In early March of 2009, the State of Florida filed a motion requesting the court to determine if any conflict of interest existed between Mr. Baez and his client, Casey Anthony.
This article will focus on numbered item 7 in the Defense’s response to the State’s motion, which may be found at the following link.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4802245/Casey-Anthony-Sworn-Affidavit-March-10-2009
“7. It is the Defense’s position that this motion has been filed solely to harass and embarrass the Defendant’s counsel, and to possibly deflect attention away from the pending Motion for Sanctions as well as future motions of misconduct stemming from the release of discovery which involves the unauthorized videotaping of the Defendant’s counsel, while meeting with the Defendant.
“It is the Defense’s position” – The following statement may or may not be true, it is the opinion of the Defense and only the Defense.
“that” – Distances the writer from the following statement of why the State filed the motion.
“this motion” – Strangely, a distancing word is followed immediately by a word bringing the “motion” and the writer close together. Mr. Baez is close to the State’s motion. He is comfortable with it. If the State’s motion was untrue, Mr. Baez would have been more likely to use the word “that” to distance himself from it. By notifying the reader he is close to the motion indicates the motion may be accurate in regards to Mr. Baez.
“has been filed solely” – The motion “has been filed” for one reason and one reason only.
“to harass” – The only reason the State filed the motion was “to harass” Mr. Baez. This is their only motivation. The State does not have a legitimate reason in a possible conflict of interest between Casey Anthony and the desires of her attorney.
“and embarrass the Defendant’s counsel” – Stop the presses! The one and only reason the State filed the motion has now doubled to two reasons. The State did not file the motion “solely” after all. They had more than one reason. They had two reasons. The State does not have a legitimate reason in a conflict of interest, but they do desire to “embarrass” Mr. Baez. How does this motion to ensure no conflict of interest exists despite persistent public rumors “embarrass” Mr. Baez? Is it not more embarrassing for the rumors to persist rather than be cleared up in open court? Although we don’t why it does, Mr. Baez is telling us he is embarrassed by the State’s motion.
“and to possibly deflect attention” – Whoa! Hold the phone! We have increased from a sole reason to two reasons to now three reasons. Order is important. Most important to Mr. Baez is telling us he feels harrassed by the State because they want him to declare he does not have a conflict of interest with his client. Second most important is notifying us he is embarrassed by the State publicly declaring they do not know if he has a conflict of interest with his client or not. Of third importance is the State’s desire to “deflect attention”.
“away from the pending Motion for Sanctions” – Mr. Baez claims the State does not want someone from paying attention to the Defense’s Motion for Sanctions. Whose attention does the State wish to deflect? The court’s? The public’s? Ms. Anthony’s? We do not know.
“as well as future motions” – Holy Smokes! A fourth reason for the State to file this motion has reared it’s head. The State wishes to deflect attention from “future motions”. Although it might be believable the purpose of a motion filed near in time to another is to deflect attention from the other, a motion filed in the present to deflect attention from one filed in the future is not logical.
“of misconduct stemming from the release of discovery which involves the unauthorized videotaping of the Defendant’s counsel, while meeting with the Defendant.” – A very long explanation of a very specific event which limits the deflecting of attention from all future motions to only those concerned with this event. Mr. Baez utilizes improperly and unethically uses this motion to accuse the State of “misconduct”. Mr. Baez has a court vehicle for voicing his accusation which he names in this document as “Motion for Sanctions”. This is propoganda. The accusation may not be true as indicated by the sensitive marking inclusion of “while meeting with the Defendant” after a comma to explain the “unauthorized videotaping”. Mr. Baez is sensitive to the reaction of the reader to his claim, so inserts additional unneeded justifying detail.
We have learned Mr. Baez is embarrassed by the State’s filing of their motion questioning if he had a conflict of interest with his client.
Why would the State’s motion cause Mr. Baez embarrassment? What is embarrassing about stating for the court he has no conflict with the interests of his client?
Mr. Baez tells us he is embarrassed. Something came to the attention of the court or the public from the motion which embarrasses Mr. Baez. The motion concerns areas of professional conduct which are embarrassing for Mr. Baez. The professional conduct of Mr. Baez embarrasses Mr. Baez.
We have learned Mr. Baez embarrassed Mr. Baez.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 