Lee and his family have every right, IMO to resist this deposition being a media circus. I'm sure they are aware of the same things I'm pointing out. I also want to point out for the record, I am not bashing anyone, I am stating the facts of sworn statements and County records. Whether Casey made up the nanny or not, these facts don't change.
I thought this ZFG was the only one listed with her exact name, as provided by Casey? Plus the Sawgrass "coincidence" clearly shows that Casey made an assumption that she lived there but was obviously wrong. If ZFG can show damages, and I'm sure she can, how dare you assert that she should not have a day in court??
Horace, do we know that this ZG has the name Fernandez attached? She didn't use in in her sworn statement or on the Sawgrass card. I have to wonder if it is her newly adopted name. Orange County Clerk doesn't show even one ZG with the F name attached. If this is her proper name how would Casey get a hold of it since she hasn't used it publicly where it can be easily found? Again, the sworn statement already says this isn't the same ZG, after looking at the photo. So the attorney for ZG already has what he is asking for to close the case. It is signed and dated on July 16, 2008.
So, exactly which "Zenaida Gonzales" was it that Casey tried to incriminate? She was -- and apparently still is -- naming someone as a kidnapper. She was giving many details that fit this particular ZG. Should she just be able to make serious accusations about someone with a very unusual name in order to try to steer an investigation away from herself? (And, no, there aren't many, many ZGs in Orlando. In fact, I don't think there are any other ZGs in Orlando.)
The only way she wasn't attempting to incriminate the woman who is suing her is if she just made up the name ZG, out of thin air. But there are too many coincidences for that to be possible.
Steadfast, Orange County Clerk shows one with DOB 9/2/57, another on 10/01/70, another 1/11/86. There are 2 entries without DOB, one with the middle name OBO. These two could be the same as one of the others, or not. There could also be some that have never been brought to court. So we can't say that this is the only ZG. How can you say Casey gave details that describe this woman? This question is in response to Lacey also. Casey said the woman was much younger, no excess weight according to the height she stated, no visible tatoos. It hardly describes this woman.
The evidence leans toward her and her attorney blatantly lying about loosing her home over this. Looking over the Clerk records, it looks like she may be without home because she doesn't pay rent. The 1st ZG listed without a DOB is this ZG, shown by the same defendant with initials ME being listed both places. This must be the parent of 2 of the children.
If in fact, she lost her Motel housekeeping job she may have cause to go after that employer. If she has had trouble getting work because of the media attention she needs to look at the source, the media. She could have asked them to leave her alone and they could have respected that wish. I have no respect for this suit at all. Her attorney lost me when he claimed she lost her home because of Casey and made the statement about the media attending for the public's entertainment pleasure. It's common sense that the info would be available under the Freedom of information act and Sunshine law at some point. It didn't require this invite or statement.
