Tony Padilla Q&A

[Themis]

Tony said he didn't expect them to be contacting him. It would seem to me that his testimony would be needed to verify the existence of the second document and his signature page since this is the issue. Wouldn't the judge want to speak to him directly?

Trial courts generally do not call witnesses on their own motion. It could happen but it is more rare than you could imagine. Generally, there is no witness testimony on motion hearings unless previously requested and approved by the court and then only with notice to the other side. Motions are generally just documents, arguments of counsel and the like. It is a court time-saver to allow the attorneys to "proffer" expected testimony and base their decisions on that unless the other side objects. Here, the issue would have been the foundation for the authenticity of the document. Issues like that can be waived if there is no timely objection.

 

[AZlawyer]

Yep, I totally agree and get everything you say.

But since this document didn't have those protection measures in place, and it's now in dispute, what now?

I think this is important info for all of us to have/know.

This document was also to prevent those 4 from making any money off this deal. (Well, prevent them from discussing making money.. I guess they can do it, just not talk about it...)

With TP disputing the copy that JB filed with the court, Doesn't JB have to respond at this point. And if he dosn't, does that mean the document is no longer valid?

Also, if there are 2 contracts as TP states and JB did combine them to make it seem like 1 contract they all signed, and filed that with the court.. Does that nulify the individual contracts?

I'm just trying to figure out at what point a person claim the contract is void.

Combining the 2 contracts, etc., would not invalidate the original contracts, but sure could get JB in a lot of trouble!

For me, the only interesting question about these agreements is whether JB is going to get another Bar complaint filed against him. I don't think there's anything in the agreement (even if it is perfectly valid) that would prevent any of the Padilla crowd from testifying about what Casey told them and how she acted.

What I can't figure out is why JB would go to the trouble of altering evidence to create a document that is NOT EVEN HELPFUL to him.

 

[Themis]

I was just curious if TP believes/knows/speculates that the SA's office has irrefutable evidence that KC is Caylee's murderer...By that, I mean a smoking gun.

Thanks for coming by and taking the time to answer all of our questions. Sincerely.

Like something tantamount to an admission by KC and some independent evidentiary corroboration perhaps. Ah, such a dream; if only it could be true. :blowkiss:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

No,it's Leonard Padilla,the Bounty Hunter,his nephew ,Tony Padilla,the bail bondsman,and Tracy ?,and Rob Dick.
Jose' is claiming that 1. there is a privacy agreement all signed so they can't talk to the SA , and 2. that they were working under his authority,therefore part of the defense team .Anything they heard or saw is privilaged.
Tony Padilla has said that the Privacy agreement Jose' gave the judge in court is not the one he signed.He had a seperate agreement from LP.Jose' only brought questionable copies to court,not the original,so the SA has asked to see the originals.
We are now waiting for the fallout.

Reading the above synopsis fresh caused me to remember that LP has always stated, from the get go, that he came to give KC a chance to tell the truth and lead him to Caylee. Why, then, would LP ever sign an agreement with JB, KC's lawyer, that would muzzle him; bind him from accomplishing what his goal was in the first place? There is no common sense to that reasoning.

I think they may have signed something regarding not being privy to make movie and book deals and that is all.

 

[AZlawyer]

The problem is it wasn't disputed as to authenticity in court at the hearing on the motion. TP raised the issue of authenticity after the hearing. Therefore, although it is disputed "in the court of public opinion" in order for that challenge to be timely and heard by the judge to consider this, it would have had to be presented in court at the hearing on the motion. Now, there is a way within a very few days after a hearing and before a decision that the prosecution can bring a motion for new evidence and reconsideration, but it has to be something they couldn't have anticipated and guarded against when preparing to respond to the original motion. One would hope that since the alleged agreement was attached to the motion that someone in the SA's office would have contacted the people who allegedly signed it and asked if that was the document they signed. Since TP is just now bringing this up, there is a suspicion that that didn't happen. If it didn't happen, the SA may be stuck with the court's considing it a binding document that TP signed and ruling on it without ever knowing that TP would testify, if called, that it is not the document that he signed. So, there is a worry here.

Themis, I didn't watch the hearing, but some people who did are saying that the SA did raise the issue, and the judge ordered JB to produce the original document.

 

[roller26]

Thank you Tony for all your time and effort! For caring enough to even come on here and speak with us about the case. And a big thank you to our Mods for allowing this Q&A thread. It has been very interesting and insightful.

 

[AZlawyer]

Reading the above synopsis fresh caused me to remember that LP has always stated, from the get go, that he came to give KC a chance to tell the truth and lead him to Caylee. Why, then, would LP ever sign an agreement with JB, KC's lawyer, that would muzzle him; bind him from accomplishing what his goal was in the first place? There is no common sense to that reasoning.

I think they may have signed something regarding not being privy to make movie and book deals and that is all.

The agreement says that LP and friends can't QUESTION KC, but it doesn't say they can't LISTEN to her. Perhaps LP thought there would be no need to question her, as she was practically begging to be let out of jail so she could "help"?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Combining the 2 contracts, etc., would not invalidate the original contracts, but sure could get JB in a lot of trouble!

For me, the only interesting question about these agreements is whether JB is going to get another Bar complaint filed against him. I don't think there's anything in the agreement (even if it is perfectly valid) that would prevent any of the Padilla crowd from testifying about what Casey told them and how she acted.

What I can't figure out is why JB would go to the trouble of altering evidence to create a document that is NOT EVEN HELPFUL to him.

I might be missing something, but isn't the whole purpose of the document to prove to the Court that they were 'employees' or agents of Baez, they acknowledged that by signing and by doing so the lawyer- client confidentiality extends to their relationship with her?

 

[Themis]

Combining the 2 contracts, etc., would not invalidate the original contracts, but sure could get JB in a lot of trouble!

For me, the only interesting question about these agreements is whether JB is going to get another Bar complaint filed against him. I don't think there's anything in the agreement (even if it is perfectly valid) that would prevent any of the Padilla crowd from testifying about what Casey told them and how she acted.

What I can't figure out is why JB would go to the trouble of altering evidence to create a document that is NOT EVEN HELPFUL to him.

I agree with you regarding the contractual nature of the prohibition not being an evidentiary exclusion rule like a statutory privilege. (I guess JB would go to the trouble if he believed it was helpful to him.) I raised an issue earlier that providing security services was not a criminal defense service covered under the attorney-client privilege. What do you think, AZ?

 

[Numbers]

The problem is it wasn't disputed as to authenticity in court at the hearing on the motion. TP raised the issue of authenticity after the hearing. Therefore, although it is disputed "in the court of public opinion" in order for that challenge to be timely and heard by the judge to consider this, it would have had to be presented in court at the hearing on the motion. Now, there is a way within a very few days after a hearing and before a decision that the prosecution can bring a motion for new evidence and reconsideration, but it has to be something they couldn't have anticipated and guarded against when preparing to respond to the original motion. One would hope that since the alleged agreement was attached to the motion that someone in the SA's office would have contacted the people who allegedly signed it and asked if that was the document they signed. Since TP is just now bringing this up, there is a suspicion that that didn't happen. If it didn't happen, the SA may be stuck with the court's considing it a binding document that TP signed and ruling on it without ever knowing that TP would testify, if called, that it is not the document that he signed. So, there is a worry here.

Yes, it was. SA asked for the original, and Jose admitted he didn't bring it with him. Judge told him to give it to the SA, and if there's something wrong with it, they could tell him.

 

[AZlawyer]

I might be missing something, but isn't the whole purpose of the document to prove to the Court that they were 'employees' or agents of Baez, they acknowledged that by signing and by doing so the lawyer- client confidentiality extends to their relationship with her?

But, IIRC, the agreement SAYS that they are NOT employees or agents. So the question is, if you were an unethical lawyer willing to fabricate evidence to support your claim that someone WAS your agent, would you include a statement saying they were NOT your agent???

I'm going back to look at it again....

 

[Muzikman]

Themis, I didn't watch the hearing, but some people who did are saying that the SA did raise the issue, and the judge ordered JB to produce the original document.

That is correct. And, of COURSE, Baez made a snide comment about it directed at LDB.

 

[Marina2]

Combining the 2 contracts, etc., would not invalidate the original contracts, but sure could get JB in a lot of trouble!

For me, the only interesting question about these agreements is whether JB is going to get another Bar complaint filed against him. I don't think there's anything in the agreement (even if it is perfectly valid) that would prevent any of the Padilla crowd from testifying about what Casey told them and how she acted.

What I can't figure out is why JB would go to the trouble of altering evidence to create a document that is NOT EVEN HELPFUL to him.

Not only is it not helpful to him but it supports the state's argument. The document clearly states that Padilla et al do not work for him.

Did he accidently pick up the wrong document (original) and attach it before making the copy?

 

[AZlawyer]

Not only is it not helpful to him but it supports the state's argument. The document clearly states that Padilla et al do not work for him.

Did he accidently pick up the wrong document (original) and attach it before making the copy?

:rolling:

OK, here it is: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20089919/detail.html

p. 2 of the agreement: "This Agreement does not create a relationship in so far as that the Parties of the Second Part are in no way hired by or represent the Firm or the Defendant."

IMHO, that sentence should be taken out and shot. But "in so far as that" I understand it, it seems to be saying that LP and friends are not working for JB or Casey.

 

[MissJames]

The problem is it wasn't disputed as to authenticity in court at the hearing on the motion. TP raised the issue of authenticity after the hearing. Therefore, although it is disputed "in the court of public opinion" in order for that challenge to be timely and heard by the judge to consider this, it would have had to be presented in court at the hearing on the motion. Now, there is a way within a very few days after a hearing and before a decision that the prosecution can bring a motion for new evidence and reconsideration, but it has to be something they couldn't have anticipated and guarded against when preparing to respond to the original motion. One would hope that since the alleged agreement was attached to the motion that someone in the SA's office would have contacted the people who allegedly signed it and asked if that was the document they signed. Since TP is just now bringing this up, there is a suspicion that that didn't happen. If it didn't happen, the SA may be stuck with the court's considing it a binding document that TP signed and ruling on it without ever knowing that TP would testify, if called, that it is not the document that he signed. So, there is a worry here.

I think TP did bring it up before the hearing. That's why the SA asked to see the original IMO.When asked about telling the Prosecution about the seperate document Tony said they are aware of it.
The judge said something to the SA about letting him know if she had an issue after she saw the original.Would that be good enough?

I got the impression that the judge wasn't ruling in JB's favor,anyway.He suggested that if the crew broke the contract by speaking that would be a civil court matter.JS didn't seem to think it inferred that LP's crew were under the defense umbrella and actually pointed out the document ,itself,stated otherwise.
Themis,do you think there's a chance that JS will rule in favor of the defense on that motion?You're the expert.

 

[Pattymarie]

Not only discredit them generally, but JB is seeking to prevent them from testifying (prohibited by the courts and evidence laws) on the basis of attorney-client privilege because anyone the attorney contracts with or the attorney's staff are covered by the attorney-client privilege.

However, that is another whole issue. The attorney-client privilege only applies when the attorney is providing attorney-client services and IMHO, would not apply to "security" services. That is not part of criminal defense work an attorney does.

So, then are we to assume that JB must believe/know that KC made incriminating statements which indicate her guilt, ergo, he knows she is guilty, so all of this is just OJ legal maneuvering to get his client off?

What a waste...of time, taxpayers money and faith in the truth....huge waste...

 

[MissJames]

But, IIRC, the agreement SAYS that they are NOT employees or agents. So the question is, if you were an unethical lawyer willing to fabricate evidence to support your claim that someone WAS your agent, would you include a statement saying they were NOT your agent???

I'm going back to look at it again....

Judge Strickland questioned JB about this and JB started talking in circles LOL.
I wish there were little bubble quotes over Judge Strickland's head so we would know what he was thinking.Can you imagine? :crazy: He must feel like he's teaching preschool sometimes.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Foxes get caught in traps.

Or hunted down by cunning DAs.

Or cut down to size by state Bar Associations.

You know I just don't get it. What is going on that all the people involved in this case are allowed lenience after lenience with no repercussions. Are there no standards anymore regarding anything - not even in the court of law?

I worked for a guy once who if I put something in a file facing the wrong way he would point it out. I only had to do it once since he was the boss, I just did it the way he wanted. Every file - let's say ocean freight with letter of credit - was arranged in the same order - he could quickly go to the file, thumb four pages in and find the hazardous material certificate if there was one, etc. It was a good system and thorough.

I later worked for a large pharmaceutical company doing the same type work. Each person had their own willy-nilly way of putting their files together - some looked like they threw all the papers in the air, gathered them and stuck them in the folder. It would take a half hour to try to make heads or tails from all those papers as to the whole story of the shipment. Let's just say, my files were the best - thanks old, picky boss.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Combining the 2 contracts, etc., would not invalidate the original contracts, but sure could get JB in a lot of trouble!

For me, the only interesting question about these agreements is whether JB is going to get another Bar complaint filed against him. I don't think there's anything in the agreement (even if it is perfectly valid) that would prevent any of the Padilla crowd from testifying about what Casey told them and how she acted.

What I can't figure out is why JB would go to the trouble of altering evidence to create a document that is NOT EVEN HELPFUL to him.

He would not. He does not want the Padilla team on the stand - period. imo.

 

[Jolynna]

Yep, I totally agree and get everything you say.

But since this document didn't have those protection measures in place, and it's now in dispute, what now?

I think this is important info for all of us to have/know.

This document was also to prevent those 4 from making any money off this deal. (Well, prevent them from discussing making money.. I guess they can do it, just not talk about it...)

With TP disputing the copy that JB filed with the court, Doesn't JB have to respond at this point. And if he dosn't, does that mean the document is no longer valid?

Also, if there are 2 contracts as TP states and JB did combine them to make it seem like 1 contract they all signed, and filed that with the court.. Does that nulify the individual contracts?

I'm just trying to figure out at what point a person claim the contract is void.

BBM.

Since Baez is the one who needs people silenced, I think he's the one that has to prove a contract exists with wording to get the shushing-up done.

If THAT document was a will leaving billions of $$$$$ to daddy's new bimbo wife and cutting out daddy's kids, you better believe it would not stand written like that.

Besides being a legal document that Baez now wants to stand up in a criminal court, the privacy agreement is the only thing standing between any one of 4 individual's possible future book deals. That document was supposed to be Casey's protection.