"Second Motion To Preclude Death Procedures for Impermissable Prosecutorial Motives"

[logicalgirl]

Am I a day late and a dollar short? Has anyone else here noticed that in the first paragraph it states that Caylee Marie Anthony's remains were found on December 11, 2009?

W-W-WHAT? The defense wrote this?

Thud!

 

[magic-cat]

I do not think that Mr Mason is just his 'good ol' boy' exterior. He has played this game for a lot of years, and I think has developed his outward persona to suit what, in his opinion, gets the job done. Underneath he could be a shark. Remember his early words to Judge S about the judge being able to trust him. Shortly after, the defense filed to have His Honour removed.


Mr Mason wouldn't have 'stepped up to the plate' in the first place if he didn't already have a plan to take advantage of some loophole or some perceived weakness to achive the results he boasted about. And, make no mistake, for Mr Mason, the 'ball game' started the minute he first ambled into Judge S's courtroom and Mr Mason is definitely studying the players on the opposing team and he is also definitely keeping score. Mr Mason is no Mr Baez. Moo!

It is highly possible, even probable, that Mr. Mason did not think the judge WOULD recuse, because the insinuations in the motion were, after all, far fetched and utterly ridiculous. He may have COUNTED on him staying, and then down the road there was the doorway into the appeal on the basis of bias. He HAS been doing this for what? 30 or 40 years? It may be that in his old age, he is slipping a bit, because this according to ALL sources was THE stupidest move the defense could ever have undertaken to attempt. So when he stepped up to the plate? In my opinion he got knocked out when the ball hit him right in the face-enter Judge Blevins.

 

[logicalgirl]

Am I a day late and a dollar short? Has anyone else here noticed that in the first paragraph it states that Caylee Marie Anthony's remains were found on December 11, 2009?

Have you emailed Kathy B. and Hal B. yet?

 

[elementary]

I'll be the first to confess that law is like Latin, so pardon my comical thoughts and giggles as to how Baez is handling this case.

According to Baez "
"By seeking the death penalty the prosecution sought to financially break the defense and deprive Miss Anthony of her counsel of choice." Couldn't anyone facing a death sentence now use this very excuse( er excuse me)justification of why they shouldn't have to face the death penalty.

Baez seems to have use the sixth amendment very freely to attempt to save his client. According to the sixth amendment;
"The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures a criminal defendant the right to counsel...an element of that right is a right to choice of counsel for defendants who are able to afford counsel."

Well, my understanding of this amendment simply states that the accused has the right to counsel along with the right to choose counsel who can be afforded. Well, first of all KC received over $200,000.00 dollars in addition to funds IMO and suspect we are not aware of. And, now Baez claims the defense has run out of money and has been approved to receive financial support for his work in defending KC thanks to all of you from the great state of Florida.

So as I stated before I'm confused how Baez can make these claims.:banghead:

Novice Seeker

Good point. It's pure chutzpah (nerve). Akin to someone who murders both her parents and then throws herself on the mercy of the court because she is an orphan. Geeeeeesh.

 

[LambChop]

Have you emailed Kathy B. and Hal B. yet?

No. I don't have their email. Plus I'm still recovering from the part where the SA deliberately put the DP back on the table because they found out how much money KC got for her pictures. Did JB forget to look in his checkbook? Whether she has a dime or $200,000 the trial will be the same for the reasons she was arrested. If JB knew the DP was back on the table why did he not budget better. Afterall, he did broker the deal. JMO

 

[heatherhope]

I didn't answer your first question-- sorry.
A judge can decide not to accept a plea agreement. FL Rule 3.171 governs plea negotiations and agreements. Per 3.171, a judge can refuse to agree to the plea negotiated and agreed upon by the parties.

For the purposes of understanding the rule, pretend the prosecution and defense agreed that Casey would plead guilty to child neglect and the other charges would be dropped. The judge could determine this was not acceptable and inform the parties he would not accept this plea. At which point, the negotiated plea agreement would just be abandoned. The plea only becomes binding when it's accepted by the court (judge). It's generally unlikely in this kind of case, however, that both parties would assent to a plea agreement that is unacceptable to the court, IMO.

Thanks for the explanation. From what I've read today, it seems the new judge is tough but fair. I would hope that if something like this happens he would see through the smoke, and do whats right.

I don't see a plea happening, but then you never know, this case takes so many twists and turns, I feel like I'm in a corn maze and I can't find my way out!

 

[logicalgirl]

LambChop I'm with you on this one but I'm so flabbergasted by this reasoning it seems to have shorted something on my brain.
I'm just sputtering here and can't seem to say anything except "those idiots" over and over again.

 

[magic-cat]

KC had over $300,000.00 ALL TOLD in funds.
$200,000.00 ABC
$ 70,000.00 Andrea Lyons raised
$ 70,000.00 Todd Macusalo? Can never spell it DONATED
$ 5,000.00 Unknown Donor

She knew she was charged with murder since October 14, 2008.
She KNEW she needed those funds to FUND her defense.

Instead, SHE chose to ALLOW her "boys" free reign over her funds and now it is ALL gone and NONE of the work has been done. That was her choice. She had the right to demand an accounting of what was happening with HER money, did she not? She appears to never have done this. NOW she is once again the same indigent, penniless common thief that she was when she started out. She has no right to choose ANYTHING at this point. She has been declared indigent by the court and the STATE is paying her costs. To me, end of story, Motion Denied...or it should be.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Do you think KC's Lawyers don't want to defend her anymore now that there's no longer any money?

Maybe they're going to back away - would that be allowed? Is that why they are sending motions to the Media prior to filing them with the Court?
How much nonsense IS allowed when it comes to Lawyers breaking obvious rules?

 

[LambChop]

SNIPPED

Well, my understanding of this amendment simply states that the accused has the right to counsel along with the right to choose counsel who can be afforded. Well, first of all KC received over $200,000.00 dollars in addition to funds IMO and suspect we are not aware of. And, now Baez claims the defense has run out of money and has been approved to receive financial support for his work in defending KC thanks to all of you from the great state of Florida.

So as I stated before I'm confused how Baez can make these claims.:banghead:

Novice Seeker

JB is upset because he no longer can get paid. After running through all of KC's money for Caylee's pictures he's upset because the SA put the DP back on the table making it more expensive to try a DP case. Problem is he is not qualified to defend her and the DP attorneys who are on-board are on record as pro bono. So they want the DP removed because KC can't afford it. Maybe they want her to walk because she really doesn't like the food in jail....too much baloney. Which is exactly how I feel about this motion and her team, as well.

JMO

 

[LambChop]

KC had over $300,000.00 ALL TOLD in funds.
$200,000.00 ABC
$ 70,000.00 Andrea Lyons raised
$ 70,000.00 Todd Macusalo? Can never spell it DONATED
$ 5,000.00 Unknown Donor

She knew she was charged with murder since October 14, 2008.
She KNEW she needed those funds to FUND her defense.

Instead, SHE chose to ALLOW her "boys" free reign over her funds and now it is ALL gone and NONE of the work has been done. That was her choice. She had the right to demand an accounting of what was happening with HER money, did she not? She appears to never have done this. NOW she is once again the same indigent, penniless common thief that she was when she started out. She has no right to choose ANYTHING at this point. She has been declared indigent by the court and the STATE is paying her costs. To me, end of story, Motion Denied...or it should be.

So now we see the pattern. The reason to keep KC's parents from visiting the jail. The reason to hand-carry notes, letters to KC by JB and him returning her letters to them. The A's never had a chance to ask KC to let them handle the money, or ask if BC could appoint someone. JB had control of KC, her money and the A's. Remember Lee asked KC if she was getting their letters and she said no. The A's had to have known about those pictures and JB shut them right down. Funny, think about CA's depo and the "zip it" from JB but not before CA spilled the beans about those pictures. JMO

 

[Anais]

So now we see the pattern. The reason to keep KC's parents from visiting the jail. The reason to hand-carry notes, letters to KC by JB and him returning her letters to them. The A's never had a chance to ask KC to let them handle the money, or ask if BC could appoint someone. JB had control of KC, her money and the A's. Remember Lee asked KC if she was getting their letters and she said no. The A's had to have known about those pictures and JB shut them right down. Funny, think about CA's depo and the "zip it" from JB but not before CA spilled the beans about those pictures. JMO

Oh yes it does make perfect sense! Somehow I just really wanna see Casey, JB get their just rewards and I have a feeling with Judge Perry on board it is exactly what's coming their way!

 

[LambChop]

W-W-WHAT? The defense wrote this?

Thud!

And AL signed it. Wait, wait....let me catch you......

 

[Intermezzo]

Oh my Goodness! Look at page 32 in this motion, item #3 I am quoting here:

"This Honorable Court has previously cautioned ALL parties from relying on news reports as a basis for its motions"

Indeed. the irony is rich.

:waitasec: :banghead:

 

[strawberry]

Am I a day late and a dollar short? Has anyone else here noticed that in the first paragraph it states that Caylee Marie Anthony's remains were found on December 11, 2009?

Here we go again! Thanks for taking one for the team...I can't stomach reading the nonsense myself.

 

[beach]

No. I don't have their email. Plus I'm still recovering from the part where the SA deliberately put the DP back on the table because they found out how much money KC got for her pictures. Did JB forget to look in his checkbook? Whether she has a dime or $200,000 the trial will be the same for the reasons she was arrested. If JB knew the DP was back on the table why did he not budget better. Afterall, he did broker the deal. JMO

Thank ya very much for the heads-up, LambChop. I haven't felt frisky enough to open those motions yet. Since reading your post, I'll opt to continue my vacay. I read enough fiction over the weekend to last me quite a while. I'm in the mood for some non-fiction. Maybe I'll go re-read Judge Strickland's Order again.

 

[Intermezzo]

Am I a day late and a dollar short? Has anyone else here noticed that in the first paragraph it states that Caylee Marie Anthony's remains were found on December 11, 2009?

Good Lord... :banghead: Ola Jose! it was 2008, 2008!!!
They state the DP was removed on December 5, 2009, then Caylee's remains were found on December 11 2009 and then the DP Re-instated April 13, 2009.

 

[Intermezzo]

So defense is waiting for us to proof them? That's pretty sad, then again maybe not.

Hope the new judge got to read this one. He probably needs a good laugh by now.

Sure looks like it Lambchop

 

[LambChop]

Good Lord... :banghead: Ola Jose! it was 2008, 2008!!!
They state the DP was removed on December 5, 2009, then Caylee's remains were found on December 11 2009 and then the DP Re-instated April 13, 2009.

AL signed the motion so it may have been done by one of her students. But what would be expect from someone who refers to Caylee as "the kid". JMO

 

[Intermezzo]

AL signed the motion so it may have been done by one of her students. But what would be expect from someone who refers to Caylee as "the kid". JMO

Thanks for pointing that out...LamChop

Okay then...YO Andrea, what's the deal with the mistakes? Maybe you should take the file, a fine glass of wine and RE-READ.
Just Sayin' :blushing: