Who Is Confused, the Prosecution or Mr. Mason?

In an attempt to salvage the future career of his current partner in the defense of Casey Anthony, Orlando attorney Cheney Mason filed a motion concerning the lifting of sanction on January 11, 2011.  Mr. Mason’s motion may be found at the following link.

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/Def.%20Mot.%20For%20Reconsideration%20of%20the%20Courts%20Order%20Granting%20States%20Mot.%20For%20Sanctions%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20&%20Request%20to%20Vacate%20Fining%20of%20Contempt.pdf

“3. Not withstanding the foregoing obvious confusion as to this Court’s Order, and the invitation by the defense (Mr. Baez) to call with any questions, the prosecution failed to make any further inquiry, whatsoever, prior to filing the “Motion for Clarification/to Compel Compliance with Order for Additional Discovery”, the same being dated December 1, 2010.  It is clear that, at this point, the defense was in, not just substantial, but full compliance with that which had previously been ordered by this Court.”

“Not withstanding the foregoing obvious confusion as to this Court’s Order” – Mr. Mason is of the school of thought more words equals better motions.  This phrase is meaningless, but attempts to convince the Court there was “obvious confusion”.  If the “confusion” was truly “obvious”, there would be no need to describe it as such, indicating “confusion” is sensitive.  The “confusion” existed only on the side of the defense as the prosecution and Court were clear as the to the intent of the order.

“Not withstanding” – A confusing word choice, at best.  “Withstanding” means to offer resistance or to remain unaffected.  Therefore, “not withstanding” means to offer no resistance or to be affected.

“and the invitation by the defense (Mr. Baez) to call with any questions” – This is another item Mr. Mason claims the prosecution is “not withstanding”.  Mr. Mason finds it important to define “the defense” as “Mr. Baez”.  Mr. Mason extended no “invitation” to the prosecution to “call with any questions”.  Only Mr. Baez invited, not Mr. Mason.

“the prosecution failed to make any further inquiry” – The crux of this sentence is “the prosecution failed”, insinuating the prosecution had a duty to “call” the defense “with any questions”, a duty which they “failed” to perform.  The prosecution is not and has never been required to call the defense about their non-compliance with court orders.  This is a lie first spouted by Jose Baez during his long wail during a recent court hearing and now disseminated by Mr. Mason in an official court document.  The prosecution did not fail.  If the prosecution had failed, why was the court ordered sanction against the defense?

“any further inquiry, whatsoever” – The words “any further”, beyond indicating sensitivity to “inquiry”, define the fact there were prosecution inquiries made to the defense.  In other words, the prosecution did “call with any questions” or sent follow-up e-mails or communicated with the defense in another manner.  There cannot be “further” inquiries unless there were initial inquiries.  “Whatsoever” is the third unneeded word used to describe the extremely sensitive “inquiry”.  How many inquiries does Mr. Mason feel the prosecution is required to make of the defense before they have “failed to make any further inquiry”?

“Not withstanding the foregoing obvious confusion as to this Court’s Order, and the invitation by the defense (Mr. Baez) to call with any questions, the prosecution failed to make any further inquiry, whatsoever,” – This entire passage states the prosecution failed because they did not withstand the “obvious confusion” or the “invitation by the defense”.  In other words, the prosecution did not call the defense with “any further inquires” because they were both confused and invited to do so.  If this does not make sense, please take it up with Cheney Mason.

“the defense was in” “full compliance” – This is the claim conveyed by Mr. Mason in the next sentence.  All else is smoke and mirrors designed to draw attention away from the deception of this claim.

“It is clear that” – If it truly “is clear”, would it be necessary to state such?  “That” distances Mr. Mason from the claim “the defense was in” “full compliance”.

“at this point” – Mr. Mason limits his claim of “full compliance” to a single “point” in time, a “point” which is comfortable for Mr. Mason.

“not just substantial” – The defense was in something other than “just substantial” compliance, something which could be less or more than “substantial” as “just” is meaningless, an extra word indicating the sensitivity of “substantial”.

“but full compliance with” – Mr. Mason weakens his assertion of “full compliance” by going on to further limit exactly “with” what the defense was in “full compliance”.

“that which had previously been ordered by this Court” – “That” distances Mr. Mason from this claim.  “Previously been ordered” indicates a specific order prior to the current order.  If Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez were in full compliance, why did Judge Perry find they did not fulfill the intent of the first order and clarify with a second?  Did not Judge Perry grant the defense the benefit of the doubt as to “confusion” and offer them not only a clarification, but an extended deadline to comply?  Why is Mr. Mason addressing the first order when he is asking for sanctions to be lifted in conjunction with the second order?

We have learned Mr. Mason uses extra words which he believes sound professional, but which actually define his areas of sensitivity.

We have learned Mr. Mason does not want anyone to believe he invited the prosecution to call with any questions.

We have learned Mr. Mason is liberal in his use of the term “full compliance”.

We have learned Mr. Mason wishes to confuse the issue of the sanction and the order from which it originated with other orders which no longer apply as they have been clarified.