Tony Padilla Q&A

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
AZlawyer said:
I think there is no way anything Casey said to LP, TP, Tracy or Rob is covered by the A/C privilege. How could she have been seeking legal advice or assistance from them? Even if they WERE hired by the defense as bodyguards (which they clearly were not), I don't think the A/C privilege would apply. I think, if you want to preserve your privilege, you need to shut your trap when around people who aren't providing legal services. That includes bodyguards, drivers, pizza delivery boys, etc., whether your lawyer hired them or not.
Click to expand...

OOOOH- good point.
 
I'm only on page 16 of this thread, but has anyone considered that even if the agreement TP allegedly did sign (or did not sign according to what you suspect) is smooth as a newborn baby's bottom that Strickland will agree with LDB's arguments that there was no agency agreement created? You may never ever hear them get to the validity of the Privacy Agreement.
 
Woe.be.gone said:
BBM
I'm curious as to why it would be okay with most people (going by the support he received in this thread when he mentioned the possibility of writing one) for TP to write a book? In the past, on this forum, whenever it has been suggested that anybody is thinking of or going to write a book or make a movie about or around Caylee's case posters have spoken out with venom filled words against anybody who would even think of profitting from the case.
Click to expand...

You're right.....I noticed that too..
 
Woe.be.gone said:
BBM
I'm curious as to why it would be okay with most people (going by the support he received in this thread when he mentioned the possibility of writing one) for TP to write a book? In the past, on this forum, whenever it has been suggested that anybody is thinking of or going to write a book or make a movie about or around Caylee's case posters have spoken out with venom filled words against anybody who would even think of profitting from the case.
Click to expand...

Cindy is the one to make an issue out of "Making money off Caylee." She even went and took the donated water, etc. from TES, that was suppose to be given to the searchers.

She no longer works. Has started an orgination to collect funds. Yet still has bills to pay.. where is the money comeing from???

THAT is where all the screaming comes from. She claims others are, yet it seems she is planning on doing that exact same thing. A total living off her G-baby's memory.

If TP wrote a book, I doubt he is planning on "living off of" the proceeds. He has a job where he makes the money to pay his bills. The story would be interesting. And he most likely wouldn't just cover the Anthony case. His part/knowledge isn't about Caylee, it's about KC.

Also CA seem motivated to distort reality by speaking mistruths. Why would I want to buy a book of mistruths? :crazy:

The most serious note is that it seems like the A's are scamming to make money off the baby. So they don't have to work, etc. Considering that they didn't try and find that baby and have done everything possible to stop folks finding that baby.. it turns my stomach to think that she will be paying their bills for them. Just seems so wrong.
 
no offense to anyone but I came to this thread to read the Q & A to Tony P, and there were so many comments to wade through that had to do strictly with the question of the document submitted at the last hearing as to its validity.

Is is possible to separate the thread? Not complaining, just would like to follow Tony's answers without getting derailed down a tangential path.
 
Tony Padilla said:
I have been flirting with the idea of a book just since this garbage came out. I took pages and pages of notes while we were there.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to catch up with these posts.

You realize that (putting this statement on a public forum) that if you ever are on the stand one side or the other will use it against you to say you are prejudiced because of a book deal?

Just fyi, having *any* kind of interest like this in the outcome of the trial would ruin your testimony at trial. I understand that you later wrote that you were "joking" but once you make a statement like that someone will surely bring it up.
 
Woe.be.gone said:
BBM
I'm curious as to why it would be okay with most people (going by the support he received in this thread when he mentioned the possibility of writing one) for TP to write a book? In the past, on this forum, whenever it has been suggested that anybody is thinking of or going to write a book or make a movie about or around Caylee's case posters have spoken out with venom filled words against anybody who would even think of profitting from the case.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I felt a little awkward about this, too. I was hoping maybe he was writing a compilation of all of the high-profile cases he has been involved in, but when he confirmed it would focus on his Caylee notes, I was disappointed.

It's not so much the degree to which someone profits from Caylee's death-yes CA can profit more than TP and she does not work-It is that they are profitting at all right now. Caylee has not even seen her justice, nor KC hers.

Just not something I will buy anytime soon, maybe years from now when I am interested in remembering all of this.

ETA-I should clarify the first paragraph-If he were writing a compilation, as sort of a magnifying glass approach to the criminal minds he has seen, that is somewhat understandable.....I just felt like by limiting it to Caylee, he seemed like he had just found a "money train". I am no mind reader, I do not know his intentions, it just seemed sudden.
 
LawRig said:
no offense to anyone but I came to this thread to read the Q & A to Tony P, and there were so many comments to wade through that had to do strictly with the question of the document submitted at the last hearing as to its validity.

Is is possible to separate the thread? Not complaining, just would like to follow Tony's answers without getting derailed down a tangential path.
Click to expand...

The document is a topic of great interest to Mr. Padilla.
 
LawRig said:
no offense to anyone but I came to this thread to read the Q & A to Tony P, and there were so many comments to wade through that had to do strictly with the question of the document submitted at the last hearing as to its validity.

Is is possible to separate the thread? Not complaining, just would like to follow Tony's answers without getting derailed down a tangential path.
Click to expand...
I totally agree lawrig. But if we start a new thread and the discussion turns to the document with Tony, we will have 2 threads with too many posts to wade through.
This is a thread where we have to go with the flow and if tony wants a simple Q&A thread he can certainly start one.
But I am with you, there is a lot of discussion and it makes following the Q&A almost impossible, so I gave up.

c'est la vie :)

ETA: But what would be helpful is if posters would at least keep the extra chit chat off the thread. TIA
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKuRTm6Q2vQ"]YouTube - Casey Anthony: Bondsmen: I Wasn't Working For Anthony's Attorney - 6PM Broadcast[/ame]
 
Jolynna said:
Baez didn't cover Casey's fanny at ALL with this paperwork. Before the hearing I took it as a given that there WAS a tight contract and that what was going to be argued during the hearing was whether or not such a contract made Tony, Leonard, Tracy and Rob "agents".
Click to expand...

And Baez stood up in court and regaled Judge Strickland with how he went to many sources to fashion the Privacy Agreement but could not foresee what would happen with "flamboyant cowboys". Heh.
 
Theonly1 said:
And Baez stood up in court and regaled Judge Strickland with how he went to many sources to fashion the Privacy Agreement but could not foresee what would happen with "flamboyant cowboys". Heh.
Click to expand...

...or very poorly drafted "agreements" double heh. :)
 
Woe.be.gone said:
BBM
I'm curious as to why it would be okay with most people (going by the support he received in this thread when he mentioned the possibility of writing one) for TP to write a book? In the past, on this forum, whenever it has been suggested that anybody is thinking of or going to write a book or make a movie about or around Caylee's case posters have spoken out with venom filled words against anybody who would even think of profiting from the case.
Click to expand...


I was going to ask this same thing last night, but decided to go to bed instead. For those who posted that they WOULD buy the book, what "bombshells" would you expect to read about???????:confused:

According to what Tony posted here in this forum, he only spent a total of two hours with Casey at the home the night she was bonded out....in the living area with a room full of people, and anything else he has offered up has been complete hearsay, inuendos, theories, etc. He knows NO FACTS about what happened to Caylee, who killed her, or the "inside story" of LE during their investigation.

Bottom line, his only involvement in this case has been meeting with Jose to arrange bond, accompanying Casey to the A house the night she was bonded out for a nice dinner prepared by Ms. Casey.

I just don't see where this possible book would have any sales value at all to the general public. Look at those who thought they were going to make a fortune profiting on their roles in the OJ trial....all those books are on sale at the Dollar Tree for $1 :clap:
 
Themis said:
The issue of forged signatures and the kinds of things viewing an original can reveal were preserved. However, the issue of switched pages may have been waived. Two different issues but both based on foundation.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the court cannot address the switched pages issue at a later date because the SA did not mention it in the hearing? I assumed after watching the hearing that JS would rule against JB and the original would never be produced. I know very little about legal procedures so thanks for helping me understand.
 
lin said:
The document is a topic of great interest to Mr. Padilla.
Click to expand...


I don't recall this information, but I understand that Tony is claiming he did not sign the same agreement that Leonard, Rob and Tracey signed, and that he told Jose he wanted an agreement separate from the three of him. Did he ever state how those two agreements differed??? What was in/ommitted from the document we see attached to the motion from the document that Tony is claiming he signed?
 
LawRig said:
no offense to anyone but I came to this thread to read the Q & A to Tony P, and there were so many comments to wade through that had to do strictly with the question of the document submitted at the last hearing as to its validity.

Is is possible to separate the thread? Not complaining, just would like to follow Tony's answers without getting derailed down a tangential path.
Click to expand...


I found it helpful when searching for Tony's posts, to scroll down the page and overlooking all posts except the ones that have "Tony Padilla" on them. Doesn't take long at all.

Tony started this Q & A mainly to discuss the topic of Baez allegedly submitting fake documents to the Court, as this issue is of extreme importance and relevance to Tony P. He also went on a Today Show interview strictly to address this matter.
That is why I have no problem with WS bloggers having a thorough and detailed discussion on this topic. We have many questions for Tony weaved into our posts on this subject. I believe that when Tony reads our comments about this relevant subject (IF he does), then he knows what answers we are looking for.
It is not every day that a Defense attorney is suspected of such outrageous fraudulent and illegal behavior! We just want to get to the bottom of it, with Tony's help.
 
Kentjbkent said:
I was going to ask this same thing last night, but decided to go to bed instead. For those who posted that they WOULD buy the book, what "bombshells" would you expect to read about???????:confused:

According to what Tony posted here in this forum, he only spent a total of two hours with Casey at the home the night she was bonded out....in the living area with a room full of people, and anything else he has offered up has been complete hearsay, inuendos, theories, etc. He knows NO FACTS about what happened to Caylee, who killed her, or the "inside story" of LE during their investigation.

Bottom line, his only involvement in this case has been meeting with Jose to arrange bond, accompanying Casey to the A house the night she was bonded out for a nice dinner prepared by Ms. Casey.

I just don't see where this possible book would have any sales value at all to the general public. Look at those who thought they were going to make a fortune profiting on their roles in the OJ trial....all those books are on sale at the Dollar Tree for $1 :clap:
Click to expand...

I agree. His involvement in the case appears minimal.. If he were to write a story about his career in general, with the Anthony case as a chapter it would have some merit, I'm sure he has had lots of interesting cases, but as for some inside knowledge about this one..... not so much.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that anyone would want to cash in at this point.
Its' bad enough to see the Today show producer sitting alongside Cindy every time they go to court.......
 
lin said:
...or very poorly drafted "agreements" double heh. :)
Click to expand...

I was just looking at the agreement attached to the motion again and have yet another question. The agreement is between Baez Law Firm and individually names Leonard, Tracey, Rob, and Tony ("Parties of the Second Part").

Tony states that he did not sign THIS agreement, but instead told Baez that he wanted a separate agreement. So, since all FOUR are named as the Parties of the Second Part, would the agreement even be valid if only THREE of the listed parties signed it? Or is the speculation not only that Baez did some copy/paste to add the notary signature at the end of the document, but also created this bogus agreement listing all FOUR names at the same time when deciding to file the motion to quash their testimony?

I am wondering if maybe Tony DID sign this agreement, but is just not recalling it. He stated himself that he was so distracted and distressed to get this thing done as FLA bondsmen were threatening to have him arrested that it didn't even occur to him to get a copy, initial pages, etc. I think maybe it was a push for time, distress that this may not happen (after flying out here, making all arrangements, media, etc), and pressure by Jose to sign this agreement before they went any further.

I think this whole idea of Jose altering this document is going to just dwindle away (it really isnt getting much attention anywhere other than WS) as soon as Strickland denys the motion anyway. Even Tony didn't bring up the statement that he did NOT sign THAT document that was released with the motion when he appeared on the Today show this weekend.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 114 more.
Total: 3,954 (members: 115, guests: 3,839)

Online statistics

Members online
115
Guests online
3,839
Total visitors
3,954
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,661
Messages
17,957,172
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top