tuesday in the death of her daughter.
In Maryland, Sen. Nancy Jacobs said she received nearly two dozen emails from constituents in the days following the verdict. She said they asked that she review Maryland law and find a way to criminalize the act of not reporting the death of one's child.
Jacobs, who is proposing a bill, said her version would make it a felony for a parent, legal guardian or caretaker not to notify law enforcement of the death of a child within a short period of time after the death is discovered.
Back in Florida, several lawmakers filed "Caylee's Law" on Thursday. Their proposal would require caregivers to promptly report a missing or dead child, and to promptly report to law enforcement the location of a child's corpse if it is known.
Other proposals are either filed or in the works in North Carolina, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and other states, according to local reports.
Caylee was last seen on June 16, 2008, but her mother didn't report her missing. The child's grandmother notified authorities July 15.
The case captivated the country for three years, but Anthony was convicted this week only on counts of lying to investigators. She is expected to be released July 17.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/08/anthony-case-fuels-caylees-law-proposals-in-state-capitals/#ixzz1RXirzn6r
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/08/anthony-case-fuels-caylees-law-proposals-in-state-capitals/
*******************
they are looking to make it felony to not report after 24 hours.
Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 01:56:44 PM
Regarding the making money off of cases for those directly involved in the case (in the courtroom), like Marcia Clark and Darden, and now Baez, jury, etc. ... there should be like a 5 year buffer from the time the case is over till the point they are allowed to benefit monitarily from writing a book, a TV show, or movie, or appearances of any kind. If you want to go and do it for nothing ... go ahead. But no monies should be paid to anyone for anything until a good time has passed. And this would extend to say maybe Casey doesn't write the book, or Baez, but they have someone else write it for them, or movie rights for the future (you can sign 5 years from now), or anything else. Bottomline, no monetary gain for whatever length of time.
Under what theory of law, and why, would you bar an attorney from making money off a case he/she worked on?
Funny how most people have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with imbeciles like Paris Hilton, the Jersey Shore crew, Kim Kardashian making boat loads of money for NO APPARENT REASON whatsoever, but you have a problem with a licensed attorney making money offf a case he worked his ass off on? Wonderful.
Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 01:33:14 PM
I can't even watch Ashton on TV cause I wanna smack him around, and it's just the system itself.
Somehow cause you hire a bountyhunter to bail out your client, this automatically means the bountyhunter is on YOUR side. Why? It's a private business and any testimony that bountyhunter can provide I would think would be important. But, no, by way of motion and citing attorney/client privilege the Court doesn't allow it. I have a problem with that, and since it was by way of motion, and not just assumed, and no doubt that motion was rebutted by the prosecution, the prosecution was not able to bring some very important information.
The info they could have gotten from Padilla and his team, was that George lied about seeing Casey leave the next day before he went to work. Lee told Padilla directly that Casey left the night that Cindy choked her out after a big fight about stolen checks and money. Further, if this team could have testified, they could have neutralized the testimony of River Cruz who said George told her it was an accident that snowballed out of control. It was Padilla's right hand man (cause it was a 3 person team at that house), who told George outright something to effect of .... you know George, this may have been an accident that got out of hand. Telling this to a man who could not reconcile anything at this point, and a possibility was given to him. To discount the testimony of 3 ppl who were with the Anthonys at their home for weeks, and what all went on there is just a travesty. This is as close as they were going to come to eyewitnesses as to what went on over there ... and the prosecution was shut out. That said, I think the prosecution would have bumbled that too.
I didn't see Ashton's opening statement. All I heard from the talking heads was how masterful it was. I didn't see his closing statement ... I heard that was masterful too. I did see his shared rebuttal, however. I wasn't impressed, and when he laughed during Baez's rebuttal, I would have beat him over the head with a baseball bat. To have all the hard work that many entities put into this case, go this far, and pull a stunt like that ... there was absolutely no excuse for it, other than he is an arrogant ass, and that winning a high profile case was far more important to him than justice for Caylee. So make no mistake, I dislike Ashton ALMOST as much as I dislike Baez.
Max Cady .... YOU WERE MY LAWYER !!!!!
What in God's name are you talking about? What motion?
Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 03:05:16 PM
Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 01:56:44 PM
Regarding the making money off of cases for those directly involved in the case (in the courtroom), like Marcia Clark and Darden, and now Baez, jury, etc. ... there should be like a 5 year buffer from the time the case is over till the point they are allowed to benefit monitarily from writing a book, a TV show, or movie, or appearances of any kind. If you want to go and do it for nothing ... go ahead. But no monies should be paid to anyone for anything until a good time has passed. And this would extend to say maybe Casey doesn't write the book, or Baez, but they have someone else write it for them, or movie rights for the future (you can sign 5 years from now), or anything else. Bottomline, no monetary gain for whatever length of time.
Under what theory of law, and why, would you bar an attorney from making money off a case he/she worked on?
Funny how most people have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with imbeciles like Paris Hilton, the Jersey Shore crew, Kim Kardashian making boat loads of money for NO APPARENT REASON whatsoever, but you have a problem with a licensed attorney making money offf a case he worked his ass off on? Wonderful.
I don't give a rat's ass about theory of law. When Paris Hilton, Jersey Shore, and Kim Kardashian profit off the death of a child, then I will speak. Entertainment is loaded with ppl that make money for nothin on the MTV.
I've already explained my reasons and I'm sure you would feel differently if it was your kid that had been murdered, and you sit there and watch the murderer go free (say you in your mind was certain of their guilt), and both the alleged murderer and their attorney then proceed to make tons of money off your kid's death. Let me just observe you, if I may, under those circumstances. Oh, that wouldn't bother you at all, right. Cause you're Jackal. Your the just it's all about law man. The fact that it's your kid wouldn't even come into the equation right? You'd tune in yourself to see what they had to say, right? Forget about the Casey Anthony case. This could be any high profile case that media wants to get it's grubby hands on that involves the henious murder of anybody.
My guess is that if we went back in time and brought back all the high profile case to be tried in this day and age, that they would all get off.
speck - oh, you were under the bed? how could you see his face clearly if you were traumatized and under the bed ... sure it couldn't be someone who LOOKED like my client?
gacy - those bodies where there when he bought the house. Someone else was putting the bodies there and he had no knowledge of it. Ppl came in and out of that house and anyone of them could have had time to dispose of bodies there. Oh, he was trying to cut your air off during sex ... that is a sexual practice used by many today.
manson - he was convicted of murder and to my knowledge he physically himself never killed anyone (that we know of). They'd have a field day with that case. So do you listen to the ramblings of some guy on a street corner when he tells you to go and kill all the (fillin your own blank here)? No. You have your own free will. OH, he's a svengoolie? I see.
Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 03:06:59 PM
Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 01:33:14 PM
I can't even watch Ashton on TV cause I wanna smack him around, and it's just the system itself.
Somehow cause you hire a bountyhunter to bail out your client, this automatically means the bountyhunter is on YOUR side. Why? It's a private business and any testimony that bountyhunter can provide I would think would be important. But, no, by way of motion and citing attorney/client privilege the Court doesn't allow it. I have a problem with that, and since it was by way of motion, and not just assumed, and no doubt that motion was rebutted by the prosecution, the prosecution was not able to bring some very important information.
The info they could have gotten from Padilla and his team, was that George lied about seeing Casey leave the next day before he went to work. Lee told Padilla directly that Casey left the night that Cindy choked her out after a big fight about stolen checks and money. Further, if this team could have testified, they could have neutralized the testimony of River Cruz who said George told her it was an accident that snowballed out of control. It was Padilla's right hand man (cause it was a 3 person team at that house), who told George outright something to effect of .... you know George, this may have been an accident that got out of hand. Telling this to a man who could not reconcile anything at this point, and a possibility was given to him. To discount the testimony of 3 ppl who were with the Anthonys at their home for weeks, and what all went on there is just a travesty. This is as close as they were going to come to eyewitnesses as to what went on over there ... and the prosecution was shut out. That said, I think the prosecution would have bumbled that too.
I didn't see Ashton's opening statement. All I heard from the talking heads was how masterful it was. I didn't see his closing statement ... I heard that was masterful too. I did see his shared rebuttal, however. I wasn't impressed, and when he laughed during Baez's rebuttal, I would have beat him over the head with a baseball bat. To have all the hard work that many entities put into this case, go this far, and pull a stunt like that ... there was absolutely no excuse for it, other than he is an arrogant ass, and that winning a high profile case was far more important to him than justice for Caylee. So make no mistake, I dislike Ashton ALMOST as much as I dislike Baez.
Max Cady .... YOU WERE MY LAWYER !!!!!
What in God's name are you talking about? What motion?
A motion was brought by defense to keep out the testimony of bountyhunter and his team who spent 2 weeks living with the Anthonys, who heard and observed tons while there, reported same to authorities. Baez was successful in keeping all that out.
Where is your moral outrage over that little kid that got shot in Roseland the other night?
Why is this particular case so upsetting, when dozens of kids in the Chicagoland area are murdered every year?
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on July 08, 2011, 06:24:13 PM
Where is your moral outrage over that little kid that got shot in Roseland the other night?
Why is this particular case so upsetting, when dozens of kids in the Chicagoland area are murdered every year?
Because of the high profile of the case, OPS, she brings attention, is a poster child for ALL the children that are murdered. A case like this is EXACTLY what shines the light on murdered kids and gets ppl thinking about it. It's no more or less important than any other child murdered, but the others don't get the press ... this one did, therefore, it serves as a pointman to talk about it. Like the Amber Alert resulted from the disappearance of Amber Hagerman, we now will have laws created like the one they are proposing for not reporting a child missing out of the Anthony case. One dead child can carry a torch for the others that are not given the press this one has. Further, you talk like it was the public's idea to televise. Where is it shown that the public had authority to demand the trial be televised. It was HLN, a subsidary of CNN, that saw this was going to be GOLDEN, to coin Blago's familiar phrase. This is more GOLDEN than Obama's vacant senate seat as far as the press was concerned, and they will continue to milk it from here on out. Just like the media did with Blago. He was on CNN, he was on FOX, he was on The View. Stop blaming the public and put the blame where it lies ... on the media, cause they had the dollar signs flying all over in their dreams, and they were right. Even ppl who never knew about this case before got caught up in it.
So don't talk about my moral outrage. That outrage extends to any child murdered and there is no justice. We live in a society of throw away kids. Like you point out ... between parents themselves and the gangs ... kids are on the firing line, instead of growing up without a care in the world feeling loved and protected. That's what it has come to. Child porn and child sex slaves are epic. Whether you agree with outcome of Anthony trial or not, it puts the focus back on the kids and gets ppl motivated to come up with more protections to ensure the rights of these poor defenseless children.
Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 03:29:57 PM
A motion was brought by defense to keep out the testimony of bountyhunter and his team who spent 2 weeks living with the Anthonys, who heard and observed tons while there, reported same to authorities. Baez was successful in keeping all that out.
Why was that excluded? maybe the US Constitution?
What additional "protections" are you going to come up with that will stop drive by shootings and random bullets?
This is all a bunch of BS with the people getting so wound up about this kid.
What are you doing about this: http://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=385672
Are you doing any outreach? Or are you just showing your "outrage"?
Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 11:16:21 PM
Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 03:29:57 PM
A motion was brought by defense to keep out the testimony of bountyhunter and his team who spent 2 weeks living with the Anthonys, who heard and observed tons while there, reported same to authorities. Baez was successful in keeping all that out.
Why was that excluded? maybe the US Constitution?
Jesus Jackal, why do you bring something so irrelevant up??? You are supposed to be SCREAMING FOR BLOOD!
Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
I don't give a rat's ass about theory of law. When Paris Hilton, Jersey Shore, and Kim Kardashian profit off the death of a child, then I will speak. Entertainment is loaded with ppl that make money for nothin on the MTV.
You're going to bar someone from writing a book without any legal justification whatsoever?
QuoteI've already explained my reasons and I'm sure you would feel differently if it was your kid that had been murdered, and you sit there and watch the murderer go free (say you in your mind was certain of their guilt), and both the alleged murderer and their attorney then proceed to make tons of money off your kid's death.
I'd want to catch my child's murderer, but in THIS case, there was absolutely no evidence Casey Anthony even committed agg child abuse, much the less murder. Your blind outrage at the heinous nature of the crime also blinds you to the fact that 12 people unanimously felt there wasn't anywhere near enough evidence to convict Casey of ANY felony, much the less MURDER.
QuoteLet me just observe you, if I may, under those circumstances. Oh, that wouldn't bother you at all, right. Cause you're Jackal. Your the just it's all about law man. The fact that it's your kid wouldn't even come into the equation right? You'd tune in yourself to see what they had to say, right? Forget about the Casey Anthony case. This could be any high profile case that media wants to get it's grubby hands on that involves the henious murder of anybody.
Not sure what you're saying here, but if it were my kid, I'd want to catch the murderer or person responsible, not a Casey Anthony. Not sure what part of that you don't understand.
QuoteMy guess is that if we went back in time and brought back all the high profile case to be tried in this day and age, that they would all get off.
Your "guess" is based on what exactly? Care to count how many Cook County defendants have unjustly been sent to their deaths, or almost sent to their deaths?
Quotespeck - oh, you were under the bed? how could you see his face clearly if you were traumatized and under the bed ... sure it couldn't be someone who LOOKED like my client?
gacy - those bodies where there when he bought the house. Someone else was putting the bodies there and he had no knowledge of it. Ppl came in and out of that house and anyone of them could have had time to dispose of bodies there. Oh, he was trying to cut your air off during sex ... that is a sexual practice used by many today.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Outright idiocy of the highest nature. Not even worthy of a comment.
Quotemanson - he was convicted of murder and to my knowledge he physically himself never killed anyone (that we know of). They'd have a field day with that case. So do you listen to the ramblings of some guy on a street corner when he tells you to go and kill all the (fillin your own blank here)? No. You have your own free will. OH, he's a svengoolie? I see.
Accomplice liability, felony murder, take your pick, Manson would get convicted seven days a week and twice on Sunday.
Please, if you're entirely clueless about the law and legal principles, stick to something you DO know about, like Berwyn circa 1960.
Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 06:49:37 PM
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on July 08, 2011, 06:24:13 PM
Where is your moral outrage over that little kid that got shot in Roseland the other night?
Why is this particular case so upsetting, when dozens of kids in the Chicagoland area are murdered every year?
Because of the high profile of the case, OPS, she brings attention, is a poster child for ALL the children that are murdered. A case like this is EXACTLY what shines the light on murdered kids and gets ppl thinking about it. It's no more or less important than any other child murdered, but the others don't get the press ... this one did, therefore, it serves as a pointman to talk about it. Like the Amber Alert resulted from the disappearance of Amber Hagerman, we now will have laws created like the one they are proposing for not reporting a child missing out of the Anthony case. One dead child can carry a torch for the others that are not given the press this one has. Further, you talk like it was the public's idea to televise. Where is it shown that the public had authority to demand the trial be televised. It was HLN, a subsidary of CNN, that saw this was going to be GOLDEN, to coin Blago's familiar phrase. This is more GOLDEN than Obama's vacant senate seat as far as the press was concerned, and they will continue to milk it from here on out. Just like the media did with Blago. He was on CNN, he was on FOX, he was on The View. Stop blaming the public and put the blame where it lies ... on the media, cause they had the dollar signs flying all over in their dreams, and they were right. Even ppl who never knew about this case before got caught up in it.
So don't talk about my moral outrage. That outrage extends to any child murdered and there is no justice. We live in a society of throw away kids. Like you point out ... between parents themselves and the gangs ... kids are on the firing line, instead of growing up without a care in the world feeling loved and protected. That's what it has come to. Child porn and child sex slaves are epic. Whether you agree with outcome of Anthony trial or not, it puts the focus back on the kids and gets ppl motivated to come up with more protections to ensure the rights of these poor defenseless children.
So maybe the Orange County Prosecutor's office should have charged the person who DID IN FACT commit murder/manslaughter, or in the alternative, charge Anthony with an offense that they had a realistic chance of proving?
Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 11:28:28 PM
Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
I don't give a rat's ass about theory of law. When Paris Hilton, Jersey Shore, and Kim Kardashian profit off the death of a child, then I will speak. Entertainment is loaded with ppl that make money for nothin on the MTV.
You're going to bar someone from writing a book without any legal justification whatsoever?
QuoteI've already explained my reasons and I'm sure you would feel differently if it was your kid that had been murdered, and you sit there and watch the murderer go free (say you in your mind was certain of their guilt), and both the alleged murderer and their attorney then proceed to make tons of money off your kid's death.
I'd want to catch my child's murderer, but in THIS case, there was absolutely no evidence Casey Anthony even committed agg child abuse, much the less murder. Your blind outrage at the heinous nature of the crime also blinds you to the fact that 12 people unanimously felt there wasn't anywhere near enough evidence to convict Casey of ANY felony, much the less MURDER.
QuoteLet me just observe you, if I may, under those circumstances. Oh, that wouldn't bother you at all, right. Cause you're Jackal. Your the just it's all about law man. The fact that it's your kid wouldn't even come into the equation right? You'd tune in yourself to see what they had to say, right? Forget about the Casey Anthony case. This could be any high profile case that media wants to get it's grubby hands on that involves the henious murder of anybody.
Not sure what you're saying here, but if it were my kid, I'd want to catch the murderer or person responsible, not a Casey Anthony. Not sure what part of that you don't understand.
QuoteMy guess is that if we went back in time and brought back all the high profile case to be tried in this day and age, that they would all get off.
Your "guess" is based on what exactly? Care to count how many Cook County defendants have unjustly been sent to their deaths, or almost sent to their deaths?
Quotespeck - oh, you were under the bed? how could you see his face clearly if you were traumatized and under the bed ... sure it couldn't be someone who LOOKED like my client?
gacy - those bodies where there when he bought the house. Someone else was putting the bodies there and he had no knowledge of it. Ppl came in and out of that house and anyone of them could have had time to dispose of bodies there. Oh, he was trying to cut your air off during sex ... that is a sexual practice used by many today.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Outright idiocy of the highest nature. Not even worthy of a comment.
Quotemanson - he was convicted of murder and to my knowledge he physically himself never killed anyone (that we know of). They'd have a field day with that case. So do you listen to the ramblings of some guy on a street corner when he tells you to go and kill all the (fillin your own blank here)? No. You have your own free will. OH, he's a svengoolie? I see.
Accomplice liability, felony murder, take your pick, Manson would get convicted seven days a week and twice on Sunday.
Please, if you're entirely clueless about the law and legal principles, stick to something you DO know about, like Berwyn circa 1960.
Jackal you talk outta your ass. Tend to defending the boozers and dope heads. They NEED you. Leave the high profile cases to da big guys, who I suspect have never called you to weigh in on anything. You found your nitch. Fits you.
Quote from: OakParkSpartan on July 08, 2011, 11:18:50 PM
What additional "protections" are you going to come up with that will stop drive by shootings and random bullets?
This is all a bunch of BS with the people getting so wound up about this kid.
What are you doing about this: http://www.google.com/fusiontables/DataSource?dsrcid=385672
Are you doing any outreach? Or are you just showing your "outrage"?
Brian, in the case of the drive-bys, the only thing I can think of is that it is up to the community to work together to give whatever info they have to authorities. Instead a code of silence to protect the perps ... maybe a hotline so that the tips can come in without worry of retaliation. The gang related problems are much more complex. I don't have all the answers. What's the matter with you ppl? Do you hate kids? Do you have kids, Brian? If not, is that why you don't care? IDK. You don't have to have kids to be concerned about the welfare of defenseless little ones.
I started this thread on 5/24 with another post on 5/25. My next post wasn't until 6/10, followed by flurry of posts beginning 7/6 after the verdict. It's not like I was posting everyday from 5/24 all the way to the verdict.
geez, ppl ... it's all over the news and I guess we are just supposed to ignore it. Great. Now get back to talking about educating kids or the history of Berwyn, gay marriage and god, or what food to put in your gut. It was just a thread devoted to a very hot topic in the news. You don't care to post about it ... or discuss anything ... I don't really give a flying leap.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
figures...the meathead answer when all else fails.
Quote from: billyjean on July 09, 2011, 12:24:25 AM
Quote from: The Jackal on July 08, 2011, 11:28:28 PM
Quote from: billyjean on July 08, 2011, 03:26:45 PM
I don't give a rat's ass about theory of law. When Paris Hilton, Jersey Shore, and Kim Kardashian profit off the death of a child, then I will speak. Entertainment is loaded with ppl that make money for nothin on the MTV.
You're going to bar someone from writing a book without any legal justification whatsoever?
QuoteI've already explained my reasons and I'm sure you would feel differently if it was your kid that had been murdered, and you sit there and watch the murderer go free (say you in your mind was certain of their guilt), and both the alleged murderer and their attorney then proceed to make tons of money off your kid's death.
I'd want to catch my child's murderer, but in THIS case, there was absolutely no evidence Casey Anthony even committed agg child abuse, much the less murder. Your blind outrage at the heinous nature of the crime also blinds you to the fact that 12 people unanimously felt there wasn't anywhere near enough evidence to convict Casey of ANY felony, much the less MURDER.
QuoteLet me just observe you, if I may, under those circumstances. Oh, that wouldn't bother you at all, right. Cause you're Jackal. Your the just it's all about law man. The fact that it's your kid wouldn't even come into the equation right? You'd tune in yourself to see what they had to say, right? Forget about the Casey Anthony case. This could be any high profile case that media wants to get it's grubby hands on that involves the henious murder of anybody.
Not sure what you're saying here, but if it were my kid, I'd want to catch the murderer or person responsible, not a Casey Anthony. Not sure what part of that you don't understand.
QuoteMy guess is that if we went back in time and brought back all the high profile case to be tried in this day and age, that they would all get off.
Your "guess" is based on what exactly? Care to count how many Cook County defendants have unjustly been sent to their deaths, or almost sent to their deaths?
Quotespeck - oh, you were under the bed? how could you see his face clearly if you were traumatized and under the bed ... sure it couldn't be someone who LOOKED like my client?
gacy - those bodies where there when he bought the house. Someone else was putting the bodies there and he had no knowledge of it. Ppl came in and out of that house and anyone of them could have had time to dispose of bodies there. Oh, he was trying to cut your air off during sex ... that is a sexual practice used by many today.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Outright idiocy of the highest nature. Not even worthy of a comment.
Quotemanson - he was convicted of murder and to my knowledge he physically himself never killed anyone (that we know of). They'd have a field day with that case. So do you listen to the ramblings of some guy on a street corner when he tells you to go and kill all the (fillin your own blank here)? No. You have your own free will. OH, he's a svengoolie? I see.
Accomplice liability, felony murder, take your pick, Manson would get convicted seven days a week and twice on Sunday.
Please, if you're entirely clueless about the law and legal principles, stick to something you DO know about, like Berwyn circa 1960.
Jackal you talk outta your ass. Tend to defending the boozers and dope heads. They NEED you. Leave the high profile cases to da big guys, who I suspect have never called you to weigh in on anything. You found your nitch. Fits you.
LOL!!!!
Hey bj, send me a postcard from Bermuda when you cross examine your FIRST witness.
When all else fails and no arguments are left to be made, resort to a factually devoid personal attack...LOL.
I'm very comfortable with my niche (spelled with a che), professional reputation, and overall track record and ability.
As they say in our parts "those that can, do, those that can't, talk about it".
Have a nice day.
Quote from: billyjean on July 07, 2011, 07:40:23 PM
Quote from: mustang54 on July 07, 2011, 07:24:54 PM
What I enjoyed most is how all the legal experts on tv were so totally wrong about everything they said would happen. After the verdicts they were whining why her attorneys didn't ask for her release at that very time. They also said judges NEVER give jail time for the misdemeanors she was convicted of. DUH, wrong again guys. And apparently her own attorneys knew she would get time served and a little more because they did not ask for her immediate release. I'm no lawyer but by what little I do see of court cases I would never bet on a jury's decision or the ruling or sentencing of a judge. As shocked as I was about this verdict I gotta admit I was just as shocked when 11 woman and 1 guy convicted Blago on so many counts. I think I would rather gamble in a Casino these days than a courtroom.
The whole process because of attorney strategies and manuevers has turned the whole process into a crap shoot.
Attorney strategies? You mean like DNA evidence? The DNA evidence that ultimately cleared a Will County man of the death of his daughter after he spent nearly three years in jail? Are those the "strategies" you're speaking of?
You DO remember the Will County case, don't you? It wasn't that long ago. And THAT case had a "purported" confession. In other words, MORE evidence than what Florida brought against Anthony.