ZFG Civil Case: Casey's Deposition #3

[logicalgirl]

Woohoo. Judge denied the motion seeking to limit punitive damages. Can't link from my phone but it is at www.wesh.com

Here you go - FLmom777 - and thanks for the good news!

http://www.wesh.com/news/casey-anth...ge/-/13479888/17343730/-/adr9g9z/-/index.html

Love the pic they've chosen to show at the bottom of the article!

 

[ZsaZsa]

It will be interesting to see the testimony from the staff from Sawgrass, and their documents..
:great:

 

[ZsaZsa]

Woohoo. Judge denied the motion seeking to limit punitive damages. Can't link from my phone but it is at www.wesh.com

:great: Follow the money Mr Morgan!

 

[ZsaZsa]

This article says her lawyers filed incorrectly (shades of Baez!) so she can re-file regarding the punitive damages...


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...thony-damages-denied-20121109,0,5768258.story

 

[logicalgirl]

This article says her lawyers filed incorrectly (shades of Baez!) so she can re-file regarding the punitive damages...


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...thony-damages-denied-20121109,0,5768258.story

I don't think that is quite what the article says - it says the request was denied without prejudice, which means if there is more information to add to their current motion, they can refile. A lot of decisions say that IMO.

Further down is the part about not filing correctly.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I don't think that is quite what the article says - it says the request was denied without prejudice, which means if there is more information to add to their current motion, they can refile. A lot of decisions say that IMO.

Further down is the part about not filing correctly.

Yes, they can re-file, I said that. The reason they need to re-file and the part I am quoting is in the second sentence where it says - "Anthony's motion to strike Zenaida Gonzales' claim for punitive damages was not filed according to proper procedure".

 

[Desdemona]

News Article posted by Outlandishone today - thanks!

Interesting article with some errors - it says FCA will be be back on the stand to tesify - she has never taken the stand so we will have to see how realistic that will be. Not believing it myself...

Also, as we know, FCA is no longer on probation.

Yes, agree, an interesting article. The error about her going "back on the stand" is the fault of the headline writer who obviously doesn't know anything about the trial! The error is not repeated in the text of the article; only appears in the headline as far as I could tell.

The link again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...estify-Zenaida-Gonzalez-defamation-trial.html

The other error LG points out, the bit at the end of the article stating FCA is "currently serving probation," made me kinda happy. Appears to be a leftover bit from previous articles, which IMO indicates the news of FCA's release from probation didn't register -- even though the Mail published a story about it themselves back in August! LOL
Old article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...itted-murdering-year-old-daughter-Caylee.html

:giggle: Hee hee

 

[Desdemona]

Woohoo. Judge denied the motion seeking to limit punitive damages. Can't link from my phone but it is at www.wesh.com

:dance: There is no limit to the damage she's caused in general, IMO. Good call, yer honor!



ETA: Oh. Okay. Now that I've read the article, wish the judge had actually ruled that there would be no limit, period.

But we'll take this ruling on the grounds that the motion was improperly filed, for the time being!

 

[ZsaZsa]

Yes, agree, an interesting article. The error about her going "back on the stand" is the fault of the headline writer who obviously doesn't know anything about the trial! The error is not repeated in the text of the article; only appears in the headline as far as I could tell.

The link again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...estify-Zenaida-Gonzalez-defamation-trial.html

The other error LG points out, the bit at the end of the article stating FCA is "currently serving probation," made me kinda happy. Appears to be a leftover bit from previous articles, which IMO indicates the news of FCA's release from probation didn't register -- even though the Mail published a story about it themselves back in August! LOL
Old article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...itted-murdering-year-old-daughter-Caylee.html

:giggle: Hee hee

Don't rely on anything in the Mail being true though.... :waitasec: they never let the truth get in the way of a sensational story.

 

[logicalgirl]

Yes, they can re-file, I said that. The reason they need to re-file and the part I am quoting is in the second sentence where it says - "Anthony's motion to strike Zenaida Gonzales' claim for punitive damages was not filed according to proper procedure".

My apologies ZsaZsa - I wasn't trying to be snippy - I was simply attempting to point out that the "not filed according to proper procedure" wasn't the reason the Defense motion to limit damages was denied.

 

[ZsaZsa]

My apologies ZsaZsa - I wasn't trying to be snippy - I was simply attempting to point out that the "not filed according to proper procedure" wasn't the reason the Defense motion to limit damages was denied.

I have just read this report again and that is exactly the reason stated.
Mr Dill, for Zenaida argued that a motion like the one Greene filed was not the proper way to ask a Judge to throw out a claim for punitive damages.
In her order Judge Munyon wrote that "the Court agrees".
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...thony-damages-denied-20121109,0,5768258.story

 

[NavySubMom]

I have just read this report again and that is exactly the reason stated.
Mr Dill, for Zenaida argued that a motion like the one Greene filed was not the proper way to ask a Judge to throw out a claim for punitive damages.
In her order Judge Munyon wrote that "the Court agrees".
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...thony-damages-denied-20121109,0,5768258.story

Zsa Zsa, You are correct.

from the article: "Orange Circuit Judge Lisa Munyon ruled that Anthony's motion to strike Zenaida Gonzalez's claim for punitive damages in the lawsuit was not filed according to proper procedure."

The reason for the denial was Greene did not file in the proper manner.

The Judge made the the ruling "without prejudice", so Greene can refile the motion with a different/the correct argument/correct procedure if he wishes, and Munyon can revisit this issue and re-rule, depending on the new Motion.

from the article: "Munyon denied the request "without prejudice," meaning Anthony's lawyers could ask the judge to revisit the issue on different legal grounds."

Dill/Zenaida made his argument from two directions (1) the prior Judge ruled it was OK for Zenaida to seek punitive damages and Munyon should not go against that ruling, or, if Munyon didn't like that reason lol, (2) Dill also argued that a motion like the one Greene filed wasn't the proper way to ask a judge to throw out a claim for punitive damages. The judge will take the prevailing argument and in this instance, Munyon ruled again Greene on the incorrect procedure, but Greene can re-file and re-argue if he can figure out the correct way to do it ........lol.... ,

and conceivably, Munyon could rule the other way next time, but Dill can be prepared to argue against whatever new Motion Greene comes up with, providing he files it correctly.

Also the fact that the prior Judge ruled Zenaida can argue for punitive damages may come into play again if Greene re-files and can convince the Judge otherwise based on his merits of the argument, to overturn that ruling, but for this instance, because Greene did not file according to the correct procedure, the ruling was based on that incorrect procedure.

Maybe all of this pro bono work for FCA is wearing on him, and he is losing his touch.

IMO, MOO, etc.

 

[logicalgirl]

I have just read this report again and that is exactly the reason stated.
Mr Dill, for Zenaida argued that a motion like the one Greene filed was not the proper way to ask a Judge to throw out a claim for punitive damages.
In her order Judge Munyon wrote that "the Court agrees".
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...thony-damages-denied-20121109,0,5768258.story

That just goes to show how differently people read the same article.
Wesh.com makes no mention of that comment here....

http://www.wesh.com/news/casey-anth...ge/-/13479888/17343730/-/adr9g9z/-/index.html

and neither does 13News in their article here:

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/new...icles/cfn/2012/11/9/judge_denies_punitiv.html

 

[NavySubMom]

That just goes to show how differently people read the same article.
Wesh.com makes no mention of that comment here....

http://www.wesh.com/news/casey-anth...ge/-/13479888/17343730/-/adr9g9z/-/index.html

and neither does 13News in their article here:

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/new...icles/cfn/2012/11/9/judge_denies_punitiv.html

I trust Jeff Weiner at the Orlando Sentinel, he usually posts the actual PDF of the Orders/Rulings/Motions with his articles, but it is clear to me that Jeff actually read the actual Order by the Judge because he cited portions of it in his article. Wesh and 13News must've just taken the headlines and simply ran with them, without reading the actual Order, therefore their articles are misleading in my opinion. Shoddy reporting.

I read Jeff Weiner at the OS through the trial and now follow him on twitter as he is also covering the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin trial for the OS, and he is consistently linking to all of the PDF files of the actual Motions/Rulings/Orders, etc. for that case now. I think due to the lack of overall interest in the FCA trial by the "masses" at this point, the OS isn't publishing the actual PDF file of the Orders like they had in the past. Don't they have to purchase a copy from the Clerk of Court's desk if they want to link it in their articles, I am fairly certain they do.

IMO, MOO, etc.

ETA: per Jeff Weiner, here is Greene's error and exact reason Judge Munyon denied ruling:

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS
[@xxxxxx] Yes, Greene can refile. In legal terms: He filed a motion to strike, judge said it should've been a motion for summary judgment.

 

[atthelake]

I trust Jeff Weiner at the Orlando Sentinel, he usually posts the actual PDF of the Orders/Rulings/Motions with his articles, but it is clear to me that Jeff actually read the actual Order by the Judge because he cited portions of it in his article. Wesh and 13News must've just taken the headlines and simply ran with them, without reading the actual Order, therefore their articles are misleading in my opinion. Shoddy reporting.

I read Jeff Weiner at the OS through the trial and now follow him on twitter as he is also covering the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin trial for the OS, and he is consistently linking to all of the PDF files of the actual Motions/Rulings/Orders, etc. for that case now. I think due to the lack of overall interest in the FCA trial by the "masses" at this point, the OS isn't publishing the actual PDF file of the Orders like they had in the past. Don't they have to purchase a copy from the Clerk of Court's desk if they want to link it in their articles, I am fairly certain they do.

IMO, MOO, etc.

ETA: per Jeff Weiner, here is Greene's error and exact reason Judge Munyon denied ruling:

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS
[@xxxxxx] Yes, Greene can refile. In legal terms: He filed a motion to strike, judge said it should've been a motion for summary judgment.

Thanks so much for everyone doing clips and their opinion.... but I still ask, what happened to our bowtie favorite man in the media from the trial???? :waitasec:

 

[atthelake]

I trust Jeff Weiner at the Orlando Sentinel, he usually posts the actual PDF of the Orders/Rulings/Motions with his articles, but it is clear to me that Jeff actually read the actual Order by the Judge because he cited portions of it in his article. Wesh and 13News must've just taken the headlines and simply ran with them, without reading the actual Order, therefore their articles are misleading in my opinion. Shoddy reporting.

I read Jeff Weiner at the OS through the trial and now follow him on twitter as he is also covering the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin trial for the OS, and he is consistently linking to all of the PDF files of the actual Motions/Rulings/Orders, etc. for that case now. I think due to the lack of overall interest in the FCA trial by the "masses" at this point, the OS isn't publishing the actual PDF file of the Orders like they had in the past. Don't they have to purchase a copy from the Clerk of Court's desk if they want to link it in their articles, I am fairly certain they do.

IMO, MOO, etc.

ETA: per Jeff Weiner, here is Greene's error and exact reason Judge Munyon denied ruling:

Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS
[@xxxxxx] Yes, Greene can refile. In legal terms: He filed a motion to strike, judge said it should've been a motion for summary judgment.

I must say..........I have NEVER waited for a man to come back as I am now and have for over.....well....it's becoming years now perhaps........for


......
........
..
Musikman!

We have waited for him for so very long, and I am sure it is for a reason that we all will admire in the end..

That is what I like about our WS buddies.......he gave it all to offer for us...but when push came to shove......... he is gone.... but for the right reasons I believe. :seeya: Musikman!

 

[atthelake]

link

 

[logicalgirl]

Zsa Zsa, You are correct.

from the article: "Orange Circuit Judge Lisa Munyon ruled that Anthony's motion to strike Zenaida Gonzalez's claim for punitive damages in the lawsuit was not filed according to proper procedure."

The reason for the denial was Greene did not file in the proper manner.

The Judge made the the ruling "without prejudice", so Greene can refile the motion with a different/the correct argument/correct procedure if he wishes, and Munyon can revisit this issue and re-rule, depending on the new Motion.

from the article: "Munyon denied the request "without prejudice," meaning Anthony's lawyers could ask the judge to revisit the issue on different legal grounds."

Dill/Zenaida made his argument from two directions (1) the prior Judge ruled it was OK for Zenaida to seek punitive damages and Munyon should not go against that ruling, or, if Munyon didn't like that reason lol, (2) Dill also argued that a motion like the one Greene filed wasn't the proper way to ask a judge to throw out a claim for punitive damages. The judge will take the prevailing argument and in this instance, Munyon ruled again Greene on the incorrect procedure, but Greene can re-file and re-argue if he can figure out the correct way to do it ........lol.... ,

and conceivably, Munyon could rule the other way next time, but Dill can be prepared to argue against whatever new Motion Greene comes up with, providing he files it correctly.

Also the fact that the prior Judge ruled Zenaida can argue for punitive damages may come into play again if Greene re-files and can convince the Judge otherwise based on his merits of the argument, to overturn that ruling, but for this instance, because Greene did not file according to the correct procedure, the ruling was based on that incorrect procedure.

Maybe all of this pro bono work for FCA is wearing on him, and he is losing his touch.

IMO, MOO, etc.

Here we are again - thank you for this summary. :banghead: The question is - will Mr. Greene refile? Since he was trying to file against the original ruling, can he find other legal grounds?That are legimate? Surely he would have used those "other legal grounds" if he had any.:waitasec:

 

[Tulessa]

link

Man........or wurd.....or heck, what is that? :floorlaugh:

 

[Peazzzer]

I have a question, not a really serious one, but still,.....how long do you think it would take to get rid of KC residue from your home? Just the thought of having one of her hairs in my bathroom makes me sick......surely she left a tell tale stain or 200 every where!