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

[The World According]

Minute six:14

Dominic and the judge filed complaints to bar

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67qpUNAz4vQ[/ame]

 

[notthatsmart]

Well it seems to me that if they did an investigative subpoena (and we don't know that they did, many assume), Dc would just do the same thing he did in the police interviews and cry privilege. He has to protect himself and that is okay with me. I understand privilege and support it. When he had the tape stopped for that long period of time, many speculate that was where he said Jb told him not to call 911, but none of us really know what happened while the tape was stopped.

Dc is amazing. He has managed to have several clients and two Lawyers. What a mess. lol .. His latest Lawyer has stepped down, but I do not know if Bc stepped down. Bc was there during the time the tape was stopped, so he knows what was said. I am sure he will keep secret due to Attorney client privilege. lol

I don't think Dominic is scared at all. He has many protections. Many think of him as an amatuer, however, he did come close to the body, much closer than any Ocso personel that we know of. He may hold some key things that pertain to this case, but they may not be inculpatory.

It is my opinion that he should be deposed with the defense present. The defense may object many times due to client privilege, but that is okay. We all support privilege as far as I know. There should be nothing to hide. It should all be out on the table come trial. Dc will likely be called as a witness for the defense, they just don't want to do it yet because they do not want to give up their strategy. I don't think it really matters who's witness list he is on other than the cross. I noted he was not on their deposition list the other day. What happens when both sides refuse to put a witness on their list? Does the Judge step in?

I am glad we now have a Judge that can see through all these smoke and mirrors and something will indeed come of this at some point. MOO

 

[Muzikman]

tips on "maybe" why Dominic's attorney has "concluded her obligation under the contract" ... ???

Zenaida files New Motion to Compel Dominic Casey’s Appearance at Deposition and Motion for Sanctions :
http://www.forthepeople.com/New_Motion_to_Compel.pdf

PLAINTIFF’S NEW MOTION TO COMPEL DOMINIC CASEY’S APPEARANCE AT DEPOSITION AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
Sept. 11, 2009

1. .......It appears that this Court has been misinformed as to the existence of privilege.

2. .......Additionally on February 18, 2009 Judge Stan Strickland reviewed the transcript of the interview with Dominic Casey in-camera, and concluded “the statement contains no matter which this Court views as privileged.”

3. Particularly troubling are Mr. Casey’s counsel’s representations to the Court both in writing and at the hearing .....................

4. Compounding these assertions, which are inaccurate, .....................

5. Remember, Dominic Casey and his attorney, Diana Tennis went out of their way to make the point there was a joint defense which included Bradley A. Conway....................

6. These false representations .............

7. To make matters worse, Dominic Casey and his counsel convinced the Court that he was working for Jose Baez and Casey Anthony at all times (in addition to George and Cindy Anthony). To the contrary.......................

8. Counsel for the Plaintiff called opposing counsel immediately upon learning of this 80 page statement, asking that Dominic Casey be produced for deposition without the need for further Court intervention. ...................

Great recap, Thinktank!

 

[FaerieB]

It is my opinion that he should be deposed with the defense present. The defense may object many times due to client privilege, but that is okay. We all support privilege as far as I know. There should be nothing to hide. It should all be out on the table come trial. Dc will likely be called as a witness for the defense, they just don't want to do it yet because they do not want to give up their strategy. I don't think it really matters who's witness list he is on other than the cross. I noted he was not on their deposition list the other day. What happens when both sides refuse to put a witness on their list? Does the Judge step in?

Can you please clarify how the two bolded parts above go together? Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to figure out how the two correlate in your reasoning. TIA!

 

[AZlawyer]

It is my opinion that he should be deposed with the defense present. The defense may object many times due to client privilege, but that is okay. We all support privilege as far as I know. There should be nothing to hide. It should all be out on the table come trial. Dc will likely be called as a witness for the defense, they just don't want to do it yet because they do not want to give up their strategy. I don't think it really matters who's witness list he is on other than the cross. I noted he was not on their deposition list the other day. What happens when both sides refuse to put a witness on their list? Does the Judge step in?

Respectfully snipped...

First, your statement that you support the idea of DC claiming privilege absolutely conflicts with your statement that there should be nothing to hide and it should all be out on the table.

Second, it is easy for the defense to get invited to interviews...just put the witness on their list and turn the interview into a deposition. There would be no strategic reason for the defense to leave DC off their list if they plan to call him as a witness. None. Nada. Zip. NO "strategy" would be revealed by doing so, and in addition the defense (and the SA) are absolutely REQUIRED to reveal their "strategy," if by that you mean their witnesses and exhibits.

Third, no one has "refused" to put him on their list. If he was likely to say something helpful to either side, he would appear on one of the lists. If not, he won't, and why would the judge intervene? It is not the judge's job to tell the SA or the defense which witnesses to use.

 

[RR0004]

Well it seems to me that if they did an investigative subpoena (and we don't know that they did, many assume), Dc would just do the same thing he did in the police interviews and cry privilege. He has to protect himself and that is okay with me. I understand privilege and support it. When he had the tape stopped for that long period of time, many speculate that was where he said Jb told him not to call 911, but none of us really know what happened while the tape was stopped.

Dc is amazing. He has managed to have several clients and two Lawyers. What a mess. lol .. His latest Lawyer has stepped down, but I do not know if Bc stepped down. Bc was there during the time the tape was stopped, so he knows what was said. I am sure he will keep secret due to Attorney client privilege. lol

I don't think Dominic is scared at all. He has many protections. Many think of him as an amatuer, however, he did come close to the body, much closer than any Ocso personel that we know of. He may hold some key things that pertain to this case, but they may not be inculpatory.

It is my opinion that he should be deposed with the defense present. The defense may object many times due to client privilege, but that is okay. We all support privilege as far as I know. There should be nothing to hide. It should all be out on the table come trial. Dc will likely be called as a witness for the defense, they just don't want to do it yet because they do not want to give up their strategy. I don't think it really matters who's witness list he is on other than the cross. I noted he was not on their deposition list the other day. What happens when both sides refuse to put a witness on their list? Does the Judge step in?

I am glad we now have a Judge that can see through all these smoke and mirrors and something will indeed come of this at some point. MOO

Does the law say that the defense needs to be present? I have no idea why they have opted not to put him on a witness list...but ya can't cry foul 'cause he's (Baez, et al.) made the decision for whatever reason. The facts are the SA can use an investigative subpoena to interview DC and if they do (or did) the defense was quite aware of their legal rights so no one is hiding anything. Well, maybe with the exception of DC. JMHO

 

[AZlawyer]

Does the law say that the defense needs to be present? I have no idea why they have opted not to put him on a witness list...but ya can't cry foul 'cause he's (Baez, et al.) made the decision for whatever reason. The facts are the SA can use an investigative subpoena to interview DC and if they do (or did) the defense was quite aware of their legal rights so no one is hiding anything. Well, maybe with the exception of DC. JMHO

And by the way JB is free to talk to DC without the State present as well.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

March 27th, 2009
Dominic Casey Replies to Florida Association of Private Investigators' AllegationsFlorida Association of Licensed Investigators (FALI)

The Florida Association of Private Investigators issued the following press release today:

March 27, 2009
For Immediate Release
_____________________________
Press Release

Florida Association of Private Investigators Deplores Reports of Unlicensed Activity

Florida Licensing Statutes are clear; The Private Investigators who involved themselves in the Anthony case appear to have acted in violation of the regulatory provisions governing the investigative profession as set forth in FSS 493. Public should be aware of Licensing Statutes


more at the link and DC's response to this letter
Read more: http://pursuitmag.com/fapi-issues-s...da-state-pi-licensing-statutes/#ixzz0oNPA5Ikg

Florida Statute 493
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...tm&StatuteYear=2006&Title=->2006->Chapter 493

 

[magic-cat]

So Ms. Tennis has withdrawn or filed a Notice of Conclusion indicating she is finished with whatever duties she agreed to under her contract with Mr. Casey so from this may we assume that his deposition/interview HAS taken place?

If so, I doubt he was very helpful at all. I mean, he had a contract with KC AND with George AND with Cindy, and early on with Baez. Doesn't this indicate that EVERYTHING he knows is privileged and not subject to disclosure?

Also, since the bar complaint that involved him and not being paid was resolved to Baez' credit, does that indicate he finally WAS paid and if so, how much was he paid and when did this payment take place? Will this be disclosed or is how much he was paid also subject to privilege?

 

[marspiter]

Well it seems to me that if they did an investigative subpoena (and we don't know that they did, many assume), Dc would just do the same thing he did in the police interviews and cry privilege. He has to protect himself and that is okay with me. I understand privilege and support it. When he had the tape stopped for that long period of time, many speculate that was where he said Jb told him not to call 911, but none of us really know what happened while the tape was stopped.

Dc is amazing. He has managed to have several clients and two Lawyers. What a mess. lol .. His latest Lawyer has stepped down, but I do not know if Bc stepped down. Bc was there during the time the tape was stopped, so he knows what was said. I am sure he will keep secret due to Attorney client privilege. lol

I don't think Dominic is scared at all. He has many protections. Many think of him as an amatuer, however, he did come close to the body, much closer than any Ocso personel that we know of. He may hold some key things that pertain to this case, but they may not be inculpatory.

It is my opinion that he should be deposed with the defense present. The defense may object many times due to client privilege, but that is okay. We all support privilege as far as I know. There should be nothing to hide. It should all be out on the table come trial. Dc will likely be called as a witness for the defense, they just don't want to do it yet because they do not want to give up their strategy. I don't think it really matters who's witness list he is on other than the cross. I noted he was not on their deposition list the other day. What happens when both sides refuse to put a witness on their list? Does the Judge step in?

I am glad we now have a Judge that can see through all these smoke and mirrors and something will indeed come of this at some point. MOO

NTS you really seem to be over looking one important fact in your argument about the defense being present for DC's depo. This one fact has been pointed out numerous times by several posters. The defense has never placed DC or their witness list. There is a procedure for how things are done. That procedure has to be followed. The SA has every right to question DC with out the defense present as part of an investigative subpoena. So until the defense adds DC to its witness list the argument that the defense should be present holds absolutely no water.

Once again there is no grand conspiracy on the part of the state. The proper procedure is being followed and the defense has not done the work necessary to be present.

 

[faefrost]

So Ms. Tennis has withdrawn or filed a Notice of Conclusion indicating she is finished with whatever duties she agreed to under her contract with Mr. Casey so from this may we assume that his deposition/interview HAS taken place?

If so, I doubt he was very helpful at all. I mean, he had a contract with KC AND with George AND with Cindy, and early on with Baez. Doesn't this indicate that EVERYTHING he knows is privileged and not subject to disclosure?

Also, since the bar complaint that involved him and not being paid was resolved to Baez' credit, does that indicate he finally WAS paid and if so, how much was he paid and when did this payment take place? Will this be disclosed or is how much he was paid also subject to privilege?

Actually it means the exact opposite. DC is not a Lawyer, so he never ever has any privilege with regards to his clients. Privilege will only effect him if he is working as the direct employee of a lawyer in the service of a litigant/defendant. In which case the lawyers privilege extends to cover him under certain circumstances. He can only be shielded if he is a unique third party actor who's only ties to the case or the defendant is through the lawyer employing him for specific services.

However if DC does in fact have an agreement directly with KC, then he is KC's employee, not JB's. and the defendants employees NEVER have privilege unless they are attorneys (or are specifically defined members of the presidents staff, somehow I dont think DC qualifies for that one). The court can always compel you to rat out your boss.

 

[notthatsmart]

NTS you really seem to be over looking one important fact in your argument about the defense being present for DC's depo. This one fact has been pointed out numerous times by several posters. The defense has never placed DC or their witness list. There is a procedure for how things are done. That procedure has to be followed. The SA has every right to question DC with out the defense present as part of an investigative subpoena. So until the defense adds DC to its witness list the argument that the defense should be present holds absolutely no water.

Once again there is no grand conspiracy on the part of the state. The proper procedure is being followed and the defense has not done the work necessary to be present.

Can you just quote the quote instead of talking about things that I have never said. Please lets keep it on track. thanks

 

[The World According]

Does the law say that the defense needs to be present? I have no idea why they have opted not to put him on a witness list...but ya can't cry foul 'cause he's (Baez, et al.) made the decision for whatever reason. The facts are the SA can use an investigative subpoena to interview DC and if they do (or did) the defense was quite aware of their legal rights so no one is hiding anything. Well, maybe with the exception of DC. JMHO

I looked it up,with the Florida Attorney General's office, and no the law does not say that. Quite the opposite, it says it is secret, to remain secret, unless a judge rules otherwise.
Pursuant to s. 27.04, F.S., a state attorney is "allowed the process of his court to summon witnesses from throughout the state to appear before him . . . [and] to testify before him as to any violation of the criminal law upon which they may be interrogated . . . ." Likewise, the statewide prosecutor is authorized to summon and examine witnesses, require the production of physical evidence and "exercise such other powers as by law are granted to state attorneys."[9]

It would appear, therefore, that when a state attorney or the statewide prosecutor summons witnesses or seeks physical evidence for a criminal investigation, the clerk of the court issuing the subpoenas is an officer of the court[10] and an agency having custody of criminal intelligence or investigative information for the purpose of assisting law enforcement agencies in the conduct of an active criminal investigation.


Accordingly, criminal investigative subpoenas issued by the clerk of the court would be exempt from the disclosure requirements of Ch. 119, F.S., as long as they are part of an "active" criminal investigation or intelligence gathering operation as provided in ss. 119.011(3) and 119.07(3)(d), F.S.

Regarding grand jury subpoenas, s. 905.24, F.S., makes grand jury proceedings secret. Therefore, records prepared for use of the grand jury during the regular performance of its duties are not subject to s. 119.07, F.S.11 In order to lift the secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings, there must be a judicial finding of a particularized need for disclosure that outweighs the benefits of maintaining the secrecy.



About 339,000 results (0.42 seconds)
Search Results

1.
Advisory Legal Opinion - Investigative subpoenas/active criminal ...
Orlando, Florida 32801. RE: CLERKS OF COURT--PUBLIC RECORDS--STATE ATTORNEYS–STATEWIDE PROSECUTOR--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE--investigative subpoenas issued as ...
www.myfloridalegal.com

 

[Bittiness39]

Isn't an investigative subpoena just another interview? Haven't they already done that several times? Would he be under oath in an interview?

Going to try to answer these questions (if I am wrong, hopefully the legal experts will correct me):
1. Yes. If only one party is questioning the subject (the other party is not present) and there is no transcript it is tantamount to an interview and not a deposition...
2. I believe that the SA's office has only met with DC one time (December 2009) in an informal capacity, ie...an informal interview, not a depo and the defense was not present. If the defense wants to be present, they can add DC to their witness list (which would make questioning him a deposition) or as AZ Lawyer suggested the defense could conduct their own informal interview with DC (meaning they haven't put him on their list) without the prosecution present...it just won't rise to the level of a deposition (ie...under oath).
3. No...he would not be...but in this one thing I am confused...when LE interviews a subject...and they make a written statement to police....the subject of the interview pretty much reviews the statement and swears it is correct/accurate/truthful...but no, in an interview, DC would not be under oath and it would not be transcribed for the other party not present.

Hope that helps. Again, to the legal experts, if I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

 

[The World According]

So Ms. Tennis has withdrawn or filed a Notice of Conclusion indicating she is finished with whatever duties she agreed to under her contract with Mr. Casey so from this may we assume that his deposition/interview HAS taken place?

If so, I doubt he was very helpful at all. I mean, he had a contract with KC AND with George AND with Cindy, and early on with Baez. Doesn't this indicate that EVERYTHING he knows is privileged and not subject to disclosure?

Also, since the bar complaint that involved him and not being paid was resolved to Baez' credit, does that indicate he finally WAS paid and if so, how much was he paid and when did this payment take place? Will this be disclosed or is how much he was paid also subject to privilege?

The answer to your first question is yes, much like Mr. Luka withdrew from representing Lee, it is perfunctory, just giving the court the information. If she were withdrawing from the case for reasons other than concluding her work, she could have said she withdrew for non payment, or other reasons. Moreover, if Dominic had not appeared at the state subpoenaed depo you can bet your life Mrs. Drane Burdick would have promptly had her staff prepare a Motion to Compel
(make him be required to show cause of why he will not or cannot testify, to the judge)and we would have heard about it. No news is good news. He was indeed deposed, imo.
Your second question...no, confidentiality agreements do not permit a witness to refuse to testify. The only things that can permit that are by statue and the rules. There is no investigator/client privilege, real or imagined. He was engaged, as he likes to call it, by Mr. Baez for a very short period. That relationship was terminated. Even if he could claim attorney/client privilege extended to him through an agency relationship with Casey's lawyer, it would have no relevance on this investigative interview/depo. The reason I say this, is Mrs. Drane-Burdick told the court, she had NO intention to inquire into that limited time period. The judge stated when that time period ended with Baez, and she said she was not interested in that time, she wanted to know about after, during the search and subsequent to Dom's search of the woods. Then the judge told her to go ahead and serve the investigative subpoena on him. That in effect was an order for him to appear, not a casual invitation to see if he would care to.

I cannot help with your question about was Dominic finally paid for those few months he worked for Baez. We have never seen the missing pages of his letter of engagement with any of the parties. I guess those parts were intentionally left out as they may include some sort of contingency agreement for future payment due to media rights being sold ( at least for the ones with Casey, Mom and Pop.) I do believe Judge Perry is going to look into what Baez has done with the hundreds of thousands of dollars very very carefully, because Baez, et al are asking for huge, HUGE, amounts of money from the good taxpayers of Florida. Perhaps one of our lawyers can help better, but this is my understanding. Julia

.www.myfloridalegal.com
[PDF]
REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATIVE SUBPOENA FROM STATE ATTORNEY. 9th ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
obtained a sworn statement from Anthony regarding this. ..... The State of Florida n ' ' I. Investigative Subpoena Un y indi. TO: Lee Anthony ...
blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/files/09.pdf

 

[RainyGirl]

NTS you really seem to be over looking one important fact in your argument about the defense being present for DC's depo. This one fact has been pointed out numerous times by several posters. The defense has never placed DC or their witness list. There is a procedure for how things are done. That procedure has to be followed. The SA has every right to question DC with out the defense present as part of an investigative subpoena. So until the defense adds DC to its witness list the argument that the defense should be present holds absolutely no water.

Once again there is no grand conspiracy on the part of the state. The proper procedure is being followed and the defense has not done the work necessary to be present.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

bbm. Thank you for posting this critical and factual information. You have FAR more patience than I have..........

 

[notthatsmart]

Going to try to answer these questions (if I am wrong, hopefully the legal experts will correct me):
1. Yes. If only one party is questioning the subject (the other party is not present) and there is no transcript it is tantamount to an interview and not a deposition...
2. I believe that the SA's office has only met with DC one time (December 2009) in an informal capacity, ie...an informal interview, not a depo and the defense was not present. If the defense wants to be present, they can add DC to their witness list (which would make questioning him a deposition) or as AZ Lawyer suggested the defense could conduct their own informal interview with DC (meaning they haven't put him on their list) without the prosecution present...it just won't rise to the level of a deposition (ie...under oath).
3. No...he would not be...but in this one thing I am confused...when LE interviews a subject...and they make a written statement to police....the subject of the interview pretty much reviews the statement and swears it is correct/accurate/truthful...but no, in an interview, DC would not be under oath and it would not be transcribed for the other party not present.

Hope that helps. Again, to the legal experts, if I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

Thank you so much. I have found that some threads have up to 52000 views and only 900 post showing that many are viewing these conversations. I think it is very important to point out that there is a difference between and interview and a deposition. thanks

 

[notthatsmart]

I looked it up,with the Florida Attorney General's office, and no the law does not say that. Quite the opposite, it says it is secret, to remain secret, unless a judge rules otherwise.
Pursuant to s. 27.04, F.S., a state attorney is "allowed the process of his court to summon witnesses from throughout the state to appear before him . . . [and] to testify before him as to any violation of the criminal law upon which they may be interrogated . . . ." Likewise, the statewide prosecutor is authorized to summon and examine witnesses, require the production of physical evidence and "exercise such other powers as by law are granted to state attorneys."[9]

It would appear, therefore, that when a state attorney or the statewide prosecutor summons witnesses or seeks physical evidence for a criminal investigation, the clerk of the court issuing the subpoenas is an officer of the court[10] and an agency having custody of criminal intelligence or investigative information for the purpose of assisting law enforcement agencies in the conduct of an active criminal investigation.


Accordingly, criminal investigative subpoenas issued by the clerk of the court would be exempt from the disclosure requirements of Ch. 119, F.S., as long as they are part of an "active" criminal investigation or intelligence gathering operation as provided in ss. 119.011(3) and 119.07(3)(d), F.S.

Regarding grand jury subpoenas, s. 905.24, F.S., makes grand jury proceedings secret. Therefore, records prepared for use of the grand jury during the regular performance of its duties are not subject to s. 119.07, F.S.11 In order to lift the secrecy surrounding grand jury proceedings, there must be a judicial finding of a particularized need for disclosure that outweighs the benefits of maintaining the secrecy.



About 339,000 results (0.42 seconds)
Search Results

1.
Advisory Legal Opinion - Investigative subpoenas/active criminal ...
Orlando, Florida 32801. RE: CLERKS OF COURT--PUBLIC RECORDS--STATE ATTORNEYS–STATEWIDE PROSECUTOR--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE--investigative subpoenas issued as ...
.www.myfloridalegal.com

I will try to find it, but I think there was a motion stating that the investigation was finished. (not active anymore) thanks

 

[AZlawyer]

Your second question...no, confidentiality agreements do not permit a witness to refuse to testify. The only things that can permit that are by statue and the rules. There is no investigator/client privilege, real or imagined. He was engaged, as he likes to call it, by Mr. Baez for a very short period. That relationship was terminated. Even if he could claim attorney/client privilege extended to him through an agency relationship with Casey's lawyer, it would have no relevance on this investigative interview/depo. The reason I say this, is Mrs. Drane-Burdick told the court, she had NO intention to inquire into that limited time period. The judge stated when that time period ended with Baez, and she said she was not interested in that time, she wanted to know about after, during the search and subsequent to Dom's search of the woods. Then the judge told her to go ahead and serve the investigative subpoena on him. That in effect was an order for him to appear, not a casual invitation to see if he would care to.

TWA, thank you--this is an excellent point. If the SA did not ask about the short time period in which DC could conceivably claim privilege (which would not include the time period during which he was poking around in the woods), then this whole privilege discussion is moot.

 

[Bittiness39]

Thank you so much. I have found that some threads have up to 52000 views and only 900 post showing that many are viewing these conversations. I think it is very important to point out that there is a difference between and interview and a deposition. thanks

UR welcome.
I tend to look at it like this: Interview = informal. Deposition = formal.
For instance, if during an interview, the subject interviewed decided to get up and leave...stop answering questions they could do so.
Often times in a deposition (since attorneys for both sides are present) the Judge presiding over the case is available either in person/by phone in the even the subject being deposed attempts not to cooperate...the Judge's role is to keep either party's attorneys from becoming antagonistic or from having the entire deposition break down. The Judge can compell the parties to cooperate and the subject to answer questions that don't fall under certain privileges.

As far as strategy, I think the prosecution was perhaps seeing what DC would tell them in an interview. They don't have to produce a transcript for the defense (as it is an interview), DC is not held to the same standards as he would be in a deposition...the defense has not listed him as a witness for their own reasons/strategy. It is possible that the proseuction, should they so choose to bring DC in as a rebuttal witness...assuming the defense opens a door during CX or direct testimony from another witness...to refute something the defense has presented at trial.