1371 users online (287 members and 1084 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 38 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 567
  1. #1

    Dominic Casey: Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition & Motion for Protective Order#2

    Dominick's lawyer filed a Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition and Motion for Protective Order



    It is a motion that Dominick Casey wants a protective order so he does not have to be deposed, not now, not ever. He isn't facing charges that I know of, he has no grounds to ask for this that I can imagine.. I don't understand. LE already called him on this when they showed him his own email he sent to them stating he was not working for the defense at the time he was in the woods.

    __________________
    __________________

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Let's try it again and please stay on topic.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,543

    Set the record straight i hope.

    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    Let's try it again and please stay on topic.
    I just want to be clear that I used that name in the context of the statement. I did not mean to be derogatory in any way. I do not use it to be snarky. Help me find a way to get my point across.

    I wanted to get the point across that part of the interview had been sealed by a Judge that recused himself for the appearance of being biased. So I ask what is the big secret? Why not depose him in front of the defense? what is there to hide? In that context. I did not mean to be snarky..... I think it is important that people understand that is a self recused Judge who sealed that record. We speculate what was in there, but don't really know.

    I have much respect for the Honorable Judge Strickland's Kindness and experience. However, I am very concerned that many of the important motions in this case were ruled on by a self recused Judge that had the appearance of being biased. I feel it reasonble to point it out for the record, but I will agree to stop using it if you feel too uncomfortable with it. thanks

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Quote Originally Posted by notthatsmart View Post
    I just want to be clear that I used that name in the context of the statement. I did not mean to be derogatory in any way. I do not use it to be snarky. Help me find a way to get my point across.

    I wanted to get the point across that part of the interview had been sealed by a Judge that recused himself for the appearance of being biased. So I ask what is the big secret? Why not depose him in front of the defense? what is there to hide? In that context. I did not mean to be snarky..... I think it is important that people understand that is a self recused Judge who sealed that record. We speculate what was in there, but don't really know.

    I have much respect for the Honorable Judge Strickland's Kindness and experience. However, I am very concerned that many of the important motions in this case were ruled on by a self recused Judge that had the appearance of being biased. I feel it reasonble to point it out for the record, but I will agree to stop using it if you feel too uncomfortable with it. thanks
    Wait...wasn't it the DEFENSE who wanted part of DC's interview sealed because the DEFENSE claimed there was some privileged information in there??

    "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
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,161
    I think you are under the mistaken impression that JS was biased and there is no proof that he ever was, there is only proof that KC and her defense team thought he was. JS reclused himself because he felt KC feelings were more important than continuing on as the judge in this case. The opinions of many now are KC may regret doing so. JS was, indeed, a fair judge and I do not believe he would have let KC "go to the end of the hall" if DP was her sentence, as I believe he would have changed it to LWOP. It is now a whole new ballgame.

    There is no secret as SA has the right to investigate prior to releasing discovery. Obviously if DC had anything to hide defense would know about it as he was clearly in their camp. This may be why JB did not feel he needed to attend. If there is a bombshell JB may feel he is powerless to prohibit the truth from coming out. He is obligated to defend KC to the best of his ability and somethings are just beyond his control. Hope we get to hear soon as all we can do now is speculate. jmo

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Wait...wasn't it the DEFENSE who wanted part of DC's interview sealed because the DEFENSE claimed there was some privileged information in there??
    I was under the assumption that it was the part where Dc told them to stop the tape and go off the record. Since it is sealed, do we get to know why or what was sealed? or are we all just speculating? And if it is privleged information, is the defense required to make a motion to seal? Is that not part of their responsibility? thanks

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,285
    Quote Originally Posted by notthatsmart View Post
    I just want to be clear that I used that name in the context of the statement. I did not mean to be derogatory in any way. I do not use it to be snarky. Help me find a way to get my point across.

    I wanted to get the point across that part of the interview had been sealed by a Judge that recused himself for the appearance of being biased. So I ask what is the big secret? Why not depose him in front of the defense? what is there to hide? In that context. I did not mean to be snarky..... I think it is important that people understand that is a self recused Judge who sealed that record. We speculate what was in there, but don't really know.

    I have much respect for the Honorable Judge Strickland's Kindness and experience. However, I am very concerned that many of the important motions in this case were ruled on by a self recused Judge that had the appearance of being biased. I feel it reasonble to point it out for the record, but I will agree to stop using it if you feel too uncomfortable with it. thanks
    There was originally a motion to seal because there was some confusion and claim that part or all of DC's testimony fell under KC's attorney client privilege with JB. DC provided alot of conflicting information about who he actually was working for when. After examining it the judge in question ruled that no privilege existed. I believe this was part of the deposition in the civil trial, so it wasn't JS that made the ruling, or at least not the first ruling regarding DC's status in regard to privilege.

    As far as JB not being present for the prosecutors deposition of DC. That is his own doing. He knew up front that DC had to be added to his witness list in order for him to be present at that deposition. Otherwise it is simply DC's lawyer and the SA's. JB publicly stated in a news conference that he would be adding DC to his witness list. He never did. hence he does not get to play.

    We do not know if any part of DC's actual deposition in the criminal case has been sealed, because we have never seen it. (we actually do not even know if it has occured at this time) Since DC is not on the defense witness list the SA's investigative deposition (is that the right term, I forget what it was they called it) is not covered by the Sunshine Laws, is not part of the required discovery to the defense, and is not part of the public document dumps. (if the defense wants to ask him anything they can add him to their list and depose him themselves).

    So I am not sure where these farfetched hints of bias by JS in this matter, or the claims that anything DC has said were sealed by JS comes from?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by notthatsmart View Post
    I just want to be clear that I used that name in the context of the statement. I did not mean to be derogatory in any way. I do not use it to be snarky. Help me find a way to get my point across.

    I wanted to get the point across that part of the interview had been sealed by a Judge that recused himself for the appearance of being biased. So I ask what is the big secret? Why not depose him in front of the defense? what is there to hide? In that context. I did not mean to be snarky..... I think it is important that people understand that is a self recused Judge who sealed that record. We speculate what was in there, but don't really know.

    I have much respect for the Honorable Judge Strickland's Kindness and experience. However, I am very concerned that many of the important motions in this case were ruled on by a self recused Judge that had the appearance of being biased. I feel it reasonble to point it out for the record, but I will agree to stop using it if you feel too uncomfortable with it. thanks
    BBM

    NTS for the record HHJS actualy recused himself not because of anything related to bias. It is because of any possible appearance of impropriety in his exchanges with a blogger. This relationship was taken way off the charts in terms of it's context. He simply thanked the man for being fair in his reporting towards Casey & her family to their benefit, and also wished an ill man well. It really doesn't qualify as bias, nor friendship with said blogger.

    Oddly enough he was reading these blogs etc. on ICA's behalf in order to make a determination as to whether or not a COV was indeed necessary. Again not one motion ruled on by HHJS was in any way, shape or fashion based on a biased opinion. They are all concretely based on the law. Ask any lawyer and they will tell you this. IMO you are going to find this out when HHJP once again will issue the same opinions on these motions.

    For the record it has NOTHING to do with BIAS or discomfort. It has to do with the simple truth and facts. Fact:HHJS did not recuse due to bias, nor did he recuse for anything improper. He did so that there would be absolutely no appellate issue down the line and to satisfy Casey & attorneys who IMO are growing daily to regret this action!!!

    This is the truth. Take it or leave it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Can we stop talking about HHJS and the disqualification/recusal due to bias/appearance of bias/desire to avoid appeal based on argument that there was an appearance of bias? That is OT for this thread and is the reason the other thread was closed.

    Can anyone confirm that some part of DC's interview with LE was sealed? I thought that the part of the interview where DC told who instructed him not to call 911 was sealed, but that there certainly has been no motion or order regarding sealing the later interview that was supposedly done by the SA in December 2009.

    I'm operating on the assumption that the SA did interview DC, but that it was an informal interview and not a "deposition" because JB did not put DC on his witness list. If JB had put DC on his witness list, the SA would have had to do a deposition rather than an interview, and JB would have been invited. This is all set out in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure--it was not some special arrangement for this case.

    The fact that we haven't seen a transcript does not indicate that anything has been sealed. There is no requirement that the SA transcribe its investigational interviews.

    "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
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    12,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Anais View Post
    BBM

    NTS for the record HHJS actualy recused himself not because of anything related to bias. It is because of any possible appearance of impropriety in his exchanges with a blogger. This relationship was taken way off the charts in terms of it's context. He simply thanked the man for being fair in his reporting towards Casey & her family to their benefit, and also wished an ill man well. It really doesn't qualify as bias, nor friendship with said blogger.

    Oddly enough he was reading these blogs etc. on ICA's behalf in order to make a determination as to whether or not a COV was indeed necessary. Again not one motion ruled on by HHJS was in any way, shape or fashion based on a biased opinion. They are all concretely based on the law. Ask any lawyer and they will tell you this. IMO you are going to find this out when HHJP once again will issue the same opinions on these motions.

    For the record it has NOTHING to do with BIAS or discomfort. It has to do with the simple truth and facts. Fact:HHJS did not recuse due to bias, nor did he recuse for anything improper. He did so that there would be absolutely no appellate issue down the line and to satisfy Casey & attorneys who IMO are growing daily to regret this action!!!

    This is the truth. Take it or leave it.
    Simply hitting the "thanks" button wasn't enough. Thank you!
    My posts are my opinion..........




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    17,212
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Can anyone confirm that some part of DC's interview with LE was sealed? I thought that the part of the interview where DC told who instructed him not to call 911 was sealed, but that there certainly has been no motion or order regarding sealing the later interview that was supposedly done by the SA in December 2009.

    I'm operating on the assumption that the SA did interview DC, but that it was an informal interview and not a "deposition" because JB did not put DC on his witness list. If JB had put DC on his witness list, the SA would have had to do a deposition rather than an interview, and JB would have been invited. This is all set out in the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure--it was not some special arrangement for this case.

    The fact that we haven't seen a transcript does not indicate that anything has been sealed. There is no requirement that the SA transcribe its investigational interviews.
    I asked you this on the Atty. thread and I thought your answer made sense. I don't think the supposed/probable SA interview has been 'sealed', I got the impression that it just hasn't been released....along with a whole bunch of other depos.
    Last edited by beach; 05-18-2010 at 04:32 PM. Reason: change word for clarity

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    is this thread for real?
    come on.

    where this post lands is random but you guys are making me nutsy

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,161
    AZlawyer. I think DC was giving a statement to LE when they went off record. Now I'm going to have to go back and take a look. But I was pretty sure it was LE. jmo


    I could not link the document but it is on page 6 of the Official Documents that Angel posted. The statement was from January 7, 2009.
    Last edited by LambChop; 05-18-2010 at 04:55 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    17,212
    Quote Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
    AZlawyer. I think DC was giving a statement to LE when they went off record. Now I'm going to have to go back and take a look. But I was pretty sure it was LE. jmo
    You're not thinking of the Jim Hoover depo when they went off the record, are ya? Not positive, but I think they went off the record when the questioning started getting into the whole issue of what Hoover knew in re. Baez possibly instructing DC to call him directly instead of 911?
    Last edited by beach; 05-18-2010 at 04:51 PM.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Wait...wasn't it the DEFENSE who wanted part of DC's interview sealed because the DEFENSE claimed there was some privileged information in there??
    Yes, the state may have asked for part of his LE interview to be sealed, the part that inspired the bar complaints made against Baez, it was...temporarily, iirc. However, the defense fought hard for Dom not to have to give sworn testimony, and so did Dominic's lawyer, Ms. Tennis.

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAuXZ3jqJ70[/ame] ( minute 5:59 )

    Ms. Tennis and the state argued the matter in front of Mr. Baez although Mr. Baez was rather confused indeed. He was asking the judge to ignore statutes. Even Ms. Tennis conceded that of course the state had every right to interview him under a state subpoena. The difference between that and a normal depo was that the defense lawyer would not be present. She was concerned about a transcript of his depo being released in discovery. Andrea was whispering "Jose,... Jose", trying to give him clues at that hearing, but I honestly do not think he understood the rules. Ms. Tennis argued that he should not have to testify period, due to privilege issues. Of course the state argued that none exist and they are not bound by any would be private confidentiality agreement. The judge concurred and told the state to go ahead with his depo with the time they had already scheduled.

    Mrs. Drane Burdick had even called Baez in advance to inquire if he wanted to add Dom to his witness list. Everyone went above and beyond to try to give him clues. If one doesn't understand the rules, that is what the law library is for. When he shows up at hearings thoroughly unprepared, the judge cannot be blamed. The blame can be laid directly where the fault lies, the guy that spent two hundred seventy five thousand dollars without deposing Dominic, LE or FBI agents. You just can't make this stuff up!
    Last edited by The World According; 05-18-2010 at 07:01 PM.

Page 1 of 38 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Motion for protective order to destroy videos of family visits
    By magic-cat in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 09-21-2010, 11:43 AM
  2. Dominic Casey: Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition & Motion for Protective Order#1
    By The World According in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 557
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 01:57 PM
  3. Nejame Files Motion to Strike for TES/Baez 7/16/09 Motion
    By Drivenon in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 408
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 09:38 AM
  4. Motion for Protective Order (the Photobucket Photos)
    By Theonly1 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 241
    Last Post: 03-02-2009, 06:45 PM
  5. Brad Conway to file Motion of Protective Order
    By Capri in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 02-05-2009, 07:35 PM

Tags for this Thread