Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #9

Discussion in 'Travis Alexander Trial - The State vs. Jodi Arias' started by Coldpizza, Aug 30, 2016.

  1. RickshawFan

    RickshawFan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    4,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't it substantially less than $.50 and she has to forfeit a significant portion of it for restitution? I forget exactly, but when she started, I calculated she'd net about $.10 an hour, and it would take her 2 days to buy a Pepsi. Much gloating from me!
     
  2. RickshawFan

    RickshawFan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    4,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm guessing she's using up her "trust fund" that was earmarked for her federal appeal. If that's the case, she's shooting herself in the foot. IIRC she was classified as indigent and entitled to a public attorney for her state-level appeal.
    Some detail has vanished into the fog of time, but other posters will be more accurate!
     
  3. RickshawFan

    RickshawFan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    4,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I got a cash return for a debit transaction at Walmart yesterday.... The item was one of several. It was crossed out in PEN and a new receipt was printed that showed VOIDED for that item.
     
  4. MsJosie

    MsJosie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,479
    Likes Received:
    6,558
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not to long ago...for this case, I read the inmate got a new job working in the library! Gave her a raise! I thought that was “funny” as she can now help inmates pass secret messages. The article had a picture of her sister and mom with her...she was now allowed contact visits. I cannot remember where I saw that....will go on a hunt. If anyone remembers this please post.
     
  5. MistyM

    MistyM Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    63
    she's a prison celebrity! i bet she has minions she's using and sucking up to the right people, flirting with the right guards. her mom is now wanting to raise money or something to keep trying to ruin juan martinez.
     
  6. Colie

    Colie Active Member

    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    43
    For anyone following Martinez Bar Complaint brought by Clark the following brief dates have been set.
    upload_2018-10-17_17-45-3.png
     
  7. whisperOFwings

    whisperOFwings Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,135
    Likes Received:
    2,548
    Trophy Points:
    113
  8. geevee

    geevee Well-Known Stickie

    Messages:
    16,862
    Likes Received:
    8,560
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just noticed this tweet and thought I'd post it:

    Michael Kiefer‏Verified account @michaelbkiefer 11h11 hours ago
    The AZ atty discipline committee on oct 31 asked the state bar to file a complaint against Juan Martinez for misrepresenting his relationships with a blogger and a discharged juror who sexted him and for sharing confidential info about another juror in the Arias trial.
    ---

    And the beat goes on....
     
  9. Colie

    Colie Active Member

    Messages:
    240
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Here is the probable cause order.


    upload_2018-11-4_21-15-11.png
     
  10. Love Never Fails

    Love Never Fails Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,219
    Likes Received:
    11,581
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yikes!!! This is too bad and I am a Juanette.
     
    RickshawFan and Hope4More like this.
  11. Niner

    Niner Long time Websleuther

    Messages:
    33,357
    Likes Received:
    69,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Me too! [​IMG] .. [​IMG]
     
  12. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ABOUT THE AZ PROBABLE CAUSE COMMITTEE’S RULING ON KAREN CLARKE’S (KC) COMPLAINT, RELATING TO JM’S INVOLVEMENT WITH BLOGGERS, RELAYING CONFIDENTIAL INFO TO THEM, INVITING THEM TO MCAO OFFICES AFTER HOURS, IMPROPERLY COMMUNICATING WITH A DISMISSED JUROR (DURING PP2, JUROR #3); “CONSPIRING” WITH JENNIFER WOODS (JW) TO OUT JUROR 17, AND, THE NEW CHARGE THAT JM WAS (ESSENTIALLY) LESS THAN TRUTHFUL OR HAD ACTUALLY OUTRIGHT LIED TO THE BAR IN HIS REPLIES TO KC’S ORIGINAL BAR COMPLAINT ON THESE MATTERS.


    ***First, general context about the process, plugging in a timeline specific to KC’s original complaint. **** (Looooong. :))

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HOW AZ BAR COMPLAINTS ARE HANDLED



    1. Bar receives complaint. Prescreens. Tosses it out at this stage if it is clearly bogus (ALL of ***’s fans complaints, for example, were rejected at this phase).

    2. Screening. Complaint is prescreened, has enough merit to go to next step: screening. KC’s original complaint made it to this stage.

    The screening process: the complainant (***) is notified, and the lawyer (JM’s) is given written notice of the investigation and the nature of the allegations (aka a “screening letter”) The lawyer is asked for a written response.

    Bar counsel forwards a copy of (JM’s) response to KC/***, an investigator is assigned. “The investigator and assigned bar counsel will conduct interviews, obtain records or other necessary information and undertake appropriate research. “

    3. Timeline of KC’s original complaint


    February 13, 2017. KC ‘s only recorded interview with Tammy Rose, though she spent “many hours (interviewing Rose) as part of preparing the bar charge.”

    Feb 24, 2017. KC files bar complaint against JM (34 pages long, with 35 pages of exhibits).

    April 24, 2017. JM replies to the Bar’s initial screening letter (his 1st of only 2 direct communications with the Bar. He was never deposed or interviewed by Bar counsel. This matters for when & what he could have allegedly been untruthful about).

    April 27, 2017. Bar asked KC for additional information.

    May 16, 2017. KC interviews Sharee Ruiz, Woods’ ex business partner (the “Trial Divas”).

    May 17, 2017. KC provides requested information, and includes the texts exchanged between Rose and Woods that had been extracted from Rose’s phone (after she voluntarily provided her phone to the attorney for Juror #17).

    May 23, 2017. (via phone) KC provided Bar Counsel with a list of 25 potential witnesses. Jennifer Wilmott is on that list.

    July 17, 2017. Bar Counsel sends JM a letter telling him that he must respond to ALL of the questions asked on the initial screening letter.

    August 11, 2017. JM replies to this 2nd Bar letter.

    January 2, 2018. JM’s counsel and Bar Counsel exchanged emails on the charges.

    January 9, 2018. KC’s charges against JM are dismissed, without ever having been forwarded to the Probable Cause Committee.
    --------------------------------------------

    4. KC’s appeal of the dismissal


    February 9, 2018. KC appeals the dismissal of the charges. Central to this context of AZ’s bar complaint process, she argued that Bar Counsel had abused its discretion by not advancing the complaint to the Bar’s Probable Cause Committee. KC asserted that even though the Bar had barely conducted the required investigation (only 4 of her 25 witnesses were interviewed, ad JM was not), she had provided Counsel with more than sufficient information to find probable cause.


    It is the Probable Cause’s Committee, she argued, not Bar Counsel, that has the discretion to review well supported allegations, and to determine whether to advise discipline of an atty, or dismissal of the charges.


    Here is AZ’s stated process for Probable Cause Review


    “Once bar counsel have sufficient information to recommend how a charge should be resolved, they prepare an investigative report of the file. The report and recommendation are submitted to the Attorney Discipline Probable Cause Committee ("Committee"), who decides whether there is enough evidence to continue on to formal proceedings or whether another course of action is appropriate.
    -----------------------------

    5. KC argued in her appeal for a reversal of the dismissal, that the charges be advanced for a Probable Cause Review, and that the very least, that the charges be more fully investigated.


    March 9, 2018. The PCC issues order vacating the dismissal and directing the State Bar “to conduct further investigation in this matter and to report the outcome of that investigation (to the PCC) for consideration and disposition.”


    November 5, 2018. The PCC finds probable cause to file a complaint against JM:


    STATE BAR STATEMENT

    The state Bar intends to file a complaint alleging that Mr. Martinez violated (rules of professional conduct)..by knowingly making false statements of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter (and) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.”

    ------------------------------------------


    NEXT: WHAT COMES NEXT IN THE PROCESS, AND AFTER THAT, A BREAKDOWN OF THE ALLEGED CHARGE THAT JM (LIED) AT SOME POINT DURING THE REVIEW/INVESTIGATION OF KC’S ORIGINAL BAR COMPLAINT.
     
    geevee, salberg7, kimpage and 3 others like this.
  13. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PART 2. WHAT’S NEXT? THE AZ BAR COMPLAINT PROCESS, CONTINUED



    1. “If there is enough evidence to continue to formal proceedings, the committee will issue a probable cause order. Both (JM’s) lawyer and complainant (KC/***) are notified of the recommendation and are given an opportunity to provide a written response to the Committee.

    2. Formal proceedings

    "Once a probable cause order is issued (it has been) bar counsel prepares a complaint and represents the State Bar in the formal disciplinary proceedings. Formal proceedings begin when bar counsel files a complaint with the Disciplinary Clerk.


    (JM’s) answer is due within 20 days after service of the complaint. After the answer is filed, the matter is set for a settlement conference and a hearing. Mandatory settlement conferences are held before the hearing. Bar counsel and respondents often enter into consent agreements to settle a matter without a hearing.


    If no agreement is reached, a contested hearing is held before a hearing panel which includes the Presiding Disciplinary Judge, a lawyer member and a public member.

    Following a hearing, a written report containing findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order regarding sanction is filed and is final subject to the parties' right to appeal.

    The hearing panel can dismiss the charges, order diversion, admonition, probation, costs, reprimand, suspension, or disbarment. Either party may appeal the hearing panel's order to the Supreme Court. “

    -------------------


    JM has been here before. Here’s how it turned out for him last time.


    A bar complaint was filed by defense attys relating to 5 cases JM had tried. The charges were prescreened, screened, investigated, and advanced to the Probable Cause Committee.


    The PCC recommended to Bar Counsel that JM be admonished, and that he be given a one year probation. JM refused to enter into a consent agreement (thus rejecting these “offered” sanctions), and requested a formal hearing.

    Craig Henley represented the Bar; JM was represented by Rhodes, “one of the best atty discipline defense attys in AZ.” The Presiding Judge for the hearing was William O’Neill.


    Here’s what happened during the hearing. Henley put the defense attys for 3 of the 5 cases (JM tried & was accused of misconduct during) on the stand. Judge O’Neill restricted the answers of each attorney to replies of either YES or NO. A former US Atty for AZ (Paul Charlton) called as an expert witness described JM’s court conduct as “unethical and inappropriate.”


    Rhodes, JM’s attorney, called a single witness, former AZ Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Zlaget. Zlaget testified that he himself as a practicing attorney had been just as aggressive as JM, and that every trial atty he had known had done the same, adding, and “I’ve known the best.”

    Rhodes then rested. Judge O’Neill and the 2 other panelists sitting in judgement then left the room to deliberate. They returned in (literally) less than a minute, and promptly dismissed the charges against JM.


    (That dismissal is being appealed to the AZ Supreme Court, where it has been stayed since January 2018).

    -------------------
    NEXT & LAST... ABOUT THE NEW CHARGE RELATING TO DISHONESTY
     
    geevee, salberg7, kimpage and 2 others like this.
  14. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BRIEF (QUASI-RELATED) INTERLUDE


    ***’S momma set up a ******** for the *** over a month ago. The name of the fund is “Juan Martinez Bar Complaint, “ and the total amount of donations being requested is exactly $12,748.

    Momma Sandy says of the campaign for free money that she is “raising money for a legal bill that has grown beyond our ability to pay.” She describes the bar complaint work by Karen Clarke as spectacular, and that yay, Clarke had succeeded in getting that Probable Cause Order.

    Now, though, “the bill (for that work) is due. We still owe and we need your help to pay it.”

    Sandy also makes it clear that the donations being requested have nothing to do with ***’s appeals, nor about “matters of guilt or innocence,” but are entirely in support of the *** going after Juan Martinez.

    The ******** campaign, as of a few days ago: $1,100 of the $12,748 has been raised. (Perhaps) 22 people, almost all listed as “anonymous” have contributed, including Ben Ernst ($100), and Auntie Sue ($25).
     
    geevee, salberg7, kimpage and 5 others like this.
  15. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    (Hi...:) I'm glad you've been keeping up with the dockets. FWIW, though, this briefing schedule isn't related to Clarke's complaint. It's related to the Bar's appeal to the Supreme Court, of the Bar agreeing with JM that he shouldn't receive a year's probation for the Bar complaint against him filed by defense attorneys accusing him of misconduct during multiple trials. (whew).

    The Supreme Court stayed the Bar's appeal in January 2018 until Bar Counsel handed over to the SC all documentation relating to their deliberations & decision. Since briefings have been scheduled, the paperwork has been turned over.
     
    geevee, salberg7, kimpage and 5 others like this.
  16. GarAndTeed

    GarAndTeed Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    3,509
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Da*n! I KNEW that *** was in this up to her <pick a spot>. I think this was a set up. Or something. JMO.
    Thanks for the info, @Hope4More !!!
     
    Cinnalauda, geevee, kimpage and 4 others like this.
  17. GarAndTeed

    GarAndTeed Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,542
    Likes Received:
    3,509
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hope4More, does Juan have the same atty. (Rhodes)? Or do you know?
     
    geevee, kimpage, Hope4More and 2 others like this.
  18. Becky Sharp

    Becky Sharp Member

    Messages:
    849
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Grifters gonna grift. Throughout the trial I tried very hard not to criticize the ***'s family--after all, we can't choose our family members--but this and other antics by them make me want to scream. I guess being trash can be genetic.
     
    geevee, nwmouse, kimpage and 6 others like this.
  19. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JM had Rhodes at least through the initial handling of KC's bar complaint (on through dismissal). I'm not sure if Rhodes is still on board, but it would be easy enough to check, as the Bar would have sent notification of the Probable Cause Order to JM's attorney.
     
    geevee, RickshawFan and GarAndTeed like this.
  20. Hope4More

    Hope4More Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,415
    Likes Received:
    7,835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I was getting ready to post the last piece of my little series about the KC Bar complaint a few days ago, I pulled up my downloads to access the Complaint to double check on a date. I've downloaded the complaint multiple times, because I keep forgetting I already have that PDF file saved.

    This time, I noticed for the first time that one of my multiple copies of the PDF was a significantly larger file, so I opened that copy. and WHOA! I have no idea where I found this particular download, versus the version I've found everywhere else, but unlike the version everywhere else, this one has ALL THE APPENDICES attached to Clark's appeal of the Complaint's dismissal.

    Included:

    1. ALL the correspondence between the Bar and JM, and the Bar and KC-including the screening, then follow up questions the Bar asked JM, and his replies; and, the full original Bar Complaint.

    2. The full transcripts (!!!!) of Clark's interviews with Tammy Rose, Ruiz (Trial Divas), the ex-husband of Jennifer Wood, and Melissa Garcia, (Juror #3), the dismissed juror during PP2 JM was alleged to have questioned, seeking info about still-seated jurors.

    3. And, yes, the TEXTS between Wood & Rose, between February -July 2015, so covering the critical time of PP2 jury deliberations through the outing of Juror #17 , then through the time Wood & Rose stopped speaking to one another.

    So, a different series follows, about the strength of Clark's allegations against JM. First up: her unequivocal allegation that JM outed juror 17 to Wood, and her more muddled allegation that Wood and Martinez conspired to out juror 17 to the public.
     
    geevee, salberg7, RickshawFan and 3 others like this.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice