PDA

View Full Version : 2010.07.15 Defense motion to protect phone call of Robin Lunceford


Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

zoey
08-03-2010, 07:18 AM
Re: Baez, I feel the need to modify a quote from Hamlet here (I hope the bard doesn't mind!):

"The lawyer doth protest too much, methinks".

IMO, Baez has said something in this recording(s) that he wants to keep private. His legal arguments are weak and lack any substance. He got caught with his drawers down, and now wants protection from the bench. Ain't gonna happen. The jig is up. I continue to have great faith that HHJP will follow the letter of the law......which doesn't bode well for our protesting lawyer. As I am unfamiliar with the FLA Bar Association, I really have no idea what will happen in the long run. I DO know that here in my jurisdiction, lawyers genuinely expect their peers (from both sides of the bench) to maintain integrity and honesty in all matters. When one lawyer deliberately "plays dirty" and is dishonest, it makes ALL lawyers look bad! The profession receives enough flack as it is......so my DH and his state colleagues really want to maintain dignity and respect in their daily work. It is not unusual for lawyers to take notice of any "bad apples" and try and remedy the situation. This doesn't always mean disbarment. Many older, more experienced lawyers will mentor a "Greenhorn" for several years and will try and set a good example to follow.

Just my usual ramblings!! ~and JMO, MOO! :)

wouldn't some of this fall under heresay?? The only parts I'm thinking the SA would even want are the letters from Robin and ICA....the other comments well....

Steely Dan
08-03-2010, 07:40 AM
IIRC, there was a First Call to arrange for the Big Call, a sort of "pre-call" to make sure Jose would be available at 7:00.

But then I also have memory failure on a regular basis.

If I had a nickle for every time I forgot something, I'd have errr...ummm...pht...some money for something or other.

QB.
08-03-2010, 08:18 AM
In court, JB said there were TWO calls. The State of Florida says there were TWO calls. In Judge Perry's denial he says there were TWO calls. Obviously, there were TWO calls.

I doubt any of these so-called 'jailhouse confessions' from the inmates will ever make it to trial. So, my only question is: When do we get the doc dump? :angel: In reality, I know it takes time for the process to come to fruition. :cry:

I agree, there is no question there were 2 calls, the first one supposedly to arrange for the 2nd call from the inmate.
I'm wondering if there was a 3rd call no one knows about and wasn't recorded, as AZ speculates. The more I think about it the more I think its what happened because none of it makes any sense unless there was another call.

I think RHornsby is right when he says the credibility of the defense may have been knocked off of that tightrope, whether we have the right call or not.
Just my opinion.

LiveLaughLuv
08-03-2010, 08:29 AM
Is JB truly that ignorant? Did he not think His Honor would listen for himself after finding out it the call originated from a prison???

His Honor makes mention of, press 1 to accept call or 2 to decline call...Immediately thereafter, the call is accepted and counsel can be heard in the recording to answer.
Thus there is no reason for counsel to believe that his call would be exempted from this warning. To the contrary, counsels affirmative act of "pressing 1" to accept a call from an inmate in a correctional facility after being expressly warned that the calls were subject to monitoring and recording demonstrated his consent.

His honor also makes mention of RL advising JB the call was subject to recording...


SMACK DOWN 1000???? J/K...I don't know how many times JB has been smacked down thus far but....this must be the worst one yet! IMO, he just lost all credibility with His Honor, if he had any to begin with..I don't know how he doesn't feel embarassed or humiliated by his lack of understanding or knowledge of the law in which he chose for his profession, he is truly inept...JMHO




Justice for Caylee

Numbers
08-03-2010, 08:59 AM
If I had a nickle for every time I forgot something, I'd have errr...ummm...pht...some money for something or other.

I'm working on a Ferrari. I passed "candy bar" a looooooooooong time ago.

ThinkTank
08-03-2010, 09:46 AM
AZlawyer
Well, maybe JB thought they had a recording of the OTHER call--you know, the one that really was NOT recorded because RL circumvented the jail rules by calling from a contraband cell phone--the one in which JB DID say something he didn't want us all to hear...

To clarify, I have no inside knowledge lol. I'm just speculating that there may have been another (unrecorded) call based on: (1) JB's panicky reaction to the proposed release of his calls with RL, which seems odd if the calls were unremarkable, and (2) his strong suggestion in the motion that he thought RL had successfully made an unrecorded call to him.

I agree, there is no question there were 2 calls, the first one supposedly to arrange for the 2nd call from the inmate.
I'm wondering if there was a 3rd call no one knows about and wasn't recorded, as AZ speculates. The more I think about it the more I think its what happened because none of it makes any sense unless there was another call.

I think RHornsby is right when he says the credibility of the defense may have been knocked off of that tightrope, whether we have the right call or not.
Just my opinion.

The State says there were two calls from Inmate Robin L (recording says "Kathleen").
One call placed at 6:34pm and was answered by JB's legal assistant Michelle N. In this call, it is apparent that JB was expecting a call from an inmate. "Hallie" told the legal assistant Michelle that Inmate Robin was going to call.

Second call was placed at 7:01pm (after arrangements were made to contact Hallie and make sure calls are forwarded for another 15 minutes because the inmate will call again), and was answered by JB. He heard the warning and pressed "1" to continue the call.

In JB's Response to the State's Response .... JB says in para 2. that he told LDBurdick and the Court that the "other witness names" that were obtained may also have not come from the call but from other communications. Meaning, JB did have "other communications" with Inmate Robin L. or maybe had "other communications" with the EX-Inmate who set the 3-way/forwarded call up, which was not recorded as the EX-Inmate was not in a prison.

JB may be confused (scrambling to save his butt) as to what they have recorded (by the prison), and what was said on his phone communication with the EX-inmate friend of Inmate Robin L., which was not recorded. IMO

zoey
08-03-2010, 10:03 AM
Is JB truly that ignorant? Did he not think His Honor would listen for himself after finding out it the call originated from a prison???

His Honor makes mention of, press 1 to accept call or 2 to decline call...Immediately thereafter, the call is accepted and counsel can be heard in the recording to answer.
Thus there is no reason for counsel to believe that his call would be exempted from this warning. To the contrary, counsels affirmative act of "pressing 1" to accept a call from an inmate in a correctional facility after being expressly warned that the calls were subject to monitoring and recording demonstrated his consent.

His honor also makes mention of RL advising JB the call was subject to recording...


SMACK DOWN 1000???? J/K...I don't know how many times JB has been smacked down thus far but....this must be the worst one yet! IMO, he just lost all credibility with His Honor, if he had any to begin with..I don't know how he doesn't feel embarassed or humiliated by his lack of understanding or knowledge of the law in which he chose for his profession, he is truly inept...JMHO




Justice for Caylee

ironically he doesn't want his client talking to anyone other than himself for the same reason HHJP denied the claim....yes the irony is rich:dance:

ZsaZsa
08-03-2010, 12:21 PM
I bet Judge Strickland is chuckling over Baez' latest motion... :innocent:

logicalgirl
08-03-2010, 12:39 PM
I bet Judge Strickland is chuckling over Baez' latest motion... :innocent:

Chuckling? He's probably laughing so hard he fell off his rainbow!

AZlawyer
08-03-2010, 02:07 PM
I agree, there is no question there were 2 calls, the first one supposedly to arrange for the 2nd call from the inmate.
I'm wondering if there was a 3rd call no one knows about and wasn't recorded, as AZ speculates. The more I think about it the more I think its what happened because none of it makes any sense unless there was another call.

I think RHornsby is right when he says the credibility of the defense may have been knocked off of that tightrope, whether we have the right call or not.
Just my opinion.

AZlawyer
Well, maybe JB thought they had a recording of the OTHER call--you know, the one that really was NOT recorded because RL circumvented the jail rules by calling from a contraband cell phone--the one in which JB DID say something he didn't want us all to hear...

To clarify, I have no inside knowledge lol. I'm just speculating that there may have been another (unrecorded) call based on: (1) JB's panicky reaction to the proposed release of his calls with RL, which seems odd if the calls were unremarkable, and (2) his strong suggestion in the motion that he thought RL had successfully made an unrecorded call to him.

The State says there were two calls from Inmate Robin L (recording says "Kathleen").
One call placed at 6:34pm and was answered by JB's legal assistant Michelle N. In this call, it is apparent that JB was expecting a call from an inmate. "Hallie" told the legal assistant Michelle that Inmate Robin was going to call.

Second call was placed at 7:01pm (after arrangements were made to contact Hallie and make sure calls are forwarded for another 15 minutes because the inmate will call again), and was answered by JB. He heard the warning and pressed "1" to continue the call.

In JB's Response to the State's Response .... JB says in para 2. that he told LDBurdick and the Court that the "other witness names" that were obtained may also have not come from the call but from other communications. Meaning, JB did have "other communications" with Inmate Robin L. or maybe had "other communications" with the EX-Inmate who set the 3-way/forwarded call up, which was not recorded as the EX-Inmate was not in a prison.

JB may be confused (scrambling to save his butt) as to what they have recorded (by the prison), and what was said on his phone communication with the EX-inmate friend of Inmate Robin L., which was not recorded. IMO

Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my first post about this. I'm speculating that there was a THIRD call, which was NOT recorded because RL did, in fact, circumvent the recording in one of the several illegal ways suggested by JB in his motion. In this hypothetical third call, JB would not have heard any warning about recording, he would have made "work product" comments about the case (and probably also about his approval of illegal jail phone calls lol), and RL would have provided the names of other witnesses. In other words, the third call would have actually matched the description of the call(s) provided by JB in his motion.

Then JB gets the State's response, realizes that the tapes they have do not include the one he was worried about, and tries to backtrack on his description so they don't catch on....

Purple Iris
08-03-2010, 02:23 PM
If I had a nickle for every time I forgot something, I'd have errr...ummm...pht...some money for something or other.

Heck ! I'd be willing to pool my memory nickles wth ya, but, it appears that we would have a problem remembering what we wanted though ~!!

ThinkTank
08-03-2010, 02:38 PM
Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my first post about this. I'm speculating that there was a THIRD call, which was NOT recorded because RL did, in fact, circumvent the recording in one of the several illegal ways suggested by JB in his motion. In this hypothetical third call, JB would not have heard any warning about recording, he would have made "work product" comments about the case (and probably also about his approval of illegal jail phone calls lol), and RL would have provided the names of other witnesses. In other words, the third call would have actually matched the description of the call(s) provided by JB in his motion.

Then JB gets the State's response, realizes that the tapes they have do not include the one he was worried about, and tries to backtrack on his description so they don't catch on....

I absolutely agree with your conclusions.
JB himself stated in his Motion that there were "other communications".
JB does not, however, specify if the "other communications" were with Inmate Robin, or with Robin's friend, the EX-inmate "Hallie".

If Inmate Robin had used a "contraband cell phone" though, it would not have been recorded by the prison.
If Inmate Robin had used an attorney phone call - that may not have been recorded by the prison, or if a "counselor" had allowed Inmate Robin to place a call, that may not have been recorded.

From the description of the calls by LDB, it does not sound like Inmate Robin had spoken to JB before these 2 calls. I guess that Inmate Robin could have made more calls to JB AFTER these 2 calls though, using a method which was not intercepted by the prison.

There were definitely "other communications" -- and JB was definitely sweatin it ....

RR0004
08-03-2010, 03:05 PM
Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my first post about this. I'm speculating that there was a THIRD call, which was NOT recorded because RL did, in fact, circumvent the recording in one of the several illegal ways suggested by JB in his motion. In this hypothetical third call, JB would not have heard any warning about recording, he would have made "work product" comments about the case (and probably also about his approval of illegal jail phone calls lol), and RL would have provided the names of other witnesses. In other words, the third call would have actually matched the description of the call(s) provided by JB in his motion.

Then JB gets the State's response, realizes that the tapes they have do not include the one he was worried about, and tries to backtrack on his description so they don't catch on....
...and the third call may be the one illegal call that's still part of an ongoing investigation.

MADJGNLAW
08-03-2010, 03:17 PM
I absolutely agree with your conclusions.
JB himself stated in his Motion that there were "other communications".
JB does not, however, specify if the "other communications" were with Inmate Robin, or with Robin's friend, the EX-inmate "Hallie".

If Inmate Robin had used a "contraband cell phone" though, it would not have been recorded by the prison.
If Inmate Robin had used an attorney phone call - that may not have been recorded by the prison, or if a "counselor" had allowed Inmate Robin to place a call, that may not have been recorded.

From the description of the calls by LDB, it does not sound like Inmate Robin had spoken to JB before these 2 calls. I guess that Inmate Robin could have made more calls to JB AFTER these 2 calls though, using a method which was not intercepted by the prison.

There were definitely "other communications" -- and JB was definitely sweatin it ....

:waitasec:I know this is O/T but your post made me think about something. JB is allowed to take his computer into the jail. Is he allowed to take his cell phone?
Reason I ask is because IMO, Maybe Casey has been able to talk to her family through JB through his computer chat/Skye, and/or cell phone that way it would not be recorded. I just can't see Casey listening to anyone, as hungry as she is for attention, affection and me me me me time, she would of taken a visit here or there from her parents IMO.

I could even see the possibilty of JB doing this for other inmates...:cow:

faefrost
08-03-2010, 03:24 PM
Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my first post about this. I'm speculating that there was a THIRD call, which was NOT recorded because RL did, in fact, circumvent the recording in one of the several illegal ways suggested by JB in his motion. In this hypothetical third call, JB would not have heard any warning about recording, he would have made "work product" comments about the case (and probably also about his approval of illegal jail phone calls lol), and RL would have provided the names of other witnesses. In other words, the third call would have actually matched the description of the call(s) provided by JB in his motion.

Then JB gets the State's response, realizes that the tapes they have do not include the one he was worried about, and tries to backtrack on his description so they don't catch on....

I'm not so sure of this. I only see three ways for these questionable calls to occur from the prison, as JB noted;

- Call someone approved and have them 3 way the call to JB. The most likely candidate, as it is a technique she has used regularly. BUT the call would still be recorded by the prison. Simply JB would not have gotten the warning. The originator of the 3 way call would have gotten it. So in this case the tape would still be out there.

- Use an unrecorded line such as a councilors. A possibility, but since JB's number is now part of the public record from the call he received from her, well it's easy enough for someone to look through the PBX logs and see if or when that number was called from somewhere else. While probably not recorded at least there would be firm conclusive proof that such a call occurred.

- Contraband cell phone. The hardest to find or prove, but probably the least likely. The prison was obviously watching her for phone activity so they were keeping an eye out for her. Plus A LOT of jails and prisons now use cell phone jammers on site just to prevent this sort of thing. Does anyone know if this is the case here?

cyberborg
08-03-2010, 03:33 PM
:waitasec:I know this is O/T but your post made me think about something. JB is allowed to take his computer into the jail. Is he allowed to take his cell phone?
Reason I ask is because IMO, Maybe Casey has been able to talk to her family through JB through his computer chat/Skye, and/or cell phone that way it would not be recorded. I just can't see Casey listening to anyone, as hungry as she is for attention, affection and me me me me time, she would of taken a visit here or there from her parents IMO.

I could even see the possibilty of JB doing this for other inmates...:cow:

Given the propensity of JB and the A's to bend the rules at every opportunity and even allegedly pass notes and text messages in court -- I suspect that it is highly likely.

At a minimum JB is acting as a covert postal courrier between the A's and ICA if not using shared texts, email, 'attorney' calls, Skype, etc. They will take every opportunity ... because they can and .... it makes them feel good.

I would suspect there are 'official' communications both to divert suspicion and for public consumption and then secret communications, for example CA's testimony with JB about the 911 calls was well rehearsed and orchestrated and ICA seemed to have the approved script.

However ..... whether ICA wants to communicate in real-time is the question that makes me skeptical it is much of an issue, if any? ICA will allow folks to stroke her ego, as the poor 'victim' but there is nothing from ICA.

SA is focused on Justice for Caylee and these distractions may make JB and the A's feel good ..... it is trivial stuff in the grand scheme of where ICA is headed.

marspiter
08-03-2010, 04:28 PM
I'm not so sure of this. I only see three ways for these questionable calls to occur from the prison, as JB noted;

- Call someone approved and have them 3 way the call to JB. The most likely candidate, as it is a technique she has used regularly. BUT the call would still be recorded by the prison. Simply JB would not have gotten the warning. The originator of the 3 way call would have gotten it. So in this case the tape would still be out there.

- Use an unrecorded line such as a councilors. A possibility, but since JB's number is now part of the public record from the call he received from her, well it's easy enough for someone to look through the PBX logs and see if or when that number was called from somewhere else. While probably not recorded at least there would be firm conclusive proof that such a call occurred.

- Contraband cell phone. The hardest to find or prove, but probably the least likely. The prison was obviously watching her for phone activity so they were keeping an eye out for her. Plus A LOT of jails and prisons now use cell phone jammers on site just to prevent this sort of thing. Does anyone know if this is the case here?

(bold by me)

To my knowledge, by FCC guidelines it is illegal for prisons to jam cell phone signals. There is currently a bill HR 560 Safe Prisons Communication Act that has been passed by the senate. As of right now I don't believe it has been passed in the house. This bill will amend 1934 Communications/1996 Telcom act to allow prisons to jam communication signals. Now a prisons construction could cause cells signals to drop because of thick concrete and perhaps a faraday cage effect from the re-enforcement of the concrete. However by the FCC guidelines they can not "actively" jam the signals to my knowledge.

As it is currently written the prison could be fined by the FCC for jamming cell signals. That's not to say some prisons aren't trying it, and I'm not sure if the bill has been passed or not. Looking quickly online it still shows that it has not been passed by the house.

beach
08-03-2010, 04:43 PM
Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my first post about this. I'm speculating that there was a THIRD call, which was NOT recorded because RL did, in fact, circumvent the recording in one of the several illegal ways suggested by JB in his motion. In this hypothetical third call, JB would not have heard any warning about recording, he would have made "work product" comments about the case (and probably also about his approval of illegal jail phone calls lol), and RL would have provided the names of other witnesses. In other words, the third call would have actually matched the description of the call(s) provided by JB in his motion.

Then JB gets the State's response, realizes that the tapes they have do not include the one he was worried about, and tries to backtrack on his description so they don't catch on....

I totally agree with this. Nothing else makes sense. Baez was too nervous. Even his pleadings reflect it. He was very forthcoming and specific and the tone was sarcastic and desperate, IMO. I also noticed he filed his "Response to SA's Response" in record time...IIRC the same afternoon. There is some reason that he risked lying and alienating Judge Perry. Or maybe he didn't know he was - if, as speculated, he thought it was a different call, than the one turned over. Maybe the reason Baez was so nervous and adamant is because he has spoken with her several times and had NO CLUE which tape the SA had and what was on it. He seemed pretty desperate to get his hands on a copy of it. I think he was describing a different call than the one he anticipated the SA had and, eventually, Judge Perry actually listened to.


I'm not so sure of this. I only see three ways for these questionable calls to occur from the prison, as JB noted;

- Call someone approved and have them 3 way the call to JB. The most likely candidate, as it is a technique she has used regularly. BUT the call would still be recorded by the prison. Simply JB would not have gotten the warning. The originator of the 3 way call would have gotten it. So in this case the tape would still be out there.

--repsectfully snipped

And this is how I think it happened.


I am trying to recall exactly why RL's calls were being investigated in the first place. I *thought* it was something to do with her circumventing the recordings by using a 3rd party to initiate 3-way calls, therefore bypassing the prison recording system. As a part of the investigation, it was my understanding that the prison system wiretapped every call of RL's (unbeknownst to her or the other 2 recipients) to gather evidence in re. her abusing phone privileges. I'm not sure in re. the where & when Baez enters the picture, but he obviously got exposed during the course of the investigation.

eta: IF that is how it happened, there may or may not be other tapes. If Baez had been communicating successfully with her before the investigation ensued, there would be no tape. However, Baez would have no way of knowing that, so he would still be in the dark if he was concerned about which call the SA had. IOW, he would still have reason to be curious and nervous.

faefrost
08-03-2010, 06:09 PM
(bold by me)

To my knowledge, by FCC guidelines it is illegal for prisons to jam cell phone signals. There is currently a bill HR 560 Safe Prisons Communication Act that has been passed by the senate. As of right now I don't believe it has been passed in the house. This bill will amend 1934 Communications/1996 Telcom act to allow prisons to jam communication signals. Now a prisons construction could cause cells signals to drop because of thick concrete and perhaps a faraday cage effect from the re-enforcement of the concrete. However by the FCC guidelines they can not "actively" jam the signals to my knowledge.

As it is currently written the prison could be fined by the FCC for jamming cell signals. That's not to say some prisons aren't trying it, and I'm not sure if the bill has been passed or not. Looking quickly online it still shows that it has not been passed by the house.

It's possible, although if it is the case a lot of counties either do not know it or are choosing to ignore it. I know of at least 2 facilities in Louisiana that have the jammers installed and operational.

marspiter
08-03-2010, 07:03 PM
It's possible, although if it is the case a lot of counties either do not know it or are choosing to ignore it. I know of at least 2 facilities in Louisiana that have the jammers installed and operational.

Oh yeah it's certainly possible to do it. There are actually a couple of school systems that have tried it as well to stop kids from texting during class. The facilities may not know what the FCC's regulations are and I doubt the FCC is actively involved in enforcing the guideline to be honest (that and who's gonna report them?). However the guideline is there and the facilities as of now could be fined.

Here is the amendment:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-251

It's referred to S. 251 in the Senate and HR 560 in the House.

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 07:32 PM
I LOVED Perry's zinger to Baez on page 2 of this order. Perry said something like "the Court is confident that defense counsel is by now familiar with Florida's Public Records Act...see previous order denying motion to seal jail visitation logs".

Oh, SNAP!!!!!!

Translation: stop this nonsense, Mr. Bahyez!

I like the part where it says "Emphasis added" LOL. That part killed me. ZING!

I'm glad the Court is confident Baez is by now familiar with Florida's Public Records Act, ..I on the other hand am not so confident, :twocents:

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 07:33 PM
Here is the order denying the motion for protective order:

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/24477717/detail.html

What a wonderfully worded Order, thank you Judge Perry :gavel:

Tsk :tsktsk: Tsk :tsktsk: Baez

Gypsy Road
08-03-2010, 07:55 PM
I'm glad the Court is confident Baez is by now familiar with Florida's Public Records Act, ..I on the other hand am not so confident, :twocents:

I am confident that JB just likes to play "dumb". I take that back, maybe he isn't "playing" at all.

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 07:56 PM
Even JP says in the order that JB doesn't give opinion etc. so why did JB fight to seal this?
There is no indication that he even said anything embarrassing.

BBM
I'd like to know the REAL reason for this as well.

The more I read Baez's motion the more I was lead to believe that this motion was all about protecting himself, but from what?

Baez worked at lightning speed on writing and filing the motion even before the SA had the tape in her hand and then the lightning speed response to the SA's response.

IMO Baez needed to keep "a taped phone call" sealed and away from the SA, I am not so sure it was this call though, I could be wrong...but something still does not seem right.
:twocents:.

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 08:00 PM
I am interested in what in the world too, Mrs. Drane-Burdick made no mention of his assertion that the two of them had talked about going to the prison to depose this prisoner.
My husband and I can talk about his mother moving in. That sure doesn't mean it is going to happen. Indeed I am sure she has had to sit through quite a bit of talks of nonsense with Jose, and try not to laugh aloud. Wow!

I wonder why Jose doesn't understand the reason the prosecutor doesn't "Take a position" on this phone call being released is the same reason now it has been for the two years the case is going on. THE ADA has literally stood in court and said, "We don't have a dog in this fight", whether things get released to the public/press is by Florida statute not something the DA's office has discretion over. She has said we don't want to release things to the public, we are required to do so, by law. So very often he has used words like the State released or leaked things to the media, as if Jeff and Linda being shady or doing something outside of the rules. 10385

He just never learns. Having seen her in action for two years, he should have known she is very thorough, if she adds something to her motion , one can safely assume she has heard it for herself. She has been doing this for twenty years, she isn't going to argue the facts first and check them second, as the defense does. So, hello...Come in Tokyo....Jose don't make such asenine statements that she is "Outrageous" when by your own admission YOU haven't heard the comprehensive recording. Good grief.
I like the way the judge is cutting down the dog and pony show and ruling without the unnecessary theatrics. He is all about moving this ball down the court.:dance::dance: If this would have went to hearing, Mrs. Drane Burdick would have mopped the floor with this nonsense. She has very very professional manners, we can read between the lines of what she and the judge think Baez is playing dumb and not being honest! Unless his goal is to get removed from this case...this little stunt was just plain dumb! MOO

:clap:
BBM
I think that sums it up..
Yet the Court, in this Order, is confident that Baez is familiar, if not knowledgeable, of Florida's Records Act.
But we shall see in due time what other motions Baez files because he is unfamiliar with Florida Law.
:twocents:

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 08:12 PM
Love that the order of enumeration goes not from "first" to "second" to "third," but from "First," to "Moreover," to "Furthermore." It's the linguistic details that make it so delicious.

Yes, yes, so true. One thing is for sure JP's Order's have coherence.

A "therefore" or "and Finally" would have been the icing on the cake for me in this Order. :twocents:

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 08:14 PM
SNAP!!!! is exactly right. :slap:



Very well stated, faefrost. :)

JB best heed the tone of this Order because it is very, very clear to me and totally explains that incredulous look when HHJP raised his eyebrows and cocked his head when he was advised by LDB that the prison had recorded this call. JB is doing himself nor his client any favors by PO'ing the Judge like this.

To put the ridiculous nature of JB's motion into perspective, the portions that Judge Perry bolded and italicized are the most BASIC rules of FRCP (Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure). It was akin to saying, "Don't even play this silly game and waste my time like this you fool!" In an intro paralegal course, these are some of the very first things you learn in re. work product and attorney-client privilege. As a paralegal, I am bound by the same rules since I am "staff" and have knowledge of confidential material and strategy. I have no doubt that as dumb as JB plays, even he KNEW this, as Judge Perry opined in his Order. Trust me, there is no way he could have passed any bar exam w/o knowing and understanding these basic rules.

What is lost on me is why JB even tried to stop the release. If it is really RL ranting on and on and JB didn't say anything embarrassing, why care? If he was going to lie about it, he should have just said, "Yeah, I took the call. I had no idea what the inmate wanted....I thought maybe she was looking to hire me. Of course, as I listened to the call, I discovered otherwise."

BBM
I agree. why care? why try so hard and work so quick to seal the phone call? He has not worked that quick for the TES Searcher info, the info he so desperately wanted.

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 08:20 PM
Well, maybe JB thought they had a recording of the OTHER call--you know, the one that really was NOT recorded because RL circumvented the jail rules by calling from a contraband cell phone--the one in which JB DID say something he didn't want us all to hear... :waitasec:

To clarify, I have no inside knowledge lol. I'm just speculating that there may have been another (unrecorded) call based on: (1) JB's panicky reaction to the proposed release of his calls with RL, which seems odd if the calls were unremarkable, and (2) his strong suggestion in the motion that he thought RL had successfully made an unrecorded call to him.

AZ, I like your speculation..

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 08:21 PM
ITA agree, AZ. I really, really just don't get JB's reaction to this. Outright lying in a pleading???

There is something else to this. There has to be. Even JB isn't that crazy.

I agree Beach.

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 08:26 PM
Rude to quote myself , but added for clarity.

There is one before this in this thread that makes it clear- more than one call !! Still looking.

IIRC there was a First call to notify Baez (and (IMO) inturn he notified his staff how to proceed when that call came in) that a call was coming from (insert name) they used another first name for Lunceford.
I believe it's detailed in the State's Reponse.

EDIT
Here is the link to the SA's response
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/24408283/detail.html
Page.2
The first call came in at 6:34pm and was answered by Baez's legal assistant.
The name Kathleen was used as the inmate calling from a Florida Correctional Institute and that it was apparent that the Baez Law Firm was expecting this call because the Assistant said "Hallie" told them she would be calling.
Then it was arranged that the caller would call back and Baez's assistant would contact "Hallie" to make sure the calls would be forwarded for another 15 mins and that the caller would call back at 7pm and did so at 7:01pm

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 08:31 PM
IIRC, there was a First Call to arrange for the Big Call, a sort of "pre-call" to make sure Jose would be available at 7:00.

But then I also have memory failure on a regular basis.

Yes, that is how I remember it after reading the SA's response.

Intermezzo
08-03-2010, 08:45 PM
Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my first post about this. I'm speculating that there was a THIRD call, which was NOT recorded because RL did, in fact, circumvent the recording in one of the several illegal ways suggested by JB in his motion. In this hypothetical third call, JB would not have heard any warning about recording, he would have made "work product" comments about the case (and probably also about his approval of illegal jail phone calls lol), and RL would have provided the names of other witnesses. In other words, the third call would have actually matched the description of the call(s) provided by JB in his motion.

Then JB gets the State's response, realizes that the tapes they have do not include the one he was worried about, and tries to backtrack on his description so they don't catch on....

I absolutely agree with your conclusions.
JB himself stated in his Motion that there were "other communications".
JB does not, however, specify if the "other communications" were with Inmate Robin, or with Robin's friend, the EX-inmate "Hallie".

If Inmate Robin had used a "contraband cell phone" though, it would not have been recorded by the prison.
If Inmate Robin had used an attorney phone call - that may not have been recorded by the prison, or if a "counselor" had allowed Inmate Robin to place a call, that may not have been recorded.

From the description of the calls by LDB, it does not sound like Inmate Robin had spoken to JB before these 2 calls. I guess that Inmate Robin could have made more calls to JB AFTER these 2 calls though, using a method which was not intercepted by the prison.

There were definitely "other communications" -- and JB was definitely sweatin it ....

BMM 1 and 2
I agree, I agree.

Cat13067
08-03-2010, 09:02 PM
So, JB has been caught red handed lying in a court document... and the judge has listened to the recording of Baez answering the second call himself. What can happen to him because of that besides the call being made a public record? Is it something that can be put in a complaint to the Bar and is anyone required to report it? I can't wait to read HHJP's order on this. :Jumpie:

He will just be a little red in the face for pretending to act even dumber than he has proven to be in the past. The testimony from RL on the tape is just put out there to impeach MD's testimony. The written evidence from KC to RA is a different matter, because it is in KC's handwriting. I think RA will testify at the hearing, but i wouldn't put any wieght on those letters.

I am getting a kick out of CM slowly creating a distance between himself, and JB. CM is a well respected attorney who must be sorry he ever got involved with this case.

Cat13067
08-03-2010, 09:10 PM
http://www.wftv.com/news/24477811/detail.html

Love when HHJP denies yet another defense motion. DO you think they get it yet?

nort
08-03-2010, 09:26 PM
Without Baez bringing this up would we have known about it? I was thinking that since the state probably is not going to use the inmates information because of credibility and that they just dont need to, maybe this was his only way to have it out there that he has information that MD was lying. Kind of fighting the incriminating statements outside the courtroom...MOO

beach
08-03-2010, 10:49 PM
Without Baez bringing this up would we have known about it? I was thinking that since the state probably is not going to use the inmates information because of credibility and that they just dont need to, maybe this was his only way to have it out there that he has information that MD was lying. Kind of fighting the incriminating statements outside the courtroom...MOO

I could agree except it was the SA that actually brought it up by saying they had been made aware of it and planned on releasing it. That was when Baez went overboard trying to fight the release.

That was kinda my point a few pages back when I said I can't understand his reaction. If all the tape has on it is RL ranting and going on about other witnesses that can discredit Maya Derkovic's story, I would think he would be happy to have it released (for the same reasons you infer). That is why it makes no sense to me. It was free jury pool tainting w/o Baez even having to lift a finger.

I agree that the SA doesn't need these inmate's statements.

faefrost
08-03-2010, 11:41 PM
I could agree except it was the SA that actually brought it up by saying they had been made aware of it and planned on releasing it. That was when Baez went overboard trying to fight the release.

That was kinda my point a few pages back when I said I can't understand his reaction. If all the tape has on it is RL ranting and going on about other witnesses that can discredit Maya Derkovic's story, I would think he would be happy to have it released (for the same reasons you infer). That is why it makes no sense to me. It was free jury pool tainting w/o Baez even having to lift a finger.

I agree that the SA doesn't need these inmate's statements.

More and more I am thinking that it isn't any brilliant or even lousy legal strategy. It is simply a sign that JB is in way way over his head. Have any of you ever worked under a boss or manager that somehow found themselves in something deeply over their head? The way that someone who finds themselves adrift will start grasping onto seemingly minor pointless tasks, because they are within their capacity or understanding, to the detriment of the entirety of the job or project? I am really starting to think that that is what we are seeing here.

JB really has no idea how to proceed from here in a capital case. None. He does not know where to even begin to look to research. His unpaid dream team DP experts have either left r simply wandered off to their own cases leaving him to handle the day to day stuff, and he doesn't know what to do. So when he does have something float his way, that he has even the faintest grasp of, he latches onto it and pours his effort into it pointlessly, fruitlessly and stupidly. I am really not thinking that this call or calls was anything incriminating against JB. I don't think that it is even anything of any interest to anyone including JB. I think that it simply became the busywork task of the day for JB,a nd one that he could focus on other than the overwhelming body of capital case law which it is doubtful that he even knows how to begin a LexisNexis search on. It was something that was referencing him personally, it was something that he thought he knew some case law regarding (having been handed what little info he had by the SA in previous unsuccessful motions and rulings, see rulings on jail/prison privacy and the sealing of an earlier illegally recorded tape) and so it became what he obsessed over, unloading what few guns he had.

As I said, Pointless, fruitless and stupid. I am truly starting to think there is no deeper underlying reason for all of this.

Mrs G Norris
08-04-2010, 12:05 AM
.....I could not agree with you more!

beach
08-04-2010, 12:21 AM
More and more I am thinking that it isn't any brilliant or even lousy legal strategy. It is simply a sign that JB is in way way over his head. Have any of you ever worked under a boss or manager that somehow found themselves in something deeply over their head? The way that someone who finds themselves adrift will start grasping onto seemingly minor pointless tasks, because they are within their capacity or understanding, to the detriment of the entirety of the job or project? I am really starting to think that that is what we are seeing here.

BBM Oh yeah, I've worked for those and with them. ;) I know what you're talking about.

As I said, Pointless, fruitless and stupid. I am truly starting to think there is no deeper underlying reason for all of this.

You might be spot on, faefrost. Baez's reaction does baffle me. This reminds me of how I felt when I tried to make sense of CM's crazy presser after the 6/21 hearing. Bottom line, it didn't make sense.

Soju
08-04-2010, 01:50 AM
Whole post.

:gold_crown:

logicalgirl
08-04-2010, 05:00 PM
More and more I am thinking that it isn't any brilliant or even lousy legal strategy. It is simply a sign that JB is in way way over his head. Have any of you ever worked under a boss or manager that somehow found themselves in something deeply over their head? The way that someone who finds themselves adrift will start grasping onto seemingly minor pointless tasks, because they are within their capacity or understanding, to the detriment of the entirety of the job or project? I am really starting to think that that is what we are seeing here.

JB really has no idea how to proceed from here in a capital case. None. He does not know where to even begin to look to research. His unpaid dream team DP experts have either left r simply wandered off to their own cases leaving him to handle the day to day stuff, and he doesn't know what to do. So when he does have something float his way, that he has even the faintest grasp of, he latches onto it and pours his effort into it pointlessly, fruitlessly and stupidly. I am really not thinking that this call or calls was anything incriminating against JB. I don't think that it is even anything of any interest to anyone including JB. I think that it simply became the busywork task of the day for JB,a nd one that he could focus on other than the overwhelming body of capital case law which it is doubtful that he even knows how to begin a LexisNexis search on. It was something that was referencing him personally, it was something that he thought he knew some case law regarding (having been handed what little info he had by the SA in previous unsuccessful motions and rulings, see rulings on jail/prison privacy and the sealing of an earlier illegally recorded tape) and so it became what he obsessed over, unloading what few guns he had.

As I said, Pointless, fruitless and stupid. I am truly starting to think there is no deeper underlying reason for all of this.

Flawless on point statement FaeFrost! Thank you for that light bulb moment. So from someone who thinks in pictures - what ICA thought she was getting was an eagle, and what she actually got was a bumblebee.

Steely Dan
08-04-2010, 06:04 PM
Flawless on point statement FaeFrost! Thank you for that light bulb moment. So from someone who thinks in pictures - what ICA thought she was getting was an eagle, and what she actually got was a bumblebee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMcTMTzSQiE&feature=related

Horace Finklestein
08-04-2010, 06:11 PM
More and more I am thinking that it isn't any brilliant or even lousy legal strategy. It is simply a sign that JB is in way way over his head. Have any of you ever worked under a boss or manager that somehow found themselves in something deeply over their head? The way that someone who finds themselves adrift will start grasping onto seemingly minor pointless tasks, because they are within their capacity or understanding, to the detriment of the entirety of the job or project? I am really starting to think that that is what we are seeing here.

JB really has no idea how to proceed from here in a capital case. None. He does not know where to even begin to look to research. His unpaid dream team DP experts have either left r simply wandered off to their own cases leaving him to handle the day to day stuff, and he doesn't know what to do. So when he does have something float his way, that he has even the faintest grasp of, he latches onto it and pours his effort into it pointlessly, fruitlessly and stupidly. I am really not thinking that this call or calls was anything incriminating against JB. I don't think that it is even anything of any interest to anyone including JB. I think that it simply became the busywork task of the day for JB,a nd one that he could focus on other than the overwhelming body of capital case law which it is doubtful that he even knows how to begin a LexisNexis search on. It was something that was referencing him personally, it was something that he thought he knew some case law regarding (having been handed what little info he had by the SA in previous unsuccessful motions and rulings, see rulings on jail/prison privacy and the sealing of an earlier illegally recorded tape) and so it became what he obsessed over, unloading what few guns he had.

As I said, Pointless, fruitless and stupid. I am truly starting to think there is no deeper underlying reason for all of this.

That's what I've thought but couldn't quite articulate. I definitely see that dynamic at play here. He loses the big battles, but for some reason he needs a victory or needs to do something that makes sense so badly, he'll try his luck in little meaningless skirmishes.

The language in his 2nd motion about the Lunceford call was just bizarre - claiming the prosecution is confused, etc. He needs "revenge" or something so he shoots back his little retort...As if any rational person would objectively think that. This is delusion imo.

logicalgirl
08-04-2010, 06:14 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMcTMTzSQiE&feature=related


LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL!!!! But can you find one not quite so cute, otherwise I will change it to a BADGER!

SondraK
08-04-2010, 07:52 PM
If one Googles "Peter Principle" the definition is Jose Baez. He has definately risen to the level of his incompetence.

Praying for you Jose!!!!!! You are going to take a beating

LambChop
08-04-2010, 08:53 PM
What I do not understand is that if there was a first call and an arrangement for a second call at a specific time why did the call go from the office to the secretaries cell phone number then to JB's cell phone. Was that deliberate so he could claim he did not hear the recording? JB knows he is getting this call why not just return to the office or have the call directly forwarded to him from his office. Why go through the secretary who is probably fixing her family's meal by then? Something about this does not appear to be on the up-and-up. jmo

Intermezzo
08-04-2010, 09:03 PM
What I do not understand is that if there was a first call and an arrangement for a second call at a specific time why did the call go from the office to the secretaries cell phone number then to JB's cell phone. Was that deliberate so he could claim he did not hear the recording? JB knows he is getting this call why not just return to the office or have the call directly forwarded to him from his office. Why go through the secretary who is probably fixing her family's meal by then? Something about this does not appear to be on the up-and-up. jmo

I agree Lambchop
Baez's law firs was expecting the first call from Lunceford(the assistant is heard on the taped saying "Hallie" told them she would be calling) and after the first call they arranged for the 2nd call 15 mins later.

IMO. How the calls from Lunceford were going to handled was already planned by Baez and his team. She just didn't happen to call Baez out of the blue that day.
:twocents:

faefrost
08-04-2010, 10:27 PM
What I do not understand is that if there was a first call and an arrangement for a second call at a specific time why did the call go from the office to the secretaries cell phone number then to JB's cell phone. Was that deliberate so he could claim he did not hear the recording? JB knows he is getting this call why not just return to the office or have the call directly forwarded to him from his office. Why go through the secretary who is probably fixing her family's meal by then? Something about this does not appear to be on the up-and-up. jmo

Actually it isn't to uncommon. The office phome was probably set to autoforward to the secretaries phone. Not an uncommon setting or setup for todays small offices. She answered the call, heard who it was and passed it over to JB like she normally would. Modern cell phones and office phone systems are very capable of this, and as I said it is not an uncommon setup these days.

But do we know for certain that that second call bounced through the secretary? From the judges order it sounds like it either went directly to JB's phone, or she forwarded it before anyone accepted the jailhouse call.

Purple Iris
08-04-2010, 11:30 PM
Does anyone think that we will witness Jose Baez have a nervous breakdown before this thing gets off the ground and into the court room.....

He is scrambling his eggs and is so far gone, IMO.
In his "interview" last week, after it was announced about him loosing his home, he was just completly whack.
He was wound tighter than a yo-yo, and his first comments was asking where Kathi B was, then, making those schoolyard name attacks on the manager of the station, ect.

I really think that he was disappointed that Kathi B wasn't there.
He was loaded for her, IMO.

Oh well.......wonder if we will see him under a Baker Act, on his own, or, otherwise.

Steely Dan
08-05-2010, 03:57 AM
LOL-LOL-LOL-LOL!!!! But can you find one not quite so cute, otherwise I will change it to a BADGER!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG8_9k-fcp8

zoey
08-05-2010, 07:31 AM
He will just be a little red in the face for pretending to act even dumber than he has proven to be in the past. The testimony from RL on the tape is just put out there to impeach MD's testimony. The written evidence from KC to RA is a different matter, because it is in KC's handwriting. I think RA will testify at the hearing, but i wouldn't put any wieght on those letters.

I am getting a kick out of CM slowly creating a distance between himself, and JB. CM is a well respected attorney who must be sorry he ever got involved with this case.

Do tend to disagree with CM --- HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS GETTING INTO---after all he was one of those pesky "talking heads"
for a bit....HE KNEW :twocents:

Also does anyone else see the irony that jb knows about the illegal phones at the jail and such YET fails on was is LEGAL????? For someone always searching for the "truth", makes one wonder.....:waitasec: Also find it interesting that in most of his arguements he either uses "work product" or "atty something or another"---just because you represent someone doesn't mean you get the same privledge with everyone....:banghead:

LambChop
08-05-2010, 08:01 AM
Do tend to disagree with CM --- HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS GETTING INTO---after all he was one of those pesky "talking heads"
for a bit....HE KNEW :twocents:

Also does anyone else see the irony that jb knows about the illegal phones at the jail and such YET fails on was is LEGAL????? For someone always searching for the "truth", makes one wonder.....:waitasec: Also find it interesting that in most of his arguements he either uses "work product" or "atty something or another"---just because you represent someone doesn't mean you get the same privledge with everyone....:banghead:

That's "attorney/client priviledge". In the "World According to JB" that means I'm talking about my client....it should be priviledged.....and that would be because she is special, of course. jmo

LiveLaughLuv
08-05-2010, 08:27 AM
Controversial Tape Turned Over To Casey Defense
State Gives Defense Recorded Phone Conversation Between Baez, Inmate
POSTED: 4:20 pm EDT August 4, 2010
UPDATED: 5:49 pm EDT August 4, 2010

State Gives Defense Recorded Phone Conversation Between Baez, Inmate
POSTED: 4:20 pm EDT August 4, 2010
UPDATED: 5:49 pm EDT August 4, 2010
Email Print
Comments (0)ORLANDO, Fla. -- Prosecutors turned over a controversial tape, a recorded phone conversation between Casey Anthony defense attorney Jose Baez and a prison inmate, to Anthony's defense team on Wednesday.




WESH 2 News recently reported that Baez asked the judge to prevent prosecutors from releasing an audiotape of Baez speaking on the phone to a department of corrections inmate.

Judge Belvin Perry denied the defense's motion.

The inmate, Robin Lunceford, is a reported career criminal serving life in prison and has 27 aliases according to her listing at the Orange County Department of Corrections.

In court papers, Baez claimed Lunceford called him two months ago and claimed she conspired with two other inmates to plant false stories about Anthony.

Defense attorney Richard Hornsby said all of the inmates who have come forward to offer information lack credibility.

"I'm willing to bet the state is not going to rely on these jailhouse snitches in the first place," Hornsby said.

more
http://www.wesh.com/news/24515043/detail.html


from the link above:

Besides the tape, prosecutors turned over eighteen pages of documents including two pages of unknown information from Roy Kronk. Counting this latest disclosure, there are now 22691 pages of evidence and information in this case.

Purple Iris
08-05-2010, 01:46 PM
Makes me wonder if our little inmate that resides in Orange County has her very own invisable, contraband, bat phone............. as someone earlier mentioned, JB sure knows ALOT about this type of communication.....

nums24
08-05-2010, 02:00 PM
Besides the tape, prosecutors turned over eighteen pages of documents including two pages of unknown information from Roy Kronk. Counting this latest disclosure, there are now 22691 pages of evidence and information in this case.


I wonder if these are the missing discovery pages from the June doc dump:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - List of Motions **List Only No Discussion**

Provision of Discovery filed 06/22/2010
Pages 14775 - 18372
Pages 18373 - 20140

NOTE: Please note that pages 15760-15779 do not exist. These numbers were inadvertently skipped when numbering supplemental discovery.
__________________

nums24
08-09-2010, 05:34 PM
Baez's Jail Conversation With Inmate Released


READ TRANSCRIPT: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/24568689/detail.html

logicalgirl
08-09-2010, 05:47 PM
How about you starting a new thread for these conversations Nums24?

nums24
08-09-2010, 05:55 PM
Thread to discuss the contents of the transcribed calls here:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2010.08.09 Transcript of Jose Baez & Robin Lunceford Released

zoey
08-09-2010, 06:38 PM
Makes me wonder if our little inmate that resides in Orange County has her very own invisable, contraband, bat phone............. as someone earlier mentioned, JB sure knows ALOT about this type of communication.....

& oddly enough...not RULES THAT APPLY TO EVERYONE---:banghead: