Tony Padilla Q&A

[Brini]

Back to that honor thing being assumed... The state had no reason to think JB may have altered any documents filed with the court until they were made aware by someone else; TP in the instant case.

TP wasn't given a copy of this document or any notice at all. TP is in CA and likely doesn't hear about this case on his local news channels very much. Any info he gets on the case likely has to be brought to his attention or sought by him, such as coming here to read. (Get that Tony? If you'd make more time for us, you'd be in the loop!) So TP may very well have "heard" about the motion regarding privilege but like the state, he'd have no reason to assume that JB would actually fabricate documents and is much more likely to have assumed that any representations JB made about TP were accurate.

It's really a lucky happenstance that this issue came to light at all, when one thinks about it. I don't get the impression that TP has the time to follow the case as closely as do some of us and don't get the impression that he reads every word of every document filed with the court looking for errors, as do some of us. So whomever suspected something fishy and brought it to TP's attention deserves a lot of credit and I hope he gives that person my big thanks!

That's a good idea, Tony!

If I were you, I'd read any threads that might be of interest to you on a regular basis.

You are in Sacto. We are all over the country.

We are current all the time, with whatever info we can snag.

And, we post Every. Single. Thing.

Might forwarn you and Len, re: tricks and traps, as the trial comes up.

 

[Brini]

Chargers??? Well, *there's* the problem!

HEY! ;-):blowkiss:

 

[lin]

My take on this is-
I believe Tony's agenda here is simply to try and destroy Lenny's credibility and then appear as a witness for the defense.

He states that his "lightbulb moment" came about a week after she was bailed, when "some of the evidence came back" - at that point you should have realized you had been duped by a sociopath and revised your opinion of little Miss Anthony..

When you read further, you'll see a lot more clarification and may also wish to read the prior discussions from last year for a better understanding of TP's position(s). He has been very clear that the positive statements were made based solely on what he personally witnessed and how he personally has been treated. His lightbulb moment to which you refer led him to believe in probable guilt, as you suggest it should have led him to conclude. In fact, iirc, TP wanted to pull the bail but LP convinced him to let it stand for a bit longer. TP has also clarified some of his remarks regarding his uncle.

I sincerely hope when you get caught up with the thread(s) you will consider editing your post to reflect any change to your opinions after considering the rest of the information provided.

 

[Intermezzo]

My take on this is-
I believe Tony's agenda here is simply to try and destroy Lenny's credibility and then appear as a witness for the defense.

He states that his "lightbulb moment" came about a week after she was bailed, when "some of the evidence came back" - at that point you should have realized you had been duped by a sociopath and revised your opinion of little Miss Anthony..

BBM
Respectfully disagree

 

[Jolynna]

Originally Posted by Marina2 View Post
Maybe it's just that important that he decided to risk the forgery. He may have weighed the risks vs the benefits. Worse case scenario... the motion gets thrown out. Best case scenario...very damning testimony gets thrown out.



But, is the attorney possibly banking on the fact that the Original conveniently "cannot be located"?
How can it be PROVEN that Tony Padilla ever signed a separate/different document/agreement? There is only Tony Padilla's word for it.

Actually, IF Tony Padilla were unscrupulous, he could have attached any contract he wanted to the signature sheets. WHO could say what contract went with what signatures?

Maybe legal documents with detached signature pages and with no initials on every page pass the muster when nobody objects. Or if the only other signatory is deceased.

But, I think it is a problem when one of the signatories is alive and saying the copy of the legal document you are submitting to the court is fake.

This would be a good time to have crossed your T's and dotted your I's and to have your legal documents beyond reproach. Baez knew back when those papers were being signed that there was a possibility Casey might eventually face the death penalty.

When one of the signatories on a document is the lead attorney and it is a serious matter, I'd expect that attorney to cover his and his client's *****.

JMO

 

[Numbers]

HEY! ;-):blowkiss:

:angel:




:cow:


Go Steelers!!!

 

[lin]

I just watched that part of the hearing again and JB said in his rebuttal that he would have brought the original if the SA would have submitted a written response, or words to that effect. The judge seemed to agree with him by saying "I hear what you're saying about the written responses" (shouldn't quote it I guess, since I'm not 100% sure about the exact words used).

Anyway, I know nothing about how these motions work but as a law layman I got the impression that this whole thing could have already been resolved right there at the hearing if the SA would have requested the originals in writing before the hearing. Is that true? And if that is true, why do you think that wasn't done?

JB didn't seem to have a problem with producing the originals. I didn't see him get flustered or anything when asked to do that. It's just that I can't see taking this kind of risk with the false documents etc., especially with AL's sig on that motion with his. Seems like some major trouble could be gotten into.

This wasn't brought to the state's attention until the last minute so there was no time for a written response. The references to the state making written responses, including asking the court to direct same, were specious at best, imo. The defense often files last minute pleadings, amended pleadings, additional pleadings, etc. precluding written responses from the state. So far, iirc, the state has provided written responses for the most part when time allowed and subject matter indicated. Trial by ambush is generally disfavored in Florida courts and I doubt the state has in any way tried to do so. If that was their intent and time allowed, I think TP would have been present at the hearing along with other evidence to dispute the validity of the proffered document.

JB's real issue may be, imo, that had he been made aware that the document would be questioned, he could have taken some preemptive measures or even canceled the hearing on that issue. I don't think he would have brought the original to court with him because I don't think it exists. If it did, I think it would have been in one of the file folders regarding this issue sitting on the defense table.

JB also whined about being called on the carpet about this, my impression being in hopes the court would chastise the state for making such "scurrilous" accusations against him and thereby possibly hoping to avoid actually having to produce what he likely doesn't have. If TP's memory is correct, then rather than admit it in open court, I'd be more inclined to believe JB would walk to the end of the hallway, as did his client. He would have nothing to gain by such an admission, even an unspoken admission. JB, like his client, in my view seems to be more likely to instead be furiously trying to figure out how to avoid detection; come up with another lie/fraudulent document; and/or a way to blame someone else for the fabrication.

Keep in mind, these are very serious allegations and I highly doubt TP would make them lightly. TP is much too smart, imo, to not realize possible repercussions from false accusations, especially considering his profession.

 

[Jolynna]

But the notary would have known that 2 documents were signed by Tony that day.

If the notary is someone with Baez's firm, which would normally be the case, since it looks like that is where the papers were drawn up, that notary may not be impartial with good will with her boss/co-worker on the line.

JMO

 

[ZsaZsa]

When you read further, you'll see a lot more clarification and may also wish to read the prior discussions from last year for a better understanding of TP's position(s). He has been very clear that the positive statements were made based solely on what he personally witnessed and how he personally has been treated. His lightbulb moment to which you refer led him to believe in probable guilt, as you suggest it should have led him to conclude. In fact, iirc, TP wanted to pull the bail but LP convinced him to let it stand for a bit longer. TP has also clarified some of his remarks regarding his uncle.

I sincerely hope when you get caught up with the thread(s) you will consider editing your post to reflect any change to your opinions after considering the rest of the information provided.

I am "caught up with the thread" and read every one of TP's posts before I contributed my opinion.

 

[Numbers]

If the notary is someone with Baez's firm, which would normally be the case, since it looks like that is where the papers were drawn up, that notary may not be impartial with good will with her boss/co-worker on the line.

JMO

I'm hoping he/she doesn't think much of the boss, either.

 

[lin]

If the notary is someone with Baez's firm, which would normally be the case, since it looks like that is where the papers were drawn up, that notary may not be impartial with good will with her boss/co-worker on the line.

JMO

A notary may be just as slimy as anyone else but it's just as possible that a notary may be just as afraid of perjury charges as everyone else and decide that lying to cover someone else is not in their own best interests.

 

[lin]

I am "caught up with the thread" and read every one of TP's posts before I contributed my opinion.

No offense was intended. I just so thoroughly disagree with your assertions that I assumed you weren't considering all of the information. But since you have, would you please explain the basis for your theory? Perhaps I have missed or misunderstood something. TIA

 

[Jolynna]

Lenny has a law degree. That should cover it.

Lenny isn't acting on the behalf of a client facing the death penalty.

I think Baez should have tightened up his contract and then mailed any copies left behind in his office to the other signatories.

It would sure add weight to Baez's version of what happened if Baez had courteously mailed Rob, Tracy, Leonard and Tony their copies and Baez had signed certified receipts showing the copies had been received.

 

[MissJames]

Is there a time frame for when the originals of the privacy agreement have to be shown ti the SA?
Also, how on earth did JB think he could get away with this? Maybe he thought TP would assume he was showing the court the true documents,but that's a huge assumption.

 

[Bathbuddys]

I just think he has a degree not license to practice...but I was wondering why they didn't consider having someone look over the docs for them. Not so much, TP...he's a bailbondsman afterall....he probably signs lots of papers...which leads me to believe he knows exactly what should be contained in them. If he says that's not the doc he signed, I believe him. But, the others should definitely have had their own attorney present IMO.

They each would have to have an attorney from the field that they are in.
I practiced law and worked for attorneys as well but don't have a license to practice law. Anyone can go to law school and depending on the state, work under another attorney... it is done all the time by legal assistants etc.

 

[Bathbuddys]

If I was the SA I would have followed JB back to the office and retrieved the doc right then and there! The fact that it is going to be submitted directly to the SA leads me to believe that JB's motion is going absolutely nowhere. TP, LP, and Tracy were not an extension of the defense. Period. I really do think it's up to TP to bring this matter to the Florida Bar...if he so chooses.

The Judge could have asked for a recess and JB could have had the documents transported to the court. It is done all the time. I do not understand why it wasn't done? I just dont get it at all. It was not late in the day or anything?

 

[Bathbuddys]

I've followed mp cases for only a short time here. Haven't made it to the trial process yet in any of them (unfortunately...and it's been a year and a half). Is there always this much "drama"? I understand that Casey's life is it at stake here (not that I think they'll give her the dp), but then wouldn't you think that the last thing her attorney should be doing is calling so much negative attention to himself? How does his lack of credibility serve his client? They (the defense) repeatedly state that if it wasn't for the fact that the State brought back the dp they could have x,y, and z(d). Enough! They truly need to start taking this VERY seriously and quit all this BS. JMHO

I truely believe it is an attempt at swaying PUBLIC OPINION against the state. It is all they have.

 

[whiteangora]

My take on this is-
I believe Tony's agenda here is simply to try and destroy Lenny's credibility and then appear as a witness for the defense.

He states that his "lightbulb moment" came about a week after she was bailed, when "some of the evidence came back" - at that point you should have realized you had been duped by a sociopath and revised your opinion of little Miss Anthony..

No way! Why would Tony even want to do such a thing after 'ol JB has pretty much screwed him over?

 

[Mystic]

My question is if anyone knows... since the signature page is totally separate from the body of the agreement and if JB can even produce the original does it even matter? What I mean is that along with TP, all the others could in fact dispute this is the actual agreement they signed being as there is no way to distinguish what the 'signature' page refers too. Thanks to anyone that can answer.

 

[MissJames]

My take on this is-
I believe Tony's agenda here is simply to try and destroy Lenny's credibility and then appear as a witness for the defense.

He states that his "lightbulb moment" came about a week after she was bailed, when "some of the evidence came back" - at that point you should have realized you had been duped by a sociopath and revised your opinion of little Miss Anthony..

I'm not understanding your theory.Tony is the one currently in dispute with the defense. He has said publicly that the document JB was using in court to show a privacy agreement is not the one he signed. This could be very damning to KC's defense attorneys if it's proven to be true.Why then,would Tony be a witness for the defense?