1265 users online (282 members and 983 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 130
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,906

    BC Waived Conflict re: Mark NJ repping TES- what does this mean?

    Is this a sign that the Anthonys might begin to cooperate with the prosecution?

    The Anthonys we have become accustomed to would have come out swinging, screaming conflict if it would have any affect at all on helping to make things more difficult for the SA.

    Instead, they seem to be siding with MNJ and TES rather than the defense by not backing the JB complaint that there is a conflict.

    What do you all think?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    In the Woods In Georgia
    Posts
    5,481
    I think all this means is that the Anthony's have no conflict with Nejame representing TES. This means there will be no problem on their part. Baez brought up the issue of Nejame formally being the Anthony's attorney.
    Another words, Baez is the only one who has a problem with Nejame representing TES.
    They also asked that the defense get discovery, so It seems they agree that Baez should get TES documents, but they won't argue with anyone over it.
    ARE THEY COMING AROUND?
    I doubt it!
    Justice For Caylee Marie

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by pirate View Post
    Is this a sign that the Anthonys might begin to cooperate with the prosecution?

    The Anthonys we have become accustomed to would have come out swinging, screaming conflict if it would have any affect at all on helping to make things more difficult for the SA.

    Instead, they seem to be siding with MNJ and TES rather than the defense by not backing the JB complaint that there is a conflict.

    What do you all think?
    From the Florida Bar Rules...

    RULE 4-1.9 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT

    A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

    (a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that personís interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent; or

    (b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as rule 4-1.6 would permit with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by pirate View Post
    Is this a sign that the Anthonys might begin to cooperate with the prosecution?

    The Anthonys we have become accustomed to would have come out swinging, screaming conflict if it would have any affect at all on helping to make things more difficult for the SA.

    Instead, they seem to be siding with MNJ and TES rather than the defense by not backing the JB complaint that there is a conflict.
    What do you all think?
    I agree with you. I'm surprised they took that position too.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by bunnyphoenix1 View Post
    I agree with you. I'm surprised they took that position too.
    Maybe Conway understands that Nejame is too good of a lawyer to make enemies with.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Broderick View Post
    Maybe Conway understands that Nejame is too good of a lawyer to make enemies with.
    There is a chance BC is thinking of his own best interests rather than those of his clients. Are we even sure he still represents George?

    Perhaps he thought the public might hate the family more if he took the objection?

    I really don't understand it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,087
    is it common for an attoryney to interject himself in every area of the case such as bc has done???? Seems like he is everywhere and anywhere.....tia
    jmo

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,526

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by bunnyphoenix1 View Post
    From the Florida Bar Rules...

    RULE 4-1.9 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT

    A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

    (a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that personís interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent; or

    (b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as rule 4-1.6 would permit with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known.
    Thank you for sharing this, maybe you should send Baez a copy. LOL.
    I agree that BC was there today to let the judge know that the Anthony's have no objection of Nejame representing TES, I also thought I heard BC ask the judge to please help in the expedition of all discovery. Did anyone else hear that? Or did misinterpret? Thanks in advance.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,087
    Quote Originally Posted by MADJGNLAW View Post
    Thank you for sharing this, maybe you should send Baez a copy. LOL.
    I agree that BC was there today to let the judge know that the Anthony's have no objection of Nejame representing TES, I also thought I heard BC ask the judge to please help in the expedition of all discovery. Did anyone else hear that? Or did misinterpret? Thanks in advance.
    thought I herad that as well...along with their love of their daughter...
    jmo

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by zoey View Post
    is it common for an attoryney to interject himself in every area of the case such as bc has done???? Seems like he is everywhere and anywhere.....tia
    I have never seen anything like it.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by MADJGNLAW View Post
    Thank you for sharing this, maybe you should send Baez a copy. LOL.
    I agree that BC was there today to let the judge know that the Anthony's have no objection of Nejame representing TES, I also thought I heard BC ask the judge to please help in the expedition of all discovery. Did anyone else hear that? Or did misinterpret? Thanks in advance.
    I'm on the west coast and slept through the hearing and i'm just watching it now...i'll let you know when i get to the part where BC speaks.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    behind the Orange Curtain
    Posts
    323
    i think he was there to get it on the record that they are consenting to MN representing TES.

    i also think its partly because he is trying to get them immunity so he's playing nice with the SA

    MOO
    Candice
    all my posts are MOO

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by MADJGNLAW View Post
    Thank you for sharing this, maybe you should send Baez a copy. LOL.
    I agree that BC was there today to let the judge know that the Anthony's have no objection of Nejame representing TES, I also thought I heard BC ask the judge to please help in the expedition of all discovery. Did anyone else hear that? Or did misinterpret? Thanks in advance.
    He actually referred to the very same rule in Court when the issue was first raised. Technically, I think MN should have had that waiver before he agreed to appear for TES, but I may be wrong. But if the As don't complain, it's pretty much a moot point.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by zoey View Post
    thought I herad that as well...along with their love of their daughter...
    Yea IMO they throw that in so KC wouldn't be mad and say they arent on her side because they waived there conflict to MN defending TESJust me though
    "Please note - this is a message board, not a blog. Thank you"... Sincerely, Tricia Griffith and the Websleuths Family

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by cuppy199 View Post
    Yea IMO they throw that in so KC wouldn't be mad and say they arent on her side because they waived there conflict to MN defending TESJust me though
    I agree. I just watched it....I thought it was really weird....the guy likes the sound of his own voice and has incredible arrogance to speak to the judge the way he did! Ordinarily the State would speak on behalf of a victim's family member.

    I really think this waiver could backfire on him big time, if the As decide to turn on him....unless it was fully and properly explained to the As and he has written, informed consent to waive it, I would think they would have a good basis for a complaint. I know that I would never waive my rights to confidentiality like that, and find it very odd that he has done it on behalf of his clients.

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Privilege Waived (new book by Dominic Casey)
    By rpgman in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-28-2016, 01:49 PM
  2. Subtle but key evidence waived
    By Holdontoyourhat in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 06-07-2009, 01:21 PM