Tony Padilla Q&A

[Elphaba]

Given that Tracy is part of the Padilla group and this issue surrounding them is approached as a group: I ponder if Leonard's love for making stuff up to get on tv about the case, could cause a credibility issue with anything she, or anyone else associated with LP's handling of the case, says on the stand (if they are put on the stand).

That was something I had wanted to ask Tony: if he thinks LP's love of making things up could come back to bite the whole group on the tail, when it comes to being considered credible, if any of them are put on the stand.

 

[Brini]

[bold mine]

True ... this could turn out to be a perpetual reality series!

I hear the networks may cancall all the soaps, when the trial starts.

It will be called, "As the Stomach Turns."

 

[Bree0372]

Ok, I admit I don't know much about legal paperwork, but I do find it odd that 2 almost identical statements with 2 notary seals would be on the same exact page. Yes, it does look like a copy/paste thing... and I find it even more odd that a lawyer would show up at a very important court hearing without the original. I mean seriously, this is a capital murder case... Baez is either half-a$$ing it by not bringing the original, or copy/pasted it and was hoping to get away with it. Or both...

(respectfully snipped)

I'm telling yall, watch: Baez's incompetence is going to drag this case out for years. Watch... just watch...

BBM: Last week my husband and I had to sign a legal document. On the same page, the exact statement was printed twice with a signature line below each statement - top statement for my husband and bottom statement for myself. The notary witnessed each signature and stamped by each signature. (Two statements and two notary stamps on the same page.)

Well, if he continues to drag the case out, at least KC will be in jail. I just don't understand if they have evidence to prove her innocence , then why is she still sitting in jail? :waitasec:

 

[LambChop]

Given that Tracy is part of the Padilla group and this issue surrounding them is approached as a group: I ponder if Leonard's love for making stuff up to get on tv about the case, could cause a credibility issue with anything she, or anyone else associated with LP's handling of the case, says on the stand (if they are put on the stand).

That was something I had wanted to ask Tony: if he thinks LP's love of making things up could come back to bite the whole group on the tail, when it comes to being considered credible, if any of them are put on the stand.

I think much of what LP said was speculation and was presented as such. Such as "you will be surprised a how such and such will play out in this matter." "Wait and see the dumpster will play an important part." We do not know as yet that certain things he may have said are not significant. Such as maybe LE did find something in a dumpster. But I think he did what we do here and guess about what could have actually happened because he wanted to voice his opinion. JMO

 

[Spangle]

I think much of what LP said was speculation and was presented as such. Such as "you will be surprised a how such and such will play out in this matter." "Wait and see the dumpster will play an important part." We do not know as yet that certain things he may have said are not significant. Such as maybe LE did find something in a dumpster. But I think he did what we do here and guess about what could have actually happened because he wanted to voice his opinion. JMO

I think he is experienced enough to know that he can speculate to the world, but under oath, it's a different ball game.

The A's have been playing the same game. They can say what they want to the public. they will only be held liable for what they say under oath.

 

[Elphaba]

Thank you for clearing that up, Bree.

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

 

[lin]

Originally Posted by Marina2 View Post
Maybe it's just that important that he decided to risk the forgery. He may have weighed the risks vs the benefits. Worse case scenario... the motion gets thrown out. Best case scenario...very damning testimony gets thrown out.



But, is the attorney possibly banking on the fact that the Original conveniently "cannot be located"?
How can it be PROVEN that Tony Padilla ever signed a separate/different document/agreement? There is only Tony Padilla's word for it.

Testimony IS evidence. TP's sworn word will carry a lot of weight with the court absent impeachment of his credibility which I don't think will be found. His story is very credible, imo, and the reasoning for the separate agreement is very sound. Of course he would insist on a separate agreement even if the text was substantially the same.

As has already been suggested, it is not up to TP to prove that he did not sign the filed document. JB has been challenged in court to produce the original. If he cannot, then that adds to TP's credibility. The absence of an original identical to the document filed is evidence, so to speak. IF, just for the sake of discussion, JB does produce something that he claims is the original and it appears to be the same as what was filed, then the burden will shift back to TP/LDB to show TP didn't sign it or that it's an altered doc. Otherwise, it's a he said/he said but JB would have an original doc to back up his word, kwim?

I'm mostly posting here to point out the multi-quote feature to you. It's an unusual feature that WS has and is located near the quote button. It has " marks on it. When you click that button with the " on it, you have copied the text of the post you want to quote but have not opened a reply window. You can click that button on several posts and then click on the quote button when you're ready to reply. I appreciate you taking the time to quote multiple posts to illustrate your points/questions and hope this makes it easier for you to continue doing so.

 

[ThinkTank]

Not TP's fault. A copy should have been provided to him by JB. Another error for JB. How many is he up to now? TB should not feel guilty as he was entitled to that copy.

If signature page was cut and pasted you can sometimes tell on a copy machine. You put copier on dark and copy the page. If it was pasted you can sometimes see a faint line. Bet SA has already established it was cut and pasted. JMO

Could this be why JB neglected to notify LP's attorneys regarding making an appearance on this motion? LP's and TP's attorney: "Excuse me your Honor, but my clients never received their copies of the agreements and in fact, the documents presented by JB are not what they signed."

This is exactly what the State Prosecutor Linda Drane Burkick told the Judge in the Hearing on Friday.

 

[CuriousTwo]

I may have missed this, but were the signatories' attorneys present at the time they signed the document? And, the parties didn't see the document until they arrived to sign it? That's highly unusual. During contract/agreement negotiation, the document is reviewed ahead of time by all parties and revised until a final is agreed to by all parties. THEN they sign. I'm really confused by the entire process surrounding this agreement - way too much room for error.

 

[ThinkTank]

Testimony IS evidence. TP's sworn word will carry a lot of weight with the court absent impeachment of his credibility which I don't think will be found. His story is very credible, imo, and the reasoning for the separate agreement is very sound. Of course he would insist on a separate agreement even if the text was substantially the same.

As has already been suggested, it is not up to TP to prove that he did not sign the filed document. JB has been challenged in court to produce the original. If he cannot, then that adds to TP's credibility. The absence of an original identical to the document filed is evidence, so to speak. IF, just for the sake of discussion, JB does produce something that he claims is the original and it appears to be the same as what was filed, then the burden will shift back to TP/LDB to show TP didn't sign it or that it's an altered doc. Otherwise, it's a he said/he said but JB would have an original doc to back up his word, kwim?

I'm mostly posting here to point out the multi-quote feature to you. It's an unusual feature that WS has and is located near the quote button. It has " marks on it. When you click that button with the " on it, you have copied the text of the post you want to quote but have not opened a reply window. You can click that button on several posts and then click on the quote button when you're ready to reply. I appreciate you taking the time to quote multiple posts to illustrate your points/questions and hope this makes it easier for you to continue doing so.

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

 

[CuriousTwo]

I'm mostly posting here to point out the multi-quote feature to you. It's an unusual feature that WS has and is located near the quote button. It has " marks on it. When you click that button with the " on it, you have copied the text of the post you want to quote but have not opened a reply window. You can click that button on several posts and then click on the quote button when you're ready to reply. I appreciate you taking the time to quote multiple posts to illustrate your points/questions and hope this makes it easier for you to continue doing so.

[ snipped by me ]

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

 

[lin]

Plus as an attorney JB should have provided a copy to the signatures parties of the agreement regardless of whether they left in a hurry or not. Copies should have been mailed to the individual parties who signed that agreement. The fact that it was not done appears suspicious and improper in and of itself.

EXCELLENT point! As Jolynna, Marina2 and others have repeatedly pointed out, there should have been multiple copies of any agreement signed by all parties to the agreement so that all parties would have an original. Barring that, as JB implies a copy is as good as an original without stating so in the text, copies should have been immediately disseminated. I mean, this should have been automatic; there shouldn't have been any special instructions necessary. However, the more I think of this, the worse it looks on JB, imo.

IMO: Very much like his murdering client, I suspect JB is the type that would have never really considered the potential of being caught at something like this and only had haphazard, hazy thoughts on that 'what if.' Perhaps in the million to one shot that anyone dared challenge him he'd at most just withdraw that part of his motion. I certainly hope that if he has done what it appears was done here that it will be prosecuted to the fullest extent the bar and law allows. (But I also hope that for the A clan and so far, nada.)

The bar can be a funny thing, sort of like how le is sometimes depicted on tv: To a certain extent a lot of honor is assumed and a lot of passes are given. On the other hand, when a member does transgress then the gloves come off and they are held to a much higher standard than others.

 

[RR0004]

Tony's posts:
"Jose had us all sign a document. The document that he entered into court as part of his motion is not the agreement that I signed.
I asked Jose's office that I wanted my own agreement completely separate from Leonard, Rob, and Tracy. They are not employees of mine and I had to protect myself being the bail agent. Jose compiled the paperwork to look as though we all signed the same agreement.
Jose is arguing that we are working for him and are extensions of his defense. He is now required to produce the originals to the court. The original documents completely separate not only me from JOse but me from Leonard Tracy and Rob as well. Not because I don't like them but because they are not employees of mine.
Jose produced false documention and NEVER made us aware that this would be filed in court

I tend to think you are right about maybe Tony P. signed both agreements, and then the second/separate agreement has been destroyed (because Tony has no copy and no proof of it). All my own opinion of course.

But the notary would have known that 2 documents were signed by Tony that day.

 

[zoomom]

[ snipped by me ]

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

:woohoo:

Me too!!!! Thank you, LIN!!!!!

 

[Numbers]

I may have missed this, but were the signatories' attorneys present at the time they signed the document? And, the parties didn't see the document until they arrived to sign it? That's highly unusual. During contract/agreement negotiation, the document is reviewed ahead of time by all parties and revised until a final is agreed to by all parties. THEN they sign. I'm really confused by the entire process surrounding this agreement - way too much room for error.

Lenny has a law degree. That should cover it.

 

[JBean]

But the notary would have known that 2 documents were signed by Tony that day.

should be in the book and easy enough to confirm or deny.

 

[QB.]

Originally Posted by RR0004 View Post
Did he not think that TP wouldn't notice?




Tony Padilla's comment:
'Again we were never formally made of aware of the motion and its contents. I have really narrowed my group of media people I talk to because they are so selfish. They (the select media) told me about it. This case really went to some peoples heads thinking they were a huge part of it including a past member of this site. It really went to her head."

Can someone provide a link to this comment by TP? I have been away and missed this conversation. Can't seem to locate this - is it in the Q&A with TP because I have not seen it here.

ETA typo
Thanks

 

[angeleleven]

Plus as an attorney JB should have provided a copy to the signatures parties of the agreement regardless of whether they left in a hurry or not. Copies should have been mailed to the individual parties who signed that agreement. The fact that it was not done appears suspicious and improper in and of itself.

That's a good point. Normally lawyers do see to it that the copies are mailed out if nothing else. It does seem suspicious. I agree.

 

[JBean]

I may have missed this, but were the signatories' attorneys present at the time they signed the document? And, the parties didn't see the document until they arrived to sign it? That's highly unusual. During contract/agreement negotiation, the document is reviewed ahead of time by all parties and revised until a final is agreed to by all parties. THEN they sign. I'm really confused by the entire process surrounding this agreement - way too much room for error.

You can write a contract on a cocktail napkin as long as everyone agrees and signs to it, lol. and the notary acknowledgements/jurats can be anywhere as long as it ties to the signature.

 

[RR0004]

Originally Posted by RR0004 View Post
Did he not think that TP wouldn't notice?




Tony Padilla's comment:
'Again we were never formally made of aware of the motion and its contents. I have really narrowed my group of media people I talk to because they are so selfish. They (the select media) told me about it. This case really went to some peoples heads thinking they were a huge part of it including a past member of this site. It really went to her head."

He should come here and read more often. LOL

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