05-15-2010, 02:13 PM #1
2010.05.06 "Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of [JS'] Prior Rulings"
First Mods I am sorry if this is wrong I did search and have been unable to find this specific motion that was filed.
***new link works Thanks logicalgirl xoxo***
I realize that there has been a large number of motions filed in the last couple of weeks, but I am shocked at this one. It of course is calling into question a lot of JSS rulings, but there are a few that have me concerned...and btw I am only on page 8 of 34. I was hoping some of my briliant WS, would chime in!!! I tried to copy and paste parts of this document but I was unable to do it. Just some of my own observations - Joe J*rdan being threaten by the police - TES charging the defense $12 per hour - several of their witness' not being taken seriously- I will edit and add more as I read
Last edited by chckmate22; 05-15-2010 at 05:37 PM. Reason: hoping to fix link
05-15-2010, 04:33 PM #2
05-15-2010, 05:55 PM #3
I heard the Bat Call.
Here is the motion... In my layman's opinion, it is a whiny, jumbled MESS. Somewhat unprofessional. And I believe there IS a difference between being disqualified, and recusing oneself. The name-calling boggles the mind. And they wonder why nobody likes them????
This is what it asks for, all in one motion:
2. The defense requests reconsideration of the following Motions and rulings by the disqualified Judge as to the factual and legal merits of said Motions and rulings thereon:
A. Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Tape Recorded Statement of Joe Jordan and the Court's Order on same dated April 7, 2010.
B. Motion for Production of Grand Jury Testimony of George Anthony filed by the state of Florida on September 16, 2009 and joined in by the defense, and the Order of the Court dated October 6,2009.
C. Defendant's Motion to Compel Tips Gathered by Law Enforcement, dated November 4, 2008.
D. The Order on Defendant's Motion to Modify the Court's Order on Defendant's Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum for Documents in the Possession of Texas Equusearch.
05-15-2010, 06:04 PM #4
Thanks MM for posting a link to the motions on the other thread. I don't think they will have any luck on the request for reconsideration but it did help explain why JB and crew left MNs' conference room when the press showed up. Or maybe its just another waaaa from JB.
Last edited by I Din Doot; 05-15-2010 at 06:05 PM. Reason: spelt rong
05-15-2010, 06:14 PM #5
05-15-2010, 06:17 PM #6
MM, imho it is a matter of respect and semantics - since the defense filed a motion titled 'motion to disqualify...." some people like to use the phrase "JS disqualifed himself" in an inflammatory manner, IMO. (so technically since JS granted the motion, I guess the aforementioned phrase is not wrong). However, anytime I have ever heard of a judge agreeing to step-down, I have always heard it referred to as he "recused himself". I dunno. Maybe AZ or Hornsby has, but I haven't heard it referred to before this case. Personally, I find the phrase disrespectful.
05-15-2010, 06:23 PM #7
ALL of these motions are just old motions that Judge Strickland previously denied and the defense is asking HHJP to reconsider. In Cheney Mason's opening Motion to Reconsider (the motion before the attached exhibits - old JB motions) he is doing his darndest to make up for JB's prior motions that were....well, let's just say rather lacking.
fwiw, particularly the one in re. TES, I take with a grain of salt until I get to hear Mark NeJames side of the story. 'cause that sure is a whopper of a story that CM is spinning.
05-15-2010, 06:30 PM #8Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2005
It's a pretty interesting coincidence to see 'disqualified' being used in this manner by the defense-- it's strongly reminiscent of a derogatory (IMO) usage of it by a poster in a discussion of JS's rulings just a few days ago.
05-15-2010, 06:41 PM #9
Since JS can't do anything about it now, CM is just gonna make sure he keeps getting the last word in, one way or another.
Just another example of fine conduct. <sarcasm intended>
05-15-2010, 07:53 PM #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Well Beach we all knew this was coming & they were going to go ahead and attempt to get all the prior motions reconsidered. IMO it will not fly in HHJP's courtroom because all of HHJS decisions were based solely on the law, and there contrary to their own belief no bias was involved. We all know it. Heck I'd wager a bet that Baez and CM know it too.
But they sure are going to try to get it to fly. I eagerly look forward to seeing exactly how far HHJP will proceed to let them push his buttons before he slaps them hard.
FWIW I for one do not believe one word of the nonsense "whopper" that they're spinning in regards to MN & the TES situation! I am certain that MN is going to come into court and show it too, and while he's there he'll proceed to mop the floors with the defense........
It seems that this defense team has so much extra time on their hands to repeatedly fail at obtaining the very same information from MN and the TES records that LDB & JA got in about 5-6 hours. And of course this is at the Florida taxpayers expense!
05-15-2010, 09:41 PM #11
05-15-2010, 10:24 PM #12
Sarcasm Is Relevant?
First of all, we are assuming HHJP hadn't reviewed these motions by either the 10th and the 11th - last week? Because when he asked JB how many other motions he had for immediate consideration, I noticed JB kind of hesitating and bumbling around - maybe I know the answer to that question - I'm wondering if JB is expecting a smackdown.
I know HHJS did use a form of elegant sarcasm in granting the motion to recuse himself, however CM's childish pouty - you're being mean to me and it's not fair and I'm gonna cry if I don't get my way - is pretty unbelievable.
Regarding what they are saying about the interview with J.Jordon - is that both Sims, J.J.'s lawyer, and Mortimore Smith forgot to takes notes at that meeting or have a steno sitting in and they can't remember what he said or what? I think if it was me I'd be asking for a copy of the police interview post meeting to prove how "threatening" the police were to JJ to get him to change his story, which he obviously has.
The TES claims are just plain silly. They are objecting to not having the files categorized or tabbed in any order (I knew it!) and they think they saw the words Surburban on some files they weren't allowed to see, and they are objecting to paying a monitor 12 bucks an hour - so the bill if they are really pokey and take twice as long as the SA, may come to $144 which the JAC is paying for? Are they kidding? And they are objecting to having an independent lawyer verify NeJames review of the 4000 files as a witness to the selection of 32 files containing searchers only on Surburban, in fact calling ole Brad a liar? Nice work Mason, very sharp....
And the SA got a copy of the Grand Jury testimony and they didn't so boo hoo?
What a waste of time! I so am looking forward to this hearing, although I have a feeling HHJP won't bother calling one and will just reply with denied motions in return.
Last edited by logicalgirl; 05-15-2010 at 10:25 PM.
05-15-2010, 10:50 PM #13
$12 is a deal.
In the court order, JB is to pay TES a per hour fee for a monitor, etc. $12 sounds pretty reasonable. I was kinda expecting more. These folks don't work for free. If I recall correctly, they have to pay the money up front, before they can even glimpse at those files. MN was smart enough to get it all wrapped up tight. Except he forgot to add a time limit or window of availability. And JB has used that to his advantage by dragging this out, whining, etc.Just my opinion.....
Finally found a reason for the Ignore feature!
05-16-2010, 12:06 AM #14
While the use of the word "disqualified" doesn't sound pleasant, that is the words used in Chapter 38 of the Florida Statutes.
The one motion I find interesting is the one to get all the tips LE collected on the case. As Baez & Co. point out in this motion, it was filed prior to KC's indictment in October, 2008.
This motion is just like the TES motion. The defense wants to go on a fishing expedition among everyone who called in a tip. I recall reading a batch of them and all I can say is "good luck" finding one that is worth exploring. Most were from psychics, most of whom were telling LE Caylee was deceased. There were a good number of tips explored by LE, as shown in police reports in discovery.
This defense needs to focus on their case and not waste taxpayers' money hunting down tipsters who got it wrong and TES searchers who were never near Suburban Drive.
The only tips that worked out were those of Roy Kronk and look what's happened to him. In the State's latest motion, LDB points out that, aside from Jill Kerley, all the others are working hard through their lawyers to avoid being deposed.
Likewise, the notorious Laura Buchanan doesn't seem to want to be deposed either.
The defense's trips into the haystack just aren't working out too well anyway.
Last edited by CarolinaMoon; 05-16-2010 at 03:38 PM. Reason: Bad spelling!
05-16-2010, 02:09 AM #15
Motion threads aren't for the faint of heart.
FYI. There is a sticky thread that lists all of the motions filed in this case. *Warning* it WILL make your head spin. If it doesn't...see your doctor .
When launching a thread to discuss a particular motion, please use the title given to the motion and place it in quotations in the thread title to keep head-spinning to a minimum.
IOW..."Defense Motion 5/6/2010", which was the original title of the thread, is just a little too vague when one considers all of the motions that could end up w/ threads of their own eventually.
By neese in forum Lisa IrwinReplies: 66Last Post: 11-06-2011, 02:11 AM
By beach in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years oldReplies: 108Last Post: 04-02-2011, 01:43 AM
By magic-cat in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years oldReplies: 163Last Post: 04-21-2010, 04:34 PM