Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
AZ, I just had to tell you how much you have gotten me to understand that I would NEVER have understood. Thank you so Much and sorry all for the O/T.

ETA! Re reading that, it males no sense! I just hope you get what I am trying to say. My nerves are rattled with MY Brother's trial coming up.

I knew what you meant. Stay calm and think good thoughts about your brother's trial. :)
 

Justin Tyme

New Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
871
Reaction score
1
Please forgive me if this has already been asked and answered. Can Casey be held accountable for improper disposal of a body in relation to Caylee?
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
Please forgive me if this has already been asked and answered. Can Casey be held accountable for improper disposal of a body in relation to Caylee?

No, double jeopardy protects her from any trial at this point relating to the neglect, murder, disposal, etc. of Caylee. :(

Hopefully she will be held accountable in her nightmares for a lifetime, though.
 

ILikeToBendPages

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
23,933
Reaction score
41,695
No, double jeopardy protects her from any trial at this point relating to the neglect, murder, disposal, etc. of Caylee. :(

Hopefully she will be held accountable in her nightmares for a lifetime, though.

What about George? Last we heard from Casey's dream team ,according to what Casey told them, was that she saw George with a dead Caylee in his arms and he told her not to worry that he'd take care of it.

So I guess Casey thought George would be perfect to blame. I mean she has gotten it before the court, jury and the world that she is the victim here and it's all Georges fault that Caylee is dead and thrown in a swamp.

Shouldn't the state go after George who disposed of a dead body according to Casey? Wouldn't that at least get Casey before a judge to testify against her father?

Maybe she should sue George in a wrongful death suit and see what she gets.

I can see it now...Cindy Anthony starts a foundation.

ILTBP
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
What about George? Last we heard from Casey's dream team ,according to what Casey told them, was that she saw George with a dead Caylee in his arms and he told her not to worry that he'd take care of it.

So I guess Casey thought George would be perfect to blame. I mean she has gotten it before the court, jury and the world that she is the victim here and it's all Georges fault that Caylee is dead and thrown in a swamp.

Shouldn't the state go after George who disposed of a dead body according to Casey? Wouldn't that at least get Casey before a judge to testify against her father?

Maybe she should sue George in a wrongful death suit and see what she gets.

I can see it now...Cindy Anthony starts a foundation.

ILTBP

No, the State could never get as far as a trial with George IMO because they have no evidence against him. Also, I think we figured out a while back that the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor (i.e., failure to report a death) has already passed. And the statute of limitations for a wrongful death suit by Casey against George has already passed as well.
 

beach

Verified Expert
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
18,372
Reaction score
4,533
Friendly reminder - don't forget we are in a "no discussion" thread. ;)

If you posted and there was not legal question directed to an attorney, it was removed. One thing leads to another and off we go yapping. We don't want to have our attorneys to have to search for the questions.

:tyou:
 

ZsaZsa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
11,027
Reaction score
15,228
Is it compulsory that Casey show up in person for the Zenaida trial?
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
Is it compulsory that Casey show up in person for the Zenaida trial?

It is if she wants to win ;) or if the other side subpoenas her--which they said they will--unless the judge says otherwise. I think Casey's lawyer will ask for door #3 on the ground that she's going to take the 5th on everything anyway. If I were ZG's lawyers, I would fight for the right to make her sit there in front of the jurors and dam* well ACTUALLY TAKE the 5th for every single question. :twocents:
 

spiderlady

Active Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
190
Reaction score
119
Did CA secure the "rights" To Caylee's name? If so, does that mean I could not name a child Caylee? What if my last name were Anthony (It isn't...but still yet)
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
Did CA secure the "rights" To Caylee's name? If so, does that mean I could not name a child Caylee? What if my last name were Anthony (It isn't...but still yet)

If you mean Casey, she doesn't need to "secure" the rights, but she does own the rights to use her name for commercial purposes under Florida law. Naming your kid is not a commercial purpose. :)
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
Actually I meant Cindy Anthony trademarking Caylee's name.

OK. I just checked the federal trademark database, and, on May 17, 2011, Lippman Law Offices trademarked "Caylee Anthony" and "Justice for Caylee" for use on T-shirts, stickers, underwear, buttons, etc.

These were filed as "intent to use" applications, meaning the Anthonys swore (probably under penalty of perjury lol) that they intended to use these trademarks on the goods identified. But IIRC the Anthonys announced at the same time they filed the trademarks that they had no such intent and just wanted to "stop other people" from using them. IMO if someone else was actually using (not just intending to use) the marks before the Anthonys filed (or actually used them), the other person would likely prevail in a trademark dispute. You can't register a trademark just to stop someone else from using it.

IMO there would also likely be a First Amendment defense if anyone used the marks in a non-profit way to bring attention to the lack of justice for Caylee.
 

RR0004

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
20,001
Reaction score
16
OK. I just checked the federal trademark database, and, on May 17, 2011, Lippman Law Offices trademarked "Caylee Anthony" and "Justice for Caylee" for use on T-shirts, stickers, underwear, buttons, etc.

These were filed as "intent to use" applications, meaning the Anthonys swore (probably under penalty of perjury lol) that they intended to use these trademarks on the goods identified. But IIRC the Anthonys announced at the same time they filed the trademarks that they had no such intent and just wanted to "stop other people" from using them. IMO if someone else was actually using (not just intending to use) the marks before the Anthonys filed (or actually used them), the other person would likely prevail in a trademark dispute. You can't register a trademark just to stop someone else from using it.

IMO there would also likely be a First Amendment defense if anyone used the marks in a non-profit way to bring attention to the lack of justice for Caylee.
Stop "Justice for Caylee" from being used?
Well, doesn't that say it all.

Sorry AZ, I know this is a "no discussion" thread...but this just burns me so.
 

Aedrys

If justice doesn't get you, karma will.
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
6,719
Reaction score
17
I am not understanding the judge's ruling today. Did she mean if they did give a subpoena to Greene for Casey that it would be legal for him to ignore it and not give it to Casey? How is that legal? And what about hiding her address still? I can't believe the released videos and Twitter nonense didn't prove that Casey doesn't give a carp about her safety, yet this judge keeps ruling in her favor to keep her hidden! Did she not require proof of those supposed threats? I just don't understand this judge or her ruling. This is getting so ridiculous it's not even funny anymore!
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
I am not understanding the judge's ruling today. Did she mean if they did give a subpoena to Greene for Casey that it would be legal for him to ignore it and not give it to Casey? How is that legal? And what about hiding her address still? I can't believe the released videos and Twitter nonense didn't prove that Casey doesn't give a carp about her safety, yet this judge keeps ruling in her favor to keep her hidden! Did she not require proof of those supposed threats? I just don't understand this judge or her ruling. This is getting so ridiculous it's not even funny anymore!

You don't give a subpoena to a person's attorney--you serve them personally. So, without having read anything except the blurbs on the news thread, I assume the judge is saying that if they can find her, they can serve her.

The ruling keeping her address secret is ridiculous. The address should be given to ZG's counsel, with a confidentiality agreement if necessary, so they can serve her with the subpoena.

Anyone have a copy of the actual ruling?
 

LolaMoon08

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
7,138
Reaction score
238
How legal is this?

Say they do find Casey (which I doubt) could they video tape themselves handing her the supeona, even if she drops in on the ground or refuses to take it, and use that as prove of serving so she can't lie? :floorlaugh:

Unfortunately, this is a serious question?

ETA: I only say this because not on is Casey's birthday coming up, but her favorite Holiday (St. Patrick's Day) is coming up and you know she is going to be out and about strutting her behind somewhere!
 

MaryAnn

New Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
1,754
Reaction score
1
You don't give a subpoena to a person's attorney--you serve them personally. So, without having read anything except the blurbs on the news thread, I assume the judge is saying that if they can find her, they can serve her.

The ruling keeping her address secret is ridiculous. The address should be given to ZG's counsel, with a confidentiality agreement if necessary, so they can serve her with the subpoena.

Anyone have a copy of the actual ruling?

If they found out where she lived and gave it to the person that answered the door would that work? We all know she will never answer the door wherever she lives!! :banghead: She is too much of a coward! She's only tough when it comes to killing babies!
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
How legal is this?

Say they do find Casey (which I doubt) could they video tape themselves handing her the supeona, even if she drops in on the ground or refuses to take it, and use that as prove of serving so she can't lie? :floorlaugh:

Unfortunately, this is a serious question?

ETA: I only say this because not on is Casey's birthday coming up, but her favorite Holiday (St. Patrick's Day) is coming up and you know she is going to be out and about strutting her behind somewhere!

They should be able to videotape the service--I've never heard of anyone doing that, but why not? :)

If they found out where she lived and gave it to the person that answered the door would that work? We all know she will never answer the door wherever she lives!! :banghead: She is too much of a coward! She's only tough when it comes to killing babies!

Yes, they can serve it "by leaving the copies at her usual place of abode with any person residing therein who is 15 years of age or older and informing the person of their contents" according to the Florida Rules.
 

krkrjx

The answer is blowin' in the wind.
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
10,899
Reaction score
27,257
I believe FL law states the process server cannot trespass. Does that mean they cannot go up to her door without permission? Seems ridiculous to me, but if KC is at that church house it now makes sense that JL was reported posting No Trespassing signs.

If the process server cannot trespass, that means they have to find KC out and about somewhere. But, if she is in hiding and not out and about, how can she be served?

The laws in that area of the world seem tipped in favor of the criminals. And Florida wonders why their crime rates are so high? Just saying...

One last thing: I saw the tweet by R. Hornsby about Florida requiring all felons to register with the sheriff in the county where they reside, within 48 hours of becoming a resident. If KC has registered as required, could the sheriff not serve the subpoena? And, if KC has not registered as required, what legal action can be taken against her for failure to register?
 

AZlawyer

Verified Attorney
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
7,883
Reaction score
2,123
I believe FL law states the process server cannot trespass. Does that mean they cannot go up to her door without permission? Seems ridiculous to me, but if KC is at that church house it now makes sense that JL was reported posting No Trespassing signs.

If the process server cannot trespass, that means they have to find KC out and about somewhere. But, if she is in hiding and not out and about, how can she be served?

The laws in that area of the world seem tipped in favor of the criminals. And Florida wonders why their crime rates are so high? Just saying...

One last thing: I saw the tweet by R. Hornsby about Florida requiring all felons to register with the sheriff in the county where they reside, within 48 hours of becoming a resident. If KC has registered as required, could the sheriff not serve the subpoena? And, if KC has not registered as required, what legal action can be taken against her for failure to register?

If they know where she is, they can post a process server at the end of the driveway to wait for her. ;)

But as I said in another thread, I'm quite sure there's a provision in Florida law for service by publication in the paper if someone is avoiding service. I just don't know why refusing to give your address and refusing to let your attorneys accept service doesn't count as avoiding service. Perhaps when your criminal attorney announces to the media that you will run to a new hiding place as soon as they find you, that would count?? :waitasec:

I love R Hornsby's idea. Yes, the sheriff's office should know where she is, and should also have authority to serve subpoenas.
 
Top