Bankrupt Casey Anthony interviewed by KPHO CBS in Phoenix #2

New Posts

More discussion of the bankruptcy topic in the SIDEBAR thread
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192824&page=76


It appears to me that the bottom line is MONEY -- how much it would cost the Trustee and his attorney to continue to investigate this bankruptcy case for hidden assets -- and how much the Trustee and his attorney could potentially end up with/or without when the case is finished.

In my opinion, the Trustee and his attorney have decided their best option is to take the $ 25,000 and get OUT of this case as soon as possible before racking up more costs, and end up with no profit for themselves.
The Trustee and his attorney are not like her MANY PRO BONO attorneys and will not continue to do legal work without getting paid.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIYzhURDJnTmhfSE0/edit?pli=1

JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF CONTROVERSY

page 4 - "... the potential value of the commercialization rights to a story which the Debtor may never tell are limited and do not warrant the expenditure of the legal time and effort necessary to pursue the sale."

"...The cost of litigation and the risk of potential loss justify the settlement."

"... the complexity of the litigation involved, the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; ..."
 
ThinkTank said:
More discussion of the bankruptcy topic in the SIDEBAR thread
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192824&page=76


It appears to me that the bottom line is MONEY -- how much it would cost the Trustee and his attorney to continue to investigate this bankruptcy case for hidden assets -- and how much the Trustee and his attorney could potentially end up with/or without when the case is finished.

In my opinion, the Trustee and his attorney have decided their best option is to take the $ 25,000 and get OUT of this case as soon as possible before racking up more costs, and end up with no profit for themselves.
The Trustee and his attorney are not like her MANY PRO BONO attorneys and will not continue to do legal work without getting paid.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIYzhURDJnTmhfSE0/edit?pli=1

JOINT MOTION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE OF CONTROVERSY

page 4 - "... the potential value of the commercialization rights to a story which the Debtor may never tell are limited and do not warrant the expenditure of the legal time and effort necessary to pursue the sale."

"...The cost of litigation and the risk of potential loss justify the settlement."

"... the complexity of the litigation involved, the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; ..."
Click to expand...
I take it then that people can pretty much file for bancrupty without very little challenge. Their credit is in the toilet, but I doubt Casey will care about that...not when she has people providing her with cash. So the Trustee after all of his initial bravado is merely out for moohlah. What a surprise!
 
RR0004 said:
I take it then that people can pretty much file for bancrupty without very little challenge. Their credit is in the toilet, but I doubt Casey will care about that...not when she has people providing her with cash. So the Trustee after all of his initial bravado is merely out for moohlah. What a surprise!
Click to expand...

"Surprise, surprise!"

:banghead::stormingmad:
 
Joanner said:
George, Cindy Anthony "looking into" lawsuit over garage sale video



Anthony clan may sue:

http://www.wesh.com/news/casey-anth...ys/-/13479888/21014606/-/bw3xbpz/-/index.html
Click to expand...

Cant say I am surprised...I have been waiting for the A's and Lawyer Lippman to say or do something.

Florida is one of 12 States that has a 2 Party Consent Law when it comes to Video/Audio Recording.

Think back to when the TES searcher guy recorded a conversation with himself, his lawyer and an investigator for the Defense Team.
It was Illegal of him to do that.
Also, it is a 3rd degree felony if Linda Burdick listened to the illegal recording, she did not listen to it.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/florida-recording-law

Florida's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law.
Florida makes it a crime to intercept or record a "wire, oral, or electronic communication" in Florida, unless all parties to the communication consent. See Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03.
Florida law makes an exception for in-person communications when the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation, such as when they are engaged in conversation in a public place where they might reasonably be overheard.
If you are operating in Florida, you may record these kinds of in-person conversations without breaking the law. However, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any telephone conversation and any in-person that common sense tells you is private.

In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the Florida wiretapping law can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party.
-----------------------------

BBM
So does a garage sale that is held on private property fall under "Reasonable expectation of Privacy in conversation and "engaged in conversation in a public place where they might reasonably be overhead"?
 
zippitydoda said:
The Anthony's attorney, Mark Lippman, said Werner was paid $600 for the video.

This article should also clear up what the going rate is from the rags.
Click to expand...

Maybe the going rate is a little higher for anything Casey Anthony though?
This was only Cindy and George on blurry cell phone video and audio.

My opinion is that I will believe Lippman actually FILED a lawsuit, when I see it on the Orange County docket.
The WESH article only says they are "looking into it".

And apparently WESH sought out Lippman for his comment on the issue, rather than the Anthonys immediately filing a lawsuit after all this came out in several news outlets on July 9, 2013.
If they have a strong case, why haven't they FILED it already?
The setting was a community wide yard sale, out in the open outdoors, with the potential of several other yard sale customers around to overhear the conversation which was recorded -- not private at all.

I tend to believe that Cindy and George got some amount of $$$$ from RadarOnline before RO published that video and audio.
IF they got money also, I am sure they will never FILE a lawsuit against the woman, because it would come out in Discovery in the lawsuit.
The Anthonys finances would be fair game for Discovery in the lawsuit.
 
ThinkTank said:
Maybe the going rate is a little higher for anything Casey Anthony though?
This was only Cindy and George on blurry cell phone video and audio.

My opinion is that I will believe Lippman actually FILED a lawsuit, when I see it on the Orange County docket.
The WESH article only says they are "looking into it".

And apparently WESH sought out Lippman for his comment on the issue, rather than the Anthonys immediately filing a lawsuit after all this came out in several news outlets on July 9, 2013.
If they have a strong case, why haven't they FILED it already?
The setting was a community wide yard sale, out in the open outdoors, with the potential of several other yard sale customers around to overhear the conversation which was recorded -- not private at all.

I tend to believe that Cindy and George got some amount of $$$$ from RadarOnline before RO published that video and audio.
Click to expand...
BBM
Me too, until I see a court docket entry...then there is NOTHING.

Now it does not mention WHO they MAY sue...Ms Werner and/or the media outlet who paid for and published the secretly (possibly illegally) recorded video/audio.

The Florida Wiretapping Law does have an exception, A Reasonable Expectation of Privacy.

Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy at a garage sale held on private property?

Werner planned on returning to the Garage Sale with the intent to secretly record video/audio the encounter and then she sold $$ it.
 
ThinkTank said:
Maybe the going rate is a little higher for anything Casey Anthony though?
This was only Cindy and George on blurry cell phone video and audio.

My opinion is that I will believe Lippman actually FILED a lawsuit, when I see it on the Orange County docket.
The WESH article only says they are "looking into it".

And apparently WESH sought out Lippman for his comment on the issue, rather than the Anthonys immediately filing a lawsuit after all this came out in several news outlets on July 9, 2013.
If they have a strong case, why haven't they FILED it already?
The setting was a community wide yard sale, out in the open outdoors, with the potential of several other yard sale customers around to overhear the conversation which was recorded -- not private at all.

I tend to believe that Cindy and George got some amount of $$$$ from RadarOnline before RO published that video and audio.
IF they got money also, I am sure they will never FILE a lawsuit against the woman, because it would come out in Discovery in the lawsuit.
The Anthonys finances would be fair game for Discovery in the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

I guess the second yard sale is on hold? :D
 
So...do they troll the internet looking for this stuff? Did RO ask for comments from them? Or did it make it to local news? Not sure how they found out about this, but it seems like they have Lippman on speed dial. Can't you just hear Cindy now? lol
 
The A's just like chucking their weight around. What they gonna sue for- damages - for what? They are public figures, always seeking out cameras, appearing on TV shows - I don't think they can do anything. If you want privacy then don't hold a yard sale and invite strangers into your garage to inspect all your Murderabilia.
 
ZsaZsa said:
The A's just like chucking their weight around. What they gonna sue for- damages - for what? They are public figures, always seeking out cameras, appearing on TV shows - I don't think they can do anything. If you want privacy then don't hold a yard sale and invite strangers into your garage to inspect all your Murderabilia.
Click to expand...

I so agree with the bold part!
 
Zenaida 's bankruptcy attorney, Scott Shuker, has filed a NEW COMPLAINT, under a NEW Adversary Proceeding Case # 8:13-ap-00626-KRM, which is within the main bankruptcy case # 8:13-bk-00922-KRM.

This is what the bankruptcy judge gave them 21 days from June 25th to RE-file.
Deadline is today.

Zenaida is asking the bankruptcy judge to NOT allow Casey Anthony to discharge the Zenaida civil defamation suit in the bankruptcy court.


Complaint by Zenaida Gonzalez against Casey Marie Anthony.
Nature of Suit: [68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)].
(Entered: 07/22/2013)

Demand: $500,000

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpISFRvMlVDcENOam8/edit?usp=sharing

Casey bankruptcy ZENAIDA NEW COMPLAINT July 22, 2013

"ZENAIDA GONZALEZ ... files this complaint and sues CASEY MARIE ANTHONY ... seeking to except from discharge money damages the Debtor owes Plaintiff ...."

page 5
The Defendant's Statement was both willful and malicious.
The Defendant knew her Statement was false at the time it was made.

"...requests judgment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), denying the Debtor-Defendant [Casey Anthony] a discharge as to her liability to the Plaintiff arising from her defamatory Statement...."

Answer from Casey Anthony Due 08/21/2013.
 
ThinkTank said:
Zenaida 's bankruptcy attorney, Scott Shuker, has filed a NEW COMPLAINT, under a NEW Adversary Proceeding Case # 8:13-ap-00626-KRM, which is within the main bankruptcy case # 8:13-bk-00922-KRM.

This is what the bankruptcy judge gave them 21 days from June 25th to RE-file.
Deadline is today.

Zenaida is asking the bankruptcy judge to NOT allow Casey Anthony to discharge the Zenaida civil defamation suit in the bankruptcy court.


Complaint by Zenaida Gonzalez against Casey Marie Anthony.
Nature of Suit: [68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)].
(Entered: 07/22/2013)

Demand: $500,000

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpISFRvMlVDcENOam8/edit?usp=sharing

Casey bankruptcy ZENAIDA NEW COMPLAINT July 22, 2013

"ZENAIDA GONZALEZ ... files this complaint and sues CASEY MARIE ANTHONY ... seeking to except from discharge money damages the Debtor owes Plaintiff ...."

page 5
The Defendant's Statement was both willful and malicious.
The Defendant knew her Statement was false at the time it was made.

"...requests judgment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), denying the Debtor-Defendant [Casey Anthony] a discharge as to her liability to the Plaintiff arising from her defamatory Statement...."

Answer from Casey Anthony Due 08/21/2013.
Click to expand...

Red by me.

I don't see that amount in the document. Is it in another document?

JMO
 
Kronk's bankruptcy attorney, Howard S. Marks, has filed a NEW COMPLAINT, under a NEW Adversary Proceeding Case # 8:13-ap-00629-KRM, which is within the main bankruptcy case # 8:13-bk-00922-KRM.

This is what the bankruptcy judge gave them 21 days from the Hearing on June 25th to RE-file.
Deadline is today.

Kronk is asking the bankruptcy judge to NOT allow Casey Anthony to discharge the Kronk civil defamation suit in the bankruptcy court.

Roy Kronk NEW COMPLAINT
Adversary Proceeding # 8:13-ap-00629-KRM
Filed 7/22/2013

Nature of Suit: [68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)].

Answer from Casey Anthony Due 08/21/2013.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIazNVc3dmSDFHT1U/edit?pli=1

"... ROY KRONK ... files his Complaint against CASEY MARIE ANTHONY ... to determine the dischargeability of certain of Defendant's debts to Plaintiff ..."

"...Casey Anthony, through her attorneys, who acted as her agents, published false and defamatory statements about Kronk."

"The false and defamatory statements about Kronk were made out of court and the publications occurred in the public arena, in almost every media format imaginable and were broadcast and/or published across the country, if not the globe, via the Internet, the news print media, and national television shows."

"Casey Anthony's defense in her Criminal Trial was that Caylee Anthony drowned in the family swimming pool on June 16, 2008. If her story is true, then she knew that the Statements she authorized, adopted, and permitted her agents to publish about Kronk were false, and made them willfully, maliciously, and with the intent of deceiving the public."

"In an attempt to find someone other than herself to blame for the tragic death of her child, Casey Anthony authorized and permitted her attorneys, as her agents, to make the false and malicious Statements against Kronk, and to portray him as the murderer of her child."

"...she acted intentionally and maliciously."
"Malicious injury has been defined ... as conduct which is done without just cause or excuse, or for which there is no reasonable justification."

"The resulting debt is not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6)."

"Plaintiff [Kronk] hereby demands a trial by jury...."

"... Kronk request Court enter judgment ... denying the Defendant discharge as to her liability to the Plaintiff ..."
 
ThinkTank said:
Kronk's bankruptcy attorney, Howard S. Marks, has filed a NEW COMPLAINT, under a NEW Adversary Proceeding Case # 8:13-ap-00629-KRM, which is within the main bankruptcy case # 8:13-bk-00922-KRM.

This is what the bankruptcy judge gave them 21 days from the Hearing on June 25th to RE-file.
Deadline is today.

Kronk is asking the bankruptcy judge to NOT allow Casey Anthony to discharge the Kronk civil defamation suit in the bankruptcy court.

Roy Kronk NEW COMPLAINT
Adversary Proceeding # 8:13-ap-00629-KRM
Filed 7/22/2013

Nature of Suit: [68 (Dischargeability - 523(a)(6), willful and malicious injury)].

Answer from Casey Anthony Due 08/21/2013.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7DjeAMt_BpIazNVc3dmSDFHT1U/edit?pli=1

"... ROY KRONK ... files his Complaint against CASEY MARIE ANTHONY ... to determine the dischargeability of certain of Defendant's debts to Plaintiff ..."

"...Casey Anthony, through her attorneys, who acted as her agents, published false and defamatory statements about Kronk."

"The false and defamatory statements about Kronk were made out of court and the publications occurred in the public arena, in almost every media format imaginable and were broadcast and/or published across the country, if not the globe, via the Internet, the news print media, and national television shows."

"Casey Anthony's defense in her Criminal Trial was that Caylee Anthony drowned in the family swimming pool on June 16, 2008. If her story is true, then she knew that the Statements she authorized, adopted, and permitted her agents to publish about Kronk were false, and made them willfully, maliciously, and with the intent of deceiving the public."

"In an attempt to find someone other than herself to blame for the tragic death of her child, Casey Anthony authorized and permitted her attorneys, as her agents, to make the false and malicious Statements against Kronk, and to portray him as the murderer of her child."

"...she acted intentionally and maliciously."
"Malicious injury has been defined ... as conduct which is done without just cause or excuse, or for which there is no reasonable justification."

"The resulting debt is not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6)."

"Plaintiff [Kronk] hereby demands a trial by jury...."

"... Kronk request Court enter judgment ... denying the Defendant discharge as to her liability to the Plaintiff ..."
Click to expand...

I hope it is not dischargeable!!

JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 193 more.
Total: 4,154 (members: 194, guests: 3,960)

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
3,960
Total visitors
4,154
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,836
Messages
17,959,821
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top