Motion for protective order to destroy videos of family visits

[Patty G]

Found this for reference from the United States Department of Justice.

Bureau Of Prisions Disclosure Of Recorded Inmate Telephone Conversations

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/prisons.htm

 

[Spangle]

Okay,I know some posters aren't going to like this,but I'll spit it out anyway...

I agree the Anthonys' should not receive special treatment,if all inmates have their visits video taped,than so should the Anthonys. Now,I'm trying to put myself in their situation,and I too would be against the taped video being splashed on the news. Let's face it,and you have to agree, most inmates do not have to contend with their videos being repeatedly shown on LKL,Nancy Grace,websites,and every other media venue.I would hate having my most personal moments scrutinized by all of America.

So,with that being said,I agree the video taping should proceed,but not given to the media.

Don't hate me...lol!:angel:

I don't hate you. I think it's smart to think beyond this case. And to consider how you would feel in that situation. When it comes to law, etc.. I do the same thing. It has to work across the board. So I think your thinking smart.

Your just seeing one aspect of this law. It also means our government can't have private meetings, with no minutes. Any meeting they have, WE the people can request the minutes. So that we can make sure the meeting isn't about bribes, etc. We the people can get all in the business, you know what I mean?

That inmates have a little difficulty, as you can imagne, the public pretty much believes that inmates deserive what they get. EVERYONE always believes it will not be an issue they personally will have to deal with. LOL! There will not now, or every will be, a big push to change that law, just for inmates.

As noted, all inmates visits are recorded and are elgible to be requested. What is different, is that someone actually wants the A's recording. So what is so different about the A's, compared to all the other cases? Why would folks WANT to watch their visits?

1) for clues to find a missing baby.

That was an easy one. The other is.

2) The reactions of this family is odd.

Truely, it has shocked the Nation. KC most of all, but GA and CA as well.

Watching CA and GA attack protesters. Claiming public land as their own private land.. and no matter what Cops, LE, friends, family, neighbors had to say about it, they were going to make a BUTT out off themselves keeping the public off that little public strip of land.

The family put themselves on the nightly news, nightly.

3) The lack of attempting to FIND the baby. And the attempts of trying to prevent it.

Totally throws folks off. What is UP with that? The attacks on TES. Stealing the water for the volunteer searchers. Not giving TES something of Caylee's. Attacking them and anyone honestly searching for the baby in Public and on TV.

See where I'm going with this? This family made a three ring circus. Highly entertaining. Folks tuned in to find out what they did today. That is $$$ for the media.

Is it my fault, as a FL tax payer, that the A's made a 3 ring circus out of this? They brought this on themselves and this is the consequence of their actions.

This whole case seems to be about a family who feels privileged. The Law isn't the problem. It's the family.

 

[Brini]

I think AL is setting up a story line for the mitigating defense. The family wanted to meet with KC, but wasn't allowed to do so. IT doesn't matter if it's factual. She just needs to get that info out in public. This way she can bring it up again during the pentality phase that the family is soooo close. They just haven't been visiting, because they have not been allowed to do so. Whaaaa..

I don't think it's well thought out. Because it's easily countered with the fact that KC was treated like ALL inmates. That it was explained to the family the rules. Thye rules never changed, yet they did get to meet with KC in the begining. No one stopped them from meeting. It was a choice the family made.

KC and her family expects entitlements that others don't get. THis is another example of not excepting responsiblity. She doesn't and her family doesn't.

I don't think it will play well to the jury.

Well, EVERYTHING is gonna be a desperation move.

JB has gunked up any defense SOO badly.

And. IMHO, all AL cares about is the DP.

 

[Brini]

I don't hate you. I think it's smart to think beyond this case. And to consider how you would feel in that situation. When it comes to law, etc.. I do the same thing. It has to work across the board. So I think your thinking smart.

Your just seeing one aspect of this law. It also means our government can't have private meetings, with no minutes. Any meeting they have, WE the people can request the minutes. So that we can make sure the meeting isn't about bribes, etc. We the people can get all in the business, you know what I mean?

That inmates have a little difficulty, as you can imagne, the public pretty much believes that inmates deserive what they get. EVERYONE always believes it will not be an issue they personally will have to deal with. LOL! There will not now, or every will be, a big push to change that law, just for inmates.

As noted, all inmates visits are recorded and are elgible to be requested. What is different, is that someone actually wants the A's recording. So what is so different about the A's, compared to all the other cases? Why would folks WANT to watch their visits?

1) for clues to find a missing baby.

That was an easy one. The other is.

2) The reactions of this family is odd.

Truely, it has shocked the Nation. KC most of all, but GA and CA as well.

Watching CA and GA attack protesters. Claiming public land as their own private land.. and no matter what Cops, LE, friends, family, neighbors had to say about it, they were going to make a BUTT out off themselves keeping the public off that little public strip of land.

The family put themselves on the nightly news, nightly.

3) The lack of attempting to FIND the baby. And the attempts of trying to prevent it.

Totally throws folks off. What is UP with that? The attacks on TES. Stealing the water for the volunteer searchers. Not giving TES something of Caylee's. Attacking them and anyone honestly searching for the baby in Public and on TV.

See where I'm going with this? This family made a three ring circus. Highly entertaining. Folks tuned in to find out what they did today. That is $$$ for the media.

Is it my fault, as a FL tax payer, that the A's made a 3 ring circus out of this? They brought this on themselves and this is the consequence of their actions.

This whole case seems to be about a family who feels privileged. The Law isn't the problem. It's the family.

Well, the moral of the story is... don't kill anybody in FL. Better yet, don't murder, at all. Especially a kid.

Yep! And, sunshine laws can cut both ways.

IMHO, in addition to broadcasting behaviors suggestive of guilt, they can broadcast behaviors suggestive of innocence.

So with regard to jury tainting-- that goes boh ways too.

IMHO, people can't keep up pretenses consistently over time.

Guilty knowledge or innocence is gonna show, sooner or later, in those vids.

 

[Brini]

I think AL is setting up a story line for the mitigating defense. The family wanted to meet with KC, but wasn't allowed to do so. IT doesn't matter if it's factual. She just needs to get that info out in public. This way she can bring it up again during the pentality phase that the family is soooo close. They just haven't been visiting, because they have not been allowed to do so. Whaaaa..

I don't think it's well thought out. Because it's easily countered with the fact that KC was treated like ALL inmates. That it was explained to the family the rules. Thye rules never changed, yet they did get to meet with KC in the begining. No one stopped them from meeting. It was a choice the family made.

KC and her family expects entitlements that others don't get. THis is another example of not excepting responsiblity. She doesn't and her family doesn't.

I don't think it will play well to the jury.

Plus, a couple of your media reporters have balls and sharp TEETH. :croc:

 

[Dells]

Okay,I know some posters aren't going to like this,but I'll spit it out anyway...

I agree the Anthonys' should not receive special treatment,if all inmates have their visits video taped,than so should the Anthonys. Now,I'm trying to put myself in their situation,and I too would be against the taped video being splashed on the news. Let's face it,and you have to agree, most inmates do not have to contend with their videos being repeatedly shown on LKL,Nancy Grace,websites,and every other media venue.I would hate having my most personal moments scrutinized by all of America.

So,with that being said,I agree the video taping should proceed,but not given to the media.

Don't hate me...lol!:angel:

I can totally see where you're coming from, but part of the problem for me is that the Anthony's helped create the media circus around this case.

They want to be able to pick and choose what is put out there in the media. They are all for it if they can go on shows such as the CBS Early Show and LKL and proclaim Casey's innocence. If they would have stayed quiet and behind the scenes like their attorney wanted them to, then there might not be all the public interest is this case. They would then be able to meet much more privately w/their daughter, in that the media might not be requesting the tapes of their jailhouse visits.

If Casey is so innocent as she and the Anthony's claim her to be, then there should be no problem w/their visits being released. Heck, the released visits may ultimately even help in Casey's defense, if she is innocent that is.

 

[Dells]

Personally, I think the best the defense can hope for is that the Judge seals family visitation videos as he did with the jail videotape of Casey's reaction. LE routinely monitors these visits and some of them could be legitimately used in court.

As for not taping the videos of attorney visits... that's not going to wash. While Baez assures the court Casey is no threat to him due to being "chained around the stomach", the fact is, his record of behavior during the visits is pretty spotty.

Oh, and let's not forget that little item called "setting a precedent." Should Strickland allow all that is asked for in the motions... Joe the Drug Dealer in jail on murder charges and under terrible stress could ask for the same treatment as Casey.

Those jail rules are there for a darn good reason!

BBM

I just wonder if this whole problem would have been taken care of by the defense if they didn't argue against the gag order that the prosecution wanted in place? The defense team, like the Anthony's, want to pick and choose what is put out there in the media. If some of the publicity is hurting the case against Casey, then they shouldn't have been against the gag order.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

BBM

I just wonder if this whole problem would have been taken care of by the defense if they didn't argue against the gag order that the prosecution wanted in place? The defense team, like the Anthony's, want to pick and choose what is put out there in the media. If some of the publicity is hurting the case against Casey, then they shouldn't have been against the gag order.

Yes, it would have. But JB was to stoooooopid to see beyond his money sniffing nose......

 

[sumbunny]

With all this media attention, the A's have been able to enjoy the life of a retired couple. Their bills are being paid at the expense of having their life under public scrutiny.

I suppose there is a price to pay for all the hype.

They chose it...deal with it.

 

[Muzikman]

Concerning this motion:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20972696/detail.html
which is for a Protective Order to force the Orange County jail from releasing videos of Casey's visitations with her family.

Not being an attorney I have quite a few questions.
For instance, why ARE those videos being released, along with the audio recordings of her phone calls with folks. What is the standard here that makes those items available for public release?

Now mind you, I have watched and read each one and I am sure we have discussed this before, however in light of this motion I am wondering if the jail is "covered" for this practice of releasing this info, or if since they are a part of the state government, if that makes them the property of the state or what? Just hoping to come to understand the legality of why they CAN and SHOULD be released and if there is a chance that the judge will order no videoing of the Anthonys visiting Casey???

This is interesting. In the above-linked WFTV copy of this motion - obtained from the Clerk's office, with the Clerk's Office date stamp - Baez did not sign and date the second page of the motion. Andrea L did sign, but no date. Baez and Andrea did sign and date the third page, called the certificate of service.

In the Orlando Sentinel version - apparently not obtained from the Clerk's office, as it does not have the Clerk's date stamp - Baez DID sign and date the second page.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...anthony-motion-pdf-1-091809,0,4430024.acrobat


2 questions for the legal-minded:
The filed copy does not have Baez's sig on the actual motion, just the certificate. Does that really matter? It is an officially filed document.

The Orlando Sentinel obviously obtained their copy elsewhere - Baez's office? There is no fax stamp as I have seen on other Baez docs, so maybe it was hand-delivered to the Sentinel? Why is their copy signed by Baez, but the officially filed one is not?

 

[lin]

This is interesting. In the above-linked WFTV copy of this motion - obtained from the Clerk's office, with the Clerk's Office date stamp - Baez did not sign and date the second page of the motion. Andrea L did sign, but no date. Baez and Andrea did sign and date the third page, called the certificate of service.

In the Orlando Sentinel version - apparently not obtained from the Clerk's office, as it does not have the Clerk's date stamp - Baez DID sign and date the second page.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...anthony-motion-pdf-1-091809,0,4430024.acrobat


2 questions for the legal-minded:
The filed copy does not have Baez's sig on the actual motion, just the certificate. Does that really matter? It is an officially filed document.

The Orlando Sentinel obviously obtained their copy elsewhere - Baez's office? There is no fax stamp as I have seen on other Baez docs, so maybe it was hand-delivered to the Sentinel? Why is their copy signed by Baez, but the officially filed one is not?

I can only guess the Sentinel got a press kit from Baez directly to explain the discrepancy. The lack of signature isn't a big deal because there is a valid signature, AL's. The lack of date is a nit picky thing the state will not likely focus on. Not saying they couldn't but imo they won't. Technically, it's improperly filed and technically they could argue it should be thrown out but to what end? They sign and refile and we're back to square 1 again. By now the state is pretty accustomed to JB's sloppy work and in the big picture of his glaring omissions/inconsistencies/false allegations/incorrect citations/incorrect interpretations/etc. this is not a big deal, imo.

ETA: I'm not familiar with pro hac vice attorneys so it's also possible that a local lawyer's signature is necessary but again, so they sign it and it's done. I do understand your concerns about JB's lackadaisical (imo) approach to the practice of law but there are so many bigger errors on which to focus.

 

[lin]

With all this media attention, the A's have been able to enjoy the life of a retired couple. Their bills are being paid at the expense of having their life under public scrutiny.

I suppose there is a price to pay for all the hype.

They chose it...deal with it.

I strongly agree with you and the others who opined similarly. They're making a living from the media exposure and then have the audacity to complain about media exposure. It's so offensive on so many levels, imo.

 

[lin]

BBM

I just wonder if this whole problem would have been taken care of by the defense if they didn't argue against the gag order that the prosecution wanted in place? The defense team, like the Anthony's, want to pick and choose what is put out there in the media. If some of the publicity is hurting the case against Casey, then they shouldn't have been against the gag order.

<sarcasm alert>

But a gag order would have hurt the income stream for all of them! They have bills too! Not to mention that burgeoning jet set lifestyle...

 

[lin]

Personally, I think the best the defense can hope for is that the Judge seals family visitation videos as he did with the jail videotape of Casey's reaction. LE routinely monitors these visits and some of them could be legitimately used in court.

As for not taping the videos of attorney visits... that's not going to wash. While Baez assures the court Casey is no threat to him due to being "chained around the stomach", the fact is, his record of behavior during the visits is pretty spotty.

Oh, and let's not forget that little item called "setting a precedent." Should Strickland allow all that is asked for in the motions... Joe the Drug Dealer in jail on murder charges and under terrible stress could ask for the same treatment as Casey.

Those jail rules are there for a darn good reason!

ITA but merely sealing the videos from the public (if it could even be done) wouldn't accomplish what I believe is their goal; getting stories straight and/or trying to undo some of JB's pie-in-the-sky influence. Either way, the prosecution would have a field day.

 

[Patty G]

This is interesting. In the above-linked WFTV copy of this motion - obtained from the Clerk's office, with the Clerk's Office date stamp - Baez did not sign and date the second page of the motion. Andrea L did sign, but no date. Baez and Andrea did sign and date the third page, called the certificate of service.

In the Orlando Sentinel version - apparently not obtained from the Clerk's office, as it does not have the Clerk's date stamp - Baez DID sign and date the second page.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...anthony-motion-pdf-1-091809,0,4430024.acrobat


2 questions for the legal-minded:
The filed copy does not have Baez's sig on the actual motion, just the certificate. Does that really matter? It is an officially filed document.

The Orlando Sentinel obviously obtained their copy elsewhere - Baez's office? There is no fax stamp as I have seen on other Baez docs, so maybe it was hand-delivered to the Sentinel? Why is their copy signed by Baez, but the officially filed one is not?

In the http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20972696/detail.html Baez didn't sign page 2 of the motion but did sign the other pages. This might be all that is needed.

The interesting part of these signatures is in the wftv motion. Baez's signature on page 11 doesn't match the signature on page 3 and 47. :waitasec:


Regarding the orlando copy of the motion is interesting as there are only 3 pages where wftv has 47. Like you mentioned MM, there is no fax mark, no filing in the court etc., etc.

On my computer screen, I see a tint of blue ink in the orlando copy whereas the wftv copies are clearly in black ink.

My "hinky meter" goes off when I see stuff like this!

 

[doogiesgirl]

Well if I am reading this link correctly, I was wrong----the sunshine laws were in place way before the A's ever migrated to Florida.

http://foiadvocate.blogspot.com/2009/03/florida-celebrates-100-years-of.html

I found this:

The Florida Sunshine Law is a series of laws designed to guarantee that the public has access to the public records of governmental bodies in Florida. The law was first enacted in 1995.

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Florida_Sunshine_Law

Well now I'm confused. Did the A's vote on this or not, ya think? Maybe it started in 1909 and evolved to include updated info that wouldn't even have been invented in 1909, could that be it? Not that it matters, just curious. MOO

 

[marspiter]

I can only guess the Sentinel got a press kit from Baez directly to explain the discrepancy. The lack of signature isn't a big deal because there is a valid signature, AL's. The lack of date is a nit picky thing the state will not likely focus on. Not saying they couldn't but imo they won't. Technically, it's improperly filed and technically they could argue it should be thrown out but to what end? They sign and refile and we're back to square 1 again. By now the state is pretty accustomed to JB's sloppy work and in the big picture of his glaring omissions/inconsistencies/false allegations/incorrect citations/incorrect interpretations/etc. this is not a big deal, imo.

ETA: I'm not familiar with pro hac vice attorneys so it's also possible that a local lawyer's signature is necessary but again, so they sign it and it's done. I do understand your concerns about JB's lackadaisical (imo) approach to the practice of law but there are so many bigger errors on which to focus.

It's like watching My Cousin Vinny but not as funny and seriously lacking Marisa Tomei.

Judge Chamberlain Haller: "Once again, the communication process broken down. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it." :rolling:

 

[ClockWatcher]

Well now I'm confused. Did the A's vote on this or not, ya think? Maybe it started in 1909 and evolved to include updated info that wouldn't even have been invented in 1909, could that be it? Not that it matters, just curious. MOO

Try this link, as this covers the history of the "Sunshine Law."

http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/pages/Law


1909- The citizens of Florida realized the need for an open government.

1967- The Sunshine Law became part of Florida statutes.

1991- Legislators realized a need to make the law a part of the Florida Constitution.

So, no, the Anthony's were not resident's of the state at the time.

 

[Muzikman]

In the http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20972696/detail.html Baez didn't sign page 2 of the motion but did sign the other pages. This might be all that is needed.

The interesting part of these signatures is in the wftv motion. Baez's signature on page 11 doesn't match the signature on page 3 and 47. :waitasec:


Regarding the orlando copy of the motion is interesting as there are only 3 pages where wftv has 47. Like you mentioned MM, there is no fax mark, no filing in the court etc., etc.

On my computer screen, I see a tint of blue ink in the orlando copy whereas the wftv copies are clearly in black ink.

My "hinky meter" goes off when I see stuff like this!

Legally though, Baez did not sign the motion, but I think like Lin says, it's no big deal - if the issue is raised, they just refile. it just shows incompetence.

Blue ink/Black ink - WFTV's is a copy from the Clerk's office - Sentinel's must be a scan of an original. It was nice of WFTV to provide us the full motion, whereas the Sentinel didn't.

 

[Patty G]

Well now I'm confused. Did the A's vote on this or not, ya think? Maybe it started in 1909 and evolved to include updated info that wouldn't even have been invented in 1909, could that be it? Not that it matters, just curious. MOO

There are many revisions with regards to the "public records" law started back in 1909.

Since there have been revisions to the law since 1909, chances are the Anthony's may have voted on changes to the law since they became residents of Florida back in the late 80's.