04-22-2010, 02:43 PM #1
Dominic Casey & Cheney Mason - how deep is the connection?
I started to pose this question on the Verified Attorney thread, but was afraid it might start to derail it, so I opted to open a new one.
Back in March, Texas Mist posted a link to Dominic Casey's motion to strike, motion for protective order and motion for attorney fees. (drafted by DC counsel Dianna Tennis) in the "Dominic is scared, but why?...." thread.
Paragraph 5 makes it clear that at some point Dominic consulted with Cheney Mason in re. fighting the subpoena to testify in the civil case (ZG v. Casey Anthony). In fact, Cheney Mason placed a call to Morgan & Morgan on behalf of DC. It is not clear that he was ever retained. (Although, it doesn't really matter since anything DC told CM would still be considered privleged.) At the time, I posted my thoughts in the thread, but since Mason has now joined the criminal defense team, I am having second thoughts.
(the conversation I am referencing is in the "Dominic is scared..." thread and starts on pg. 20, post#'s 483 - 490)
Since we don't know WHAT could have been uncovered in the SA's investigative interview (aka depo) that may or may not have taken place, this seems dangerously close to being a conflict of interest, imo. I could be totally wrong. No idea. It just smells to me.
Does anyone else know of any other documentation in that connects Mason & DC?
Last edited by beach; 04-22-2010 at 02:45 PM. Reason: clarity
04-22-2010, 02:59 PM #2
Assuming that CM didn't learn anything from DC that would be news to Baez and Team, I don't thing there's anything for him to worry about.
"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
04-22-2010, 03:09 PM #3Disclaimer: Any and All comments by me are my thoughts and opinions
04-22-2010, 03:18 PM #4
All of these paths that cross -
DC & Baez ---> DC - Baez ---> DC & Anthonys ---> DC + Mason ---> Mason + Baez etal
It is making me
08-10-2010, 01:19 PM #5
08-10-2010, 03:55 PM #6Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
IMO..there has to be something. DC didn't just call up C. Mason and say hey do me a favor call up M&M for me on this depo. DC would have had to have told him some info. I don't see any lawyer making a phone call on someones behalf without knowing what, if anything they are calling about.
Having said that, whatever DC told mason is now privy to the defense and without the SA getting his depo...whatever DC knows, Mason knows...hence the defense team NOW knows something the SA doesn't. And, the defense didn't have to depo DC to get the info, it was supplied "free" by way of Mason.
(hope that makes sense)-Si vis pacem, para bellum.
-Senatus Populus Que Romanus
-Why is it, if you help someone get away with a crime before they are arrested you are an accomplice...but if you help them get away with a crime after they are arrested you are a defense attorney?
08-10-2010, 06:25 PM #7
If DC thinks, like me, he knew, MN was the only "competent ________" in the equation (excluding the prosecution team); so maybe, he called him!! GOOD MOVE!! can some-one ? help me! w/my puncasuation and spailin'??
need a drink!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Jadestar in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years oldReplies: 193Last Post: 01-29-2009, 11:58 AM