Comments
20,941 - 20,960 of 21,132 Comments Last updated 14 min ago
Fanciulla

Carol Stream, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21764
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

11

11

11

JustGuessing2 wrote:
Received notification on the criminal case but haven't a clue what's going on at this point. I believe there is a rehearing date set.
__________
Future Scheduled Actions
The People v. Eroshevich et al.
Division 5
Case Number B231411
Description Due Date Notes
Cause submitted. 02/15/2013 case is "at large" after court granted rehearing on own motion. Check US Supreme Court docket 11-1327
__________
Never heard the term, "case is at large before".
Whatever that means.....

----------

She Stone wrote:
I believe it just means that the case is open or pending. That it is not currently bound by the ruling initially made by the court.

JMO

----------

You are correct She Stone.

2013 California Rules of Court
Rule 8.268. Rehearing

(a) Power to order rehearing

(1)On petition of a party or on its own motion, a reviewing court may order rehearing of any decision that is not final in that court on filing.

(2)An order for rehearing must be filed before the decision is final. If the clerk's office is closed on the date of finality, the court may file the order on the next day the clerk's office is open.

~Snipped~

d) Effect of granting rehearing

An order granting a rehearing vacates the decision and any opinion filed in the case and sets the cause at large in the Court of Appeal.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm...

The California Appellate Court is waiting for a decision from the Supreme Court regarding a case where an issue of Double Jeopardy has been raised.(See US Supreme Court docket 11-1327).
JFA

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21765
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/01/23/l...

" via press release:

LIFETIME ORIGINAL MOVIE PROSECUTING CASEY ANTHONY,
STARRING ROB LOWE,
RANKS AS SATURDAY NIGHT’S NUMBER ONE TELECAST
ACROSS AD-SUPPORTED CABLE WITH TOTAL VIEWERS,

ADULTS 18+, WOMEN 18+, WOMEN 25-54 AND WOMEN 18-49

3.3 Million Total Viewers
Witness Movie’s World Premiere

LOS ANGELES, CA (January 23, 2013) "
JFA

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21766
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

9

8

8

By Amy Pavuk, Orlando Sentinel
6:39 p.m. EST, January 25, 2013

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/bre...

"Casey Anthony:
Appeal court tosses two of four charges"

"....."This is significant because she is no longer able to avoid answering our questions by asserting her fifth amendment privilege. Meaning, she will be compelled to testify at trial,"

said Gonzalez's attorney Matt Morgan.

"We look forward to getting answers to questions we have had since the summer of 2008. The wheels of justice grind slowly but exceedingly fine." "

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21767
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

14

14

14

I understand the Appeal Courts decision but it is still unbelievable!!! At least the civil trial regarding Zenalda Gonzalez (the nanny) can move forward now though it's now scheduled for August instead of January 2.

Florida appeals court throws out two of Casey Anthony's four convictions for lying to detectives

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22683...

At least this was judged appropriate and legal....
"The judges also ruled that the trial court was correct in allowing Anthony's statements to detectives to be used during her murder trial.
Fanciulla

Naperville, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21768
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

13

13

13

Documents: Casey Anthony files for bankruptcy

Last Updated: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 8:36 PM

Court Document:

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/stat...

~Snipped~

Anthony listed $1,084 in personal property and $792,119.23 in liabilities.

The document also lists people that might have a claim against Anthony, which included her own parents, Jeff Ashton and consultants that helped in her criminal case.

Claims listed in the filing include:

Jose Baez, the lead defense attorney -$500,000
Orange County Sheriff’s Office -$145,660.21
IRS –$68,540
Florida Dept. Of Law Enforcement –$61,505.12
Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation -$10,283.90
State of Florida -$4,135

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13...

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21769
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

13

13

13

Fanciulla wrote:
Documents: Casey Anthony files for bankruptcy
Last Updated: Saturday, January 26, 2013, 8:36 PM
Court Document:
http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/stat...
~Snipped~
Anthony listed $1,084 in personal property and $792,119.23 in liabilities.
The document also lists people that might have a claim against Anthony, which included her own parents, Jeff Ashton and consultants that helped in her criminal case.
Claims listed in the filing include:
Jose Baez, the lead defense attorney -$500,000
Orange County Sheriff’s Office -$145,660.21
IRS –$68,540
Florida Dept. Of Law Enforcement –$61,505.12
Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation -$10,283.90
State of Florida -$4,135
http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13...
Thanks for the information. Interesting. I wasn't aware one could file bankruptcy on taxes owed (IRS). Not sure one can file bankruptcy on judgements either but she filed this before the civil trial so if Gonzalez is awarded anything the bankruptcy filed now won't cover it.

In fact, I'm not even sure she can file bankruptcy on court ordered fines.

"If you owe a lot of court fines, bankruptcy may feel like a viable option. Unfortunately, you cannot reduce or eliminate any type of court fines under any type of bankruptcy, according to the book "How to File for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy." While federal bankruptcy laws enable you to eliminate some types of debt, court fines aren't the only debts barred from this legal debt relief process."

Also....

"Regarding Taxes

Federal, state and local tax bills are also considered "priority" debts in the bankruptcy process. Debtors can only reduce or eliminate such debts if the bills are at least three years old. People who did not file their tax returns on time cannot use the tax year to start the three-year window of time; the time frame kicks in when the return itself is filed. Also, people cannot file any type of bankruptcy if they haven't filed their last three tax returns."

Read more: Can You File Bankruptcy on a Court-ordered Fine?| eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_7983528_can-file-ban...

IMO she may have to pay some of these bills, like it or not. Not sure who is advising her.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21770
Jan 26, 2013
 

Judged:

13

13

13

My bad....after reading the article I understand now that it is a commonly used "stalling tactic".

"What does this mean for Casey's court cases?"


“It’s definitely a strategy and a commonly used one. You see many people filing for bankruptcy to avoid litigation which could in fact wipe them out or keep them tied up for years,” said News 13 Legal Analyst Mark NeJame.

NeJame said such a “complex” petition doesn’t get filed overnight and called the timing “very interesting.”

“It completely stays any of the state court proceedings, so now it everything shifts over to bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy judge will be taking control of all matters right now,” explained NeJame."
NoseKnot

Raleigh, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21771
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

43

42

37

Teresa is still cray cray I see:))

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/c...
Secret

Guangzhou, China

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21772
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

34

34

33

It looks like Dink and the Gang are back in town.. oh Goodie Goodie Gumdrops...
Popcorn Palace

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21775
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

39

38

37

NoseKnot wrote:
Teresa is still cray cray I see:))
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/c...
That looks fake, old and its from California. Goodness, how sad.

Are you still at it? Everyone else has let go and moved on, but you still going at it after all this empty time when everyone has enjoyed their lives. If for any reason it is real and she has moved to Calif and filed something again, then its obvious its best to ignore it for obvious reasons. Or....has someone talked her into something stupid to keep the chit going years later? Or.....is it another one of the famous fakes? My guess is its a fake and it looks fake. Either way, its stupid and insane for anyone to take serious anymore.

Please, just leave the poor girl alone! Have a heart for once and let her live in peace.

Let it go Nose. To continue stalking what everyone is doing now days is far beyond insane after all these years. Everyone has been outed for their dirty hand they played and many told on the evil doers. The truth was revealed and its over, dont you get it yet? The fighting that you keep insisting on is no longer of value to anyone and karma hit hard to those who deserved it. Are you not enjoying life these days, at peace, without all the fighting? You should be, we all are.

Take it easy Nose. Life is grand, get out there and enjoy it! Its so much more fun to pop in once in a while and giggle.

toodles
veritas

Charlottesville, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21776
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

22

22

21

fyi. larry birkhead and dannielynn are going to be on 20/20 tonight
Wingnut

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21777
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

23

23

23

NoseKnot wrote:
Teresa is still cray cray I see:))
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/c...
LMFAO! Well at least she included the 112th congress this time around, I'm sure she'll see satisfactory results. lol
JFA

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21779
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

23

23

23

veritas wrote:
Does anybody when the supreme court is supposed to make its decision on the double jeopardy rule?
I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS CASE HAS HAD THE OPINION RENDERED BY THE JUDGES YET..

THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE MAY AFFECT THE Calif case & it may not..
My guess is the Prosecution will drop it all together--

==========

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-1327

"Supreme Court collection Evans v. Michigan in
DIRECTED VERDICT
double jeopardy
due process
Fifth Amendment
Oral argument: November 6, 2012 Court Michigan Supreme Court

Questions Presented:
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar retrial after the trial judge erroneously holds a particular fact to be an element of the offense and then grants a mid-trial directed verdict of acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove that fact?

Issue
Does the Double Jeopardy clause bar retrial when the trial judge directs a verdict of acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove a fact that was ultimately not an element of the charged crime?

Impact on Due Process Rights

Analysis

Rulings Based on Guilt versus Rulings Based on the Correct Elements of a Crime

The Martin Linen Standard
Finally, Evans contends that the Michigan Supreme Court incorrectly carved out an “Extra Element” exception to the Double Jeopardy clause.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/... > THIS IS ALSO AN INTERESTING CASE TO READ…. UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. MARTIN LINEN SUPPLY COMPANY et al.

Conclusion
In this case, the Supreme Court will determine the contours of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against Double Jeopardy. Petitioner Lamar Evans argues that the Michigan Supreme Court incorrectly carved out an “Extra Element” exception to the definition of acquittals relevant to the Double Jeopardy clause, an exception that does not conform with the previous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that apply Double Jeopardy protection where the trial court bases an acquittal on a legal error. The State of Michigan argues that the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling conforms with the current definition of an acquittal based on a directed verdict. The outcome of the case will further define the situations where the prosecution can appeal a trial court’s ruling in favor of a criminal defendant, and offers the opportunity to reconsider whether to grant Double Jeopardy protection for defendants who successfully move for directed verdicts."
SheStone

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21780
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

20

20

20

veritas wrote:
Does anybody when the supreme court is supposed to make its decision on the double jeopardy rule?
It is true that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on the case yet and also that once they do issue an opinion on that case it may or may not effect the CA criminal case depending on their ruling.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June.

Here is a link to the Supreme Court website about the case:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx...

Here is also a link to the Scotus Blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/

On the Scotus Blog they have a calendar part way down the page on the right side that shows upcoming events including dates they expect opinions to be released on.

For those who are still confused on how this case might have an effect on the CA criminal case based on the Appeals Court decision, here are a couple of news articles that seem to explain it in an understandable way.

http://www.legalnews.com/ingham/1357345

Posted June 18, 2012

U.S. Justices to decide if wrongly acquitted defendant can be retried

By Kimberly Atkins
__________

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Lega...

Supreme Court weighs limit on double jeopardy rule

11/6/2012

By Jonathan Stempel
__________

I hope that is helpful.

JMO
SheStone

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21783
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

20

20

19

veritas wrote:
I dont understand where June came from? I just looked at that SCOTUS blog and it showed that june was blank
June is usually when the current term ends. That is why the decision of most if not all of the cases heard in this term are expected by the end of the term.

Here is what it shows on the Supreme Court website:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures....

A Term of the Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. Usually Court sessions continue until late June or early July.
__________

The decision can actually come sooner than June though. Main thing is it is expected by the end of this term, thus it is expected by June.

JMO
Vertias

Roanoke, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21785
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

20

20

20

*knocks on head* I thought there would be a decision by judge perry by now. Maybe since there isn't one he is thinking/ wanting to dismiss it but he to is waiting for the appeals court first.....if he was gonna find stern guilty don't you think he would have done it by now??
SheStone

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21786
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

14

14

14

Vertias wrote:
*knocks on head* I thought there would be a decision by judge perry by now. Maybe since there isn't one he is thinking/ wanting to dismiss it but he to is waiting for the appeals court first.....if he was gonna find stern guilty don't you think he would have done it by now??
Judge Perry has to wait for the Appeals Court.

It wasn't a bench trial it was a jury trial so the Judge was not and is not suppose to be the one who would decide if the parties were guilty it was up to the jury. Howard K. Stern was found guilty by the jury and those convictions are set to be reinstated. As I understand it they won't officially be reinstated until the appeals court decision is finalized but that part isn't likely to change since that is not part of the DA's appeal.

What Judge Perry did was to set aside the jury verdict and then dismissed the charges against Stern. The Appeals Court has determined that what Judge Perry did was not correct according to the law.

Unfortunately the DA, or in other words the people of the state of California, may still be hurt by Judge Perry's improper ruling since it may deny them the right to justice and a fair opportunity in the case. Since even as you seem to indicate you believe that Judge Perry will once again rule in a way to try to get Stern off, and if he rules to grant Stern a new trial at this point instead of the DA getting to retry Stern it would be dismissed due to double jeopardy issues that are only a problem due to Judge Perry's own previous mistake. That is why the current Supreme Court case could be important to this case. As the one article I posted quoted from the case being argued before the Supreme Court:

"We've said the government gets one fair shot at conviction," Chief Justice John Roberts told Evans's lawyer David Moran. "It does seem to me that if they had been thrown out of court because of a legal error, it's not a fair shot."

and

Justice Elena Kagan asked Moran whether his client might have gotten a "windfall" through a wrongful acquittal. "Your client walks away the winner when he shouldn't have," she said.
-=-=-=-=-=

One of the big differences in Stern's case is the fact that he actually was convicted by a jury and then the Judge improperly set aside the convictions then dismissed the charges. So we will just have to wait and see at this point.

In response to your prior post you probably got the February date from the Appeals Court website which shows under 'Future Scheduled Actions':

Description: Cause submitted.

Due Date: 02/15/2013

Notes: case is "at large" after court granted rehearing on own motion. Check US Supreme Court docket 11-1327
__________

That will likely just be a status update and then continued to a further date still awaiting the decision from the Supreme Court.

JMO
JFA

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21787
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

16

16

13

LOL, remember Vertias that IS ONLY S.S's OPINION there in that post!*smiles*
example:
SheStone wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG > "..so the Judge was not and is not suppose to be the one who would decide if the parties were guilty it was up to the jury."
WRONG > ".. be hurt by Judge Perry's improper ruling.." ONLY SS's OPINION
WRONG > "..are only a problem due to Judge Perry's own previous mistake."
WRONG > "..then the Judge improperly set aside the convictions then dismissed the charges."
__________
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_trial_court_j...
"Generally any presiding judge (the judge that ran the trial)
>>can set aside a jury's guilty verdict if they find it is against the weight of the evidence or not based on relevant law.
A judge cannot overturn a not guilty verdict.
In the U. S., a court may overturn a jury verdict of "Guilty" and enter a judgment of acquittal or order a new trial in a criminal case. The basis for such action includes situation where the jury has brough in a verdict that is not supported by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This may happen where a jury is prejudiced against a defendant or makes a mistake in its fact finding or application of the law to the fact after the court jury instruction.
United States Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 states:
(a)...
The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence, the defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so.
(b) Reserving Decision. The court may reserve decision on the motion, proceed with the trial (where the motion is made before the close of all the evidence), submit the case to the jury, and decide the motion either before the jury returns a verdict or after it returns a verdict of guilty or is discharged without having returned a verdict. If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.
(c) After Jury Verdict or Discharge.
..
(2) Ruling on the Motion. If the jury has returned a guilty verdict, the court may set aside the verdict and enter an acquittal. If the jury has failed to return a verdict, the court may enter a judgment of acquittal.
Subsections (b) and (c) make it absolutely clear that a court may set aside a jury verdict of guilty in a criminal case. The Rules do not give the court any authority to set aside a verdict of acquittal.
..The reason the FRCP permit a trial court to set aside a jury verdict of guilty and enter one of not guilty,
>>is to preserve the defendant's right not to be convicted of a crime except on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
>>>In the interests of justice, no trial court should let stand a verdict of guilty where the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
These rights apply to state courts as well as to Federal courts because they have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment because they are a fundamental part of our jurisprudence."
JFA

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21789
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

16

15

14

JFA wrote:
"Generally any presiding judge (the judge that ran the trial)

>can set aside a jury's guilty verdict if they find it is against the weight of the evidence or not based on relevant law.

>>is to preserve the defendant's right not to be convicted of a crime except on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

>>>In the interests of justice, no trial court should let stand a verdict of guilty where the evidence does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

These rights apply to state courts as well as to Federal courts because they have been incorporated into the 14th Amendment because they are a fundamental part of our jurisprudence."
THESE ARE FACTS NOT OPINIONS:

-FORD S. RECANTED ON THE STAND UNDER OATH - THE CRAP HE PREVIOUSLY HAD STATED....

-THE NANNIES LIED AND IT WAS PROVEN....

-THE DA NEVER PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE THEY SAID THEY HAD AT PRELEM (which is WHY the case got bound over for trial in the first place)

--OPINIONS ASIDE....*grins*

JUDGE PERRY HAD A LEGAL RIGHT TO DO WHAT HE DID DUE TO LACK OF EVIDENCE.... AND THE FACT THE JURY THEMSELVES DIDN'T FIND KAPOOR GUILTY OF ANYTHING OR FIND GUILTY ANY OF THE IMPORTANT CHARGES FOR THE OTHER TWO.... a few charges which in most cases would have been misdemeanors....

c ya
SheStone

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21790
Feb 11, 2013
 

Judged:

15

15

15

JFA I will respond to your specific items you seemed to indicate you had problems with.

"It wasn't a bench trial it was a jury trial so the Judge was not and is not suppose to be the one who would decide if the parties were guilty it was up to the jury."

It was a jury trial not a bench trial so it was up to the jury to determine guilty or not guilty not the judge and nothing you posted disagrees with that. What you posted had to do with the judge determining motions, and setting aside verdicts etc. Thus what you posted doesn't rebut what I said because what I said is correct.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

jury trial n. a trial of a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the case is presented to a jury and the factual questions and the final judgment are determined by a jury. This is distinguished from a "court trial" in which the judge decides factual as well as legal questions, and makes the final judgment. While a jury trial is a constitutional right in most cases it does not apply to bankruptcy, maritime cases, small claims actions, or criminal matters not involving jail time.(See; jury)
-=-=-=-=-=

"Unfortunately the DA, or in other words the people of the state of California, may still be hurt by Judge Perry's improper ruling since it may deny them the right to justice and a fair opportunity in the case."

If you are being honest with yourself and others you would clearly note that I used qualifying terms. Also you would have to be dishonest not to admit that the DA was hurt and could still be hurt by Judge Perry's improper ruling.

"and if he rules to grant Stern a new trial at this point instead of the DA getting to retry Stern it would be dismissed due to double jeopardy issues that are only a problem due to Judge Perry's own previous mistake."

Here again you would have to be dishonest or not have fully understood the Appeals Court decision if you can't admit that the only reason the double jeopardy issue has become a problem in the instance I refer to is due to Judge Perry's previous mistake with his improper ruling. If you have any doubt about that reread the Appeals Court decision.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B...

"One of the big differences in Stern's case is the fact that he actually was convicted by a jury and then the Judge improperly set aside the convictions then dismissed the charges."

I hate to be repetitive but here again you would have to be dishonest or not have fully understood the Appeals Court decision if you can't admit that the Judge improperly set aside the convictions then dismissed the charges. The Appeals Court clearly found that Judge Perry erred in his decisions. Judge Perry's decisions regarding this were reversed and the convictions were reinstated in the Appeals Court decision. That is a fact.

Also I will note that on your second post that most of the items you claim are facts are actually opinions. I guess it kind of shows how you have difficulty seeing the difference between the two.

I should also point out that the Appeals Court found that Judge Perry was wrong about the lack of evidence claim and erred legally in his decision due to that, thus he was reversed. They found "There was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict Mr. Stern of the charged conspiracies."

JMO

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Anna Nicole Smith Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Have the sanctions in the Marshall case been di... 11 min Mosey 5
Anna Nicole Smith's mother Virgie Arthur sues C... (Nov '08) 4 hr SheStone 2,168
Scoop: Celebrity Wife Swap on Abc - Tuesday, Ma... Aug 18 windispearsgandol... 2
'Anna Nicole' Lifetime movie is a sad mess (Jun '13) Feb '14 Shut Up You 30
TX Has Jurisdiction Over HKS, State Court Again... (Jun '08) Nov '13 test is EPIC FAIL 136
Prescriptions written for Anna Nicole Smith (Mar '09) Sep '13 Ian 3
Anna Nicole's Son Died From Drug Combo (Sep '06) Sep '13 Layne 27

Search the Anna Nicole Smith Forum:
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••