2010.09.15 - Unopposed Motion for Certificate for out of State Witness

On pages 3-4 of this motion, it says in part:

"...Alternately Ms Anthony requests that her counsel be reimbursed by the state for the mileage and attendance fees tendered to each summoned witness, in the approximate amounts of $43.20 for mileage (the approximate distance of 43.20 miles roundtrip between Oak Ridge and Knoxville at the statutory rate of ten cents ($.10) per mile, ..."

My calculator says that 43.20 miles times $.10 (ten cents) a mile is $4.32. Where does the $43.20 come from?

Am I missing something?

karen302 said:

On pages 3-4 of this motion, it says in part:

"...Alternately Ms Anthony requests that her counsel be reimbursed by the state for the mileage and attendance fees tendered to each summoned witness, in the approximate amounts of $43.20 for mileage (the approximate distance of 43.20 miles roundtrip between Oak Ridge and Knoxville at the statutory rate of ten cents ($.10) per mile, ..."

My calculator says that 43.20 miles times $.10 (ten cents) a mile is $4.32. Where does the $43.20 come from?

Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

Nope, your calculator is correct. Baez is apparently mathematically challenged. What a surprise there, eh?

I thought the travel expenses were originally denied for counsel? Where does Baez get off asking for gas money *and* $5? He certainly must be stone broke to be begging for less than $10.

Ha, now this IS funny because it was Chaney who signed this motion ..... guess he can't use a calculator either. Sorry couldn't resist it. :angel:

countzero said:

Ha, now this IS funny because it was Chaney who signed this motion ..... guess he can't use a calculator either. Sorry couldn't resist it. :angel:

Click to expand...

Yeah, I missed that first time around. It was such a careless mistake, I just assumed it had to come from Baez.

oh geez....it just keeps getting better....

Numbers said:

Yeah, I missed that first time around. It was such a careless mistake, I just assumed it had to come from Baez.

Click to expand...

Naw it wasn't a careless mistake. We have been groomed to expect this types of errors from JB. It was just funny because I thought if I scrolled down far enough I would also find JB's chicken scratch under Cheney's name. But nope, this is all Cheney ... he is definitely challenged in more than one way.

KB must have really rattled :doh: his brain cells with her questions.

CM's excuse : "My abacus is in the shop and by golly, I can't work them dag gum high tech, new age calkeylater things."

I eagerly await CM's response of.."Well I'm old and I wear hearing aids, I am eligible for medicaid...etc etc".
I think it's a ruse or as LDB says, a farce. Just because CM had to dumb himself down for this defense team he joined doesn't mean anyone's buying it. I'm not anyway.

09/14/2010 Unopposed Motion for Certificate for Out Of State Witness
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/54702917...-State-Witness

snipped

"8.
Inasmuch as the summoned witnesses will not be traveling to attend and give deposition testimony in Florida, it is unnecessary to afford immunity from arrest or service process, civil or criminal, in connection with the summons"

Can someone explain to me why this statement is in the motion?
The defense requests the expert witnesses not be given immunity? (use immunity I think) WHY? Why do they want the Court to Waive immunity that would normally be given to a witness that is testifying in Florida but in this case is not? Does the state in which the testimony is being given extend immunity to them?


Florida Criminal Procedure
CHAPTER 942

INTERSTATE EXTRADITION OF WITNESSES
942.04 Exemption from arrest and service of process.--

(1) If a person comes into this state in obedience to a summons directing him or her to attend and testify in this state, the person shall not while in this state pursuant to such summons be subject to arrest or the service of process, civil or criminal, in connection with matters which arose before his or her entrance into this state under the summons.

(2) If a person passes through this state while going to another state in obedience to a summons to attend and testify in that state, or while returning therefrom, the person shall not while so passing through this state be subject to arrest or the service of process, civil or criminal, in connection with matters which arose before his or her entrance into this state under the summons.
__________________

Is this all about the money? Are they afraid that these esteemed gentlemen will NOT attend? Puleeze!!!!!!!!!!!