Tony Padilla Q&A

[Themis]

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.

You are a dream staff member! Good lawyers would love to have you.

The judge is not necessarily over lenient. He is looking at the whole picture of this case. IF KC is convicted, he wants to have a record that will stand up on appeal on any attack defense can and will throw at it; denial of due process, denial of assistance of counsel by denying motions, etc etc etc. Judges tend to do exactly the same thing as Judge Strickland -- let in almost all of the defense evidence possible and was reasonably lenient with defense counsel but also fair to prosecution so they could fight from here to there and had minimal chances to get an appellate tribunal to overturn the results of the trial. It takes a lot of time, but less than having to do the trial twice.

 

[Themis]

BBM.

How do you prove a contract exists and WHAT is in it?

Seems to me, nothing ties any of the signatories to THAT document. In criminal courts and in civil ones judges need more evidence than the word of one of the signatories.

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 needs 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.

In a trial on the merits of a case, the person trying to get the contract into evidence would "lay a foundation" which means to put on witnesses to show how the contract came into existence and that it was signed by them and the other party. In a motion, the courts often take the proffer of the attorney. In any case, the other side has to make a timely objection to the foundation or to the proffer; which didn't happen here. It looks like JB skated here, but the judge can still decide that a private contract for security services does not fall under the attorney-client privilege rule of exclusion of evidence.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

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?

Here we go again. The Padillas say they were not employees of JB's; JB says the Padillas were employees of his.

That's why pages ago I tried to engage a conversation of who invited, if any one did, the Padillas to the case.

If it was the Defense who invited them, it would lend some credence as to why JB feels the way he feels.

If the Padillas just showed up inserting their own selves into the case, then no.

At least that's how I see it simplified. Of course the above has nothing to do with the legal docs, how they were drawn, who signed what, etc. Knowing the answer to the above would just help me understand where everyone was coming from.

 

[Numbers]

: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.

If you watch the hearing, Jose points this paragraph out and proceeds to explain what he ~really meant~ by that paragraph. Watch Jose trip over his own tongue - tres amusing.

 

[lin]

Yes and doesn't JB have an in and an out basket in his office? Does he not employ a Legal Secretary? It should not be that HE runs around all day making copies, doing mailings, etc. There are systems in place within offices where copies are mailed out automatically by assistants and such. I find a lot of the missing details puzzling indeed. Filing a Motion - Notify concerned parties, make and send notices, have copies prepared, gather important originals, place in JB inbox for his briefcase. You'd think preparing for a court appearance would involve some structured steps and a check list - no?

Since he didn't learn much law in school, imo, hopefully he learned a little bit about the software. Nowadays, a lot of stuff is almost prefab and most things are generally merge documents. I realize the stuff he's concocting is straight from his own little brain but routine things most people have a general form they use and then they just fill in the blanks; edit; whatever is needed to suit the case. Click here and the caption is auto inserted; click there and the names and addresses to the case mailing list are auto-inserted, etc. Click one more time and envelopes spit out. Click there and there, type in your initials and a time and the client's account is automatically updated for billing. Then yes, often hand them off to someone else to stamp them and leave them for pick up; or the runner to drop at the court. Computers and their proper usage has greatly streamlined the process. There are some EXCELLENT software programs out there as well but it's not likely he was able to buy any prior to this case or figure out how to use them since.

 

[lin]

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.

Excellent summary to which I'll add that over a year ago Tony was posting on this forum that upon advice of counsel, KC wasn't allowed to talk to them. He posted the same message several times in August of 2008 in response to various questions about their contact with her. Guess JB wants us to believe that Tony was planning this for a year, huh? rofl

 

[lin]

2 business days. He has had time to take care of this. How can we find out if he has?

OR will we have to wait until the next hearing?

Anyone have a contact in the media that can find this out for us?

 

[lin]

Foxes get caught in traps.

Or hunted down by cunning DAs.

Or cut down to size by state Bar Associations.

ooh ooh ooh I sure hope he's that kind of fox!

 

[Themis]

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.

True, but the concern here is when the issue is the original vs a copy, the issue is usually the genuineness of the signature vs a forgery. The issue now is whether or not the content before the signature pages was switched. Whole separate issue. Still the practice of the courts to allow proffers of evidence instead of laying a foundation is for the court's convenience and switching contract text pages would be so unexpected because of the professional ethics and rules of court with consequences so risky and severe that reasonable attorneys would not expect that. It was attached to the motion so they should have checked with the signing parties on the content of the agreement. Hindsight reveals a lot of "should haves" and the Orange County ASA's have been excellent so far -- no one is perfect.

 

[lin]

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.

If it's proven that JB falsified evidence, perpetrated a fraud upon the court, then I think whether or not Tony decides to write a book will be the very least of his worries.

As a side note, I hope Tony does write a book including his perspective on this case and others. Could be very interesting to get an inside peek into his profession.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Here we go again. The Padillas say they were not employees of JB's; JB says the Padillas were employees of his.

That's why pages ago I tried to engage a conversation of who invited, if any one did, the Padillas to the case.

If it was the Defense who invited them, it would lend some credence as to why JB feels the way he feels.

If the Padillas just showed up inserting their own selves into the case, then no.

At least that's how I see it simplified.

It was posted earlier and last year that LP was contacted by a person who wished to remain anonymous first. LP then contacted Tony since he was the bail bondsman. They did not show up and insert themselves into the case. However, it was never said (except that it was not Geraldo) who contacted them as they signed a non-disclosure agreement...or it is my understanding they did at least.

 

[Jolynna]

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....

BBM.

No.

But, evidence of stupidity is not evidence of clean hands. Since the goal was to forevermore shush Tony, Leonard, Tracy and Rob you wouldn't think that sentence would have been includes in ANY document, real or forged.

Having all pages numbered, dated and initialed (1 of 4, 2of 4 etc.) would have resolved EVERYTHING. That way there would have been no question about who signed what.

jmo

 

[Themis]

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.

Actually, that is one of the little known nuances in the law. Lawyers cannot be experts in legal matters except in cases where the issue is whether or not a lawyer committed malpractice. Judges are not experts in the law either. Only the court, functioning as one of our institutions of government has the right to interpret the law and that is as close as we get to an expert on the law. The law belongs to the People.

(I don't think JS will grant the motion. I think JS knows it is just a civil contract at best and doesn't fall under the attorney-client privilege. If JB has a problem with that, he can sue them in civil court.)

Maybe that is how he was going to get his attorney fees paid? Anyway a breach of that duty would have belonged to the client anyway, because that privilege inures to her benefit.

 

[lin]

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.

Actually, it was disputed and LDB requested the original. The court ordered JB to produce the original and if it's not satisfactory then LDB is to notify the judge. I believe it was part 4 of the hearing when she was giving her close. I can't post a direct link because it's a java popup. Just click here and select part 4 from the side menu.

This isn't a timed video but it's not too far into the video. Almost immediately, within the first few seconds she starts her close.

ETA: She starts mentioning at 7 - 10 minutes into the video; later, when JB gets up and whines about being called on the carpet, the court tells him to produce the original.

 

[marspiter]

True, but the concern here is when the issue is the original vs a copy, the issue is usually the genuineness of the signature vs a forgery. The issue now is whether or not the content before the signature pages was switched. Whole separate issue. Still the practice of the courts to allow proffers of evidence instead of laying a foundation is for the court's convenience and switching contract text pages would be so unexpected because of the professional ethics and rules of court with consequences so risky and severe that reasonable attorneys would not expect that. It was attached to the motion so they should have checked with the signing parties on the content of the agreement. Hindsight reveals a lot of "should haves" and the Orange County ASA's have been excellent so far -- no one is perfect.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

:bigstick:

 

[Themis]

The state's attorney DID raise the issue during the hearing.

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.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Since he didn't learn much law in school, imo, hopefully he learned a little bit about the software. Nowadays, a lot of stuff is almost prefab and most things are generally merge documents. I realize the stuff he's concocting is straight from his own little brain but routine things most people have a general form they use and then they just fill in the blanks; edit; whatever is needed to suit the case. Click here and the caption is auto inserted; click there and the names and addresses to the case mailing list are auto-inserted, etc. Click one more time and envelopes spit out. Click there and there, type in your initials and a time and the client's account is automatically updated for billing. Then yes, often hand them off to someone else to stamp them and leave them for pick up; or the runner to drop at the court. Computers and their proper usage has greatly streamlined the process. There are some EXCELLENT software programs out there as well but it's not likely he was able to buy any prior to this case or figure out how to use them since.

Thank you but there still should be a person who goes over the file - whatever - to be sure all eggs are in a row. One looks foolish when one is in a top profession and keeps having these errors with standard procedures - no? I would pay someone, I would, to proof my work and help me with the details.

You bring up a good point about computers and it's one of my concerns about how the world runs these days. When computers break down, no one seems to know what to do. I love having a calculator but also am glad I know how to divide when I need too. I worry that people don't know how to do anything themselves anymore. Word processing was a godsend back in the day though.

 

[Bree0372]

The document will not hold water in a court of law. Baez just wasted several thousand dollars of taxpayer dollars even bringing this ridiculously constructed document as a basis for anything of a legal nature. Way to go again, Jose! You are batting a thousand on this one aren't you?

The individual pages are not initialed.
None of the signatores were provided with a copy.
The document has been dismantled, as their are staple marks in the copies.
The very language of the document is vague and VERY open to interpretation.
And most importantly?
Tony Padilla says this is NOT the document that he signed...

So back to drawing board Jose...

Oh and I forgot, none of the signatores were NOTICED about the hearing concerning the document...

The staple marks that are visible go in opposite directions too. As well, some of the pages show that they have been hole punched to be put in a file - I noticed the first two pages did not have these marks.

As for getting LP and TP's signatures on the same page, without TP's knowledge - it's very easy! Were they (TP and LP) in the same room while the document was being signed? If not, it could easily be done on the same printer without having to cut and paste, etc. If the secretary/JB/whoever printed out only the top portion of the page (TP's portion) and had TP sign it, he would think it was with a separate document. Easily, the secretary/JB/whoever could later reinsert TP's signature page into the printer and print only the bottom section of the page (by spacing the document down on the computer to match up with the printed page)....press CTRL+P and wah-lah...you have TP's original signature at the top and a blank section at the bottom for LP. Then it would have appeared that to TP that he was the lone signature on that page. Could have happened that way if they weren't all in the same room while everyone signed.

Here we go again. The Padillas say they were not employees of JB's; JB says the Padillas were employees of his.

(respectfully snipped)

At least that's how I see it simplified. Of course the above has nothing to do with the legal docs, how they were drawn, who signed what, etc. Knowing the answer to the above would just help me understand where everyone was coming from.

I've never heard of a bail bondsman being on the payroll of the defense team. What defense attorney keeps a bb on their payroll? I've never heard of a defense attorney that provides security for their client either. I think it is clear that none of these 4 were on the defense team. Nice try, JB...next!!!!!:bang:

I'd at least send JB a bill for services provided since he believes I was on his payroll. Couldn't hurt, huh? :crazy:

 

[Themis]

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

:bigstick:

:applause::applause::applause:

YOU get the award for best use of that particular emoticon! Tough one to use! Congratulations!

:gold_crown:

 

[lin]

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?

The document specifically states they are not part of "The Firm" and are not agents for KC. No way does attorney-client exist for the bail bondsman, and frankly, I'm not sure it CAN exist, kwim? JB can write up a contract and call it a privacy agreement all he wants but that doesn't mean that it extends attorney-client privilege to whomever signs the agreement to not talk. It just means they agreed to not talk. Even if this were a valid agreement between the parties that signed it, which I emphatically state and believe it's not, it's not binding on the court. People can agree to anything they like; that doesn't mean they can contract away legal obligations. For example, you and I could make an agreement that I won't feed my children this week. That agreement won't stop me from being arrested for neglect.