Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by yeknomaras, Mar 21, 2011.
Any local guys see this hit the news yet? I guess they don't like the recent rulings... ?
what does it mean plz?
Motion to vacate =
A motion filed with the court seeking to set aside a previously rendered decision or judgment entry. It seeks to undo something that was already ruled on in a court case.
Motion for Clarification = Motion of clarification would only be used to clarify issues not directly addressed in the decision. This is a broad stroke, and should probably be answered by an attorney.
I don't know if it's been filed, but I heard rumblings. It's not on an MSM site that I can find. That doesn't mean I don't expect it to be, because I certainly anticipated that JB would be doing so today. He could not have been too happy with the rulings.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_motion_to_vacate#ixzz1HHBkbOfN
Clarification? Here we go with the confusion again.
AZLawyer has an answer:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6237007&postcount=784"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2[/ame]
"I have no idea. You can't tell much from docket entries. All you can tell is that one side or the other wants to vacate something (maybe a hearing on a particular issue?) or in the alternative to clarify something (maybe that the hearing doesn't include that issue?)."
..that could explain why the defense recently asked for, and judgeP ruled for the JAC to pay for-- these entire transcribed hearings:
---Amended Order for Motion for Transcriptions---
Transcriptions from Hearings on:
a. 12/12/08 Emergency Motion to Preserve/Inspect Evidence and Participate in Forensic Testing
b. 12/16/08 Motion to Preserve Forensic Evidence
c. 7/15/10 Motion to Suppress 911 Calls
--------and the "Motions to Suppress Statements" from the most recent March 2-7 Hearings.
d. 3/2/11 - 3/7/11 Motion to Suppress Statements/Motion to Supress Statements by Agents of the State
Does this mean another 'official, in the courtroom, pocket square' hearing for this too (sigh), or can Judge Perry just rule sans hearing?
But weren't these requests for transcriptions for work they had already done in preparation for the last hearings?
Wonder if it could be they want to now request Robyn's statements to Casey not be allowed in, since HHJBP mentioned in his ruling that they didn't even challenge them...
I know that based just on the docket entry this could have been filed by either side, but something tells me the SA wasn't the one to file this. Whatever it is, I can't wait to read it! I can't help but think there will be a good bit of this when we do get to see it: :silly:
03/17/2011 Amended Motion for Transcription of Proceedings
The defense filed this the day after (3/16) Judge Perry ruled on the motions heard the week before at the two days of hearings ... No doubt Jose was getting ready to pull something ...
It's hard to tell what this Motion on to Vacate and in the Alternative Motion for Clarification is about or which order or orders this relates too .... I sure hope one of the news agencies posts this soon ... tomorrow would be nice ... :waitasec:
I'm thinking that since Perry ruled pretty much in favor of the prosecution on the motions heard that it is the defense that is not happy ... JMO
And that was before she was "indigent" - but guess that doesn't matter.
I wonder if the DT is revisiting the whole family can't visit ICA issue now that it came out that not all inmates visits are taped.
Thats what I thought! Why should JAC pay for them!!
I suppose every time defense has to wait for HHJP to make a ruling, they are certain what his decision is going to be, based on simple logic and evidence. To "get even" they will try to throw a monkey wrench motion in whenever they don't like a response. They might even begin preliminary work on the monkey wrenche motions at the same time they file a motion - the secondary motions will be a lot of cut and paste.
Wonder if the defense has a "hush" or is it "shush" fund hidden away for desperate tactics.
I was just reading a little handbook that Orange County Jail hands out to all inmates and in the visitation part of the handbook it states "All visitations are montitored and subject to recording (video/audio). I am sure Casey is not the first inmate to have her visitations recorded and she won't be the last.
I don't think the Anthony's visiting Casey has anything to do with them being recorded. It has everything to do with Casey telling Jose to do something to "make them stop" (her parents questioning her) and Jose has no problem with looking like the bad guy who won't let poor little Casey visit her parents. Cindy and George use the "it's recorded" excuse because they don't want the world to know that Casey couldn't give two craps about seeing any of them.
Yes, thanks for the correction you are right! Now if you could allow me one little correction on your comments...:waitasec:
BBM - would you mind if I just slipped the words "try to" just after your word to.. and just before your word pull - so it would actually read -
No doubt Jose was getting ready to try to pull something..........
'Cause he tries a lot doesn't he, but he doesn't actually succeed.:great:
So their is answer is Mwahahaha, we'll just file a motion to vacate! Er, SOMETHING! You'll see, HHJP! Rule against US, will you!
Wow, Baez must finally be running out of steam. That's weak even for him. LOL.
Separate names with a comma.