The defense motions seek to dismiss several counts in the indictmetn against Anthony on grounds of double jeopardy. A seperate motion seeks a dismissal becouse of a defective indictment.
Hi Neid, good to see you still active. Thanks for the link. I notice 2 threads saying same thing? Was that a play on the double jeopardy words. hehe just teasing you. thanks for keeping us updated.
I don't post sometimes if there isn't new information. Try to stay away from all the bickering and battling no much for confrontations..cuase like the david banner says you won't like me when i get angry..so i try to stay away from such things..not that i would get angry..i just tried to avoid the situations in there entirity and keep my thoughts to myself
If you read the motion regarding getting the death penalty dismissed, they claim they cannot defend against the charges because they basically aren't specific enough to form alibis for each date and time the prosecution might throw out there.
What I find facsinating about this claim, more than anything else, is this proves THE DEFENSE DOES NOT HAVE A THING to save their client. Not one thing!!!!!
All their BS that they have proof that someone else did it while the evil wench was incarcerated is shown false by their filing of this motion.
Why would you have to file this motion AFTER you claim to have PROOF that someone other guy did it while she was in jail and BEFORE Feb. 1st the date the judge REQUIRES you to bring the proof?????
Why would you AGAIN ask for a dismissal if your client was INNOCENT and you have PROOF TO VINDICATE HER?????
The defense has nothing. IF you read their motion, they basically are saying, hey tell us specifically what you think happened, so we can CREATE our defense to counter it.
Also, regarding the check fraud charges, I actually caught a mistake (admission) in the pleading, where it actually states:
"Miss Anthony's grand theft and forgery of a check are variants of the same core offense, and should not be charge separately."-Page 7 in Memo of Law
Notice it does NOT say ALLEGED!!!!
Well this explains why she won't plead to these charges yet, they are trying to get the majority of the charges thrown out and only have three charges. However, I think the extra charges should stick because she did NOT just defraud Amy Huzienga, she wrote checks at Target who was also defrauded. Casey did NOT just steal the one check and sign it over to herself, but she actually FORGED AMY'S NAME at the bottom of that specific check. THe other two or three checks, she presented at Target stores to purchase goods with a stolen check. I don't see the judge dropping any of these charges.
It is one thing to steal someone's check, write it out to yourself and forge the signator's name, present it at the bank for payment. In that scenario you are defrauding the bank, committing forgery, and stealing funds from Amy's account. Three separate things.
Casey wrote checks at Target stores. So she stole checks from Amy and then forged Amy's signature (FORGERY) and bought merchandise with stolen checks with is indeed theft.
I think she should have been charged with identity theft also which could have had Federal charges. She presented those checks that were Amy Huzienga's as her own checks, which is utilizing someone else's identity. JMO
i also so in the motion they included the sheet and copy of BIAZ paying the bank back WTF IS THAT! that is an addmission of guilt no matter how you look at it..why would you pay the bank back if you are guilty SHE NEEDS TO PAY FOR THIS CUASE IT IS VERY VERY VERY LONG OVER DUE THAT B!TCH STOLE SO MUCH FREAKING MONEY SHE NEEDS TO GET IS SOMEHOW SHE NEEDS TO KEEP ALL THE CHARGES HANDS DOWN SHE NEEDS TO PAY FOR WHAT SHE HAS DONE!
twinzmama: You said it all, and I like the way you said it. Looks like Andrea worked overtime on this motion; doesn't look like anything Baez could have churned out.
I anxiously look forward to the State's response to this not-so-carefully crafted motion and, ultimately, Judge Strickland's decision
twinz thank you so much for all your information thank you. Also she defrauded Bank of America. So it is Amy, Target and Bank of America. A spokesperson for Target and BOA stated flat out that they didn't care of Amy was paid or not they were still going to go forward. Could you imagine if they just said to the American public. Guess what we are not going to move forward with this case against Casey Anthony. It would leave the door wide open for others that are criminal minded to think that they would get by without getting prosecuted for the same crime.
Neid it is so good to see you back, with all your passion!!!!!!!!
I agree that if you are not guilty, you don't pay back the money. You go to court and state your innocence. Also most lawyers do not like it, especially when they know their client is guilty to go up against major corporations or banks. I sure hope that BOA and Target prosecute her to the fullest extent that Florida law will allow. Yes, for the first time in Casey's life she has to be held responsible and accountable for her actions. However she didn't work for that money that her lawyers paid Amy back with. Also where are the callouses on her hands to show that she worked to earn that money? When did she get up early, get ready and put in a full time work day to pay back that money. But the good news is that she will have to pay back in jail time. That will be the best way to make her feel the weight of the accountability and responsibility. Plus it will give her a criminal record. I found the news article but didn't see the document motion to read that. Also I loved it after the last hearing that Kathi Belich asked Lyons did she have her law students write those motions for her. Kathi definitely knows how to ask the right questions.
You are driving around with a broken tail light. A cop pulls you over and asks for you license etc. He finds out that your insurance has expired and you do not have a license. In addition, you are not wearing a seat belt. He gives you 4 tickets.
Can you then go to court and get all but the first one thrown out because of double jeopardy? Of course you can't. That is the equivalent of what the defense is trying to do here. It is nothing but a joke. A waste of paper.
"It is noted that Bank of America did not take this payment in lieu of criminal prosecution."
So they are stating flat out that because Baez sent a money order for $664.25 to the bank that it was not in "place" of criminal prosecution from the Bank of America.
Thanks Q Caylee Remains on my heart in a very big way and she always shall!! I will not leave here with such wonderful people and NEVER EVER!! BETRAY CAYLEE MARIE..by letting my support for her decline or become mute NO WAY
Forums 
