On February 20, 2011, Mr. Baez sent an e-mail to the prosecution detailing his intent in regards to cooperation. His e-mail may be read at the following link as part of a motion Mr. Baez later filed.
“Mr. Ashton:
I have attached a Notice of objection to assist you. Should you have any further questions please email them to me and we will do our best to answer them. It is my intent to attempt to work with you as best as possible, so that all hearings can proceed smoothly and be decided on the law and not on any posturing done by either side.
Sincerely,
Jose A. Baez”
“I have attached a Notice of objection to assist you” – Mr. Baez implies the defense has complied with the order of the court in regards to the submittal of possible Frye issues and any further complaints Mr. Ashton may have should be settled by the prosecution filing a Notice of Objection.
“to assist you” – Mr. Ashton began this exchange with a phone call inquiring if the defense planned to comply with the court’s order, in effect assisting Mr. Baez. It seems Mr. Baez is unappreciative of any assistance from the State as he implies the State needs his assistance.
“Should you have any further questions please email them to me” – Mr. Baez is obsessed with his belief the State is required to contact him through various electronic methods, such as telephones or e-mail. Mr. Baez consistently makes reference in written motions and verbal statements to his belief the State must contact him regarding various filings and points of law, as well as law enforcement procedures.
“and we will do our best to answer them” – Mr. Baez switches from speaking for himself, “I” and “me”, to speaking for a group, “we”. Who is “we”? Mr. Baez and Mr. Mason? Mr. Baez and his office staff? Mr. Baez and Ms. Anthony? We do not know, but we do know by switching to “we”, Mr. Baez is distancing himself from this statement, increasing doubt as to his doing his “best to answer”.
“It is my intent to attempt to work with you as best as possible” – Mr. Baez switches back to speaking for himself, “my”. Mr. Baez has an “intent”. Is the “intent” to work with Mr. Ashton? No. The “intent” is “to attempt”. Mr. Baez plans “to attempt”, but not to succeed. Mr. Baez is stating he will not be working with Mr. Ashton. The phrase “as best as possible” limits the phrase “to work”. Why is it not “possible” to for Mr. Baez “to work with” Mr. Ashton?
“so that all hearings can proceed smoothly” – Why is Mr. Baez concerned with “hearings” proceeding “smoothly”? Mr. Baez is indicating he believes “hearings” have not proceeded “smoothly” and this has something to do with the prosecution.
“and be decided on the law” – Mr. Baez implies previous “hearings” may not have been “decided on the law”, but on something else. Mr. Baez is stating Judge Perry may have allowed courtroom actions determine his legal decisions. Would Judge Perry agree?
“and not on any posturing done by either side” – Mr. Baez believes there is “posturing” being “done” in the courtroom. Mr. Baez admits with “by either side” the defense is “posturing” at times. Mr. Baez believes “posturing” is capable of affecting the legal rulings of the court.
We have learned Mr. Baez thinks the judiciary of Orange County makes legal decisions based upon the actions of the attorneys observed by the judge in the courtroom.
We have learned Mr. Baez does not believe past hearings have been smooth, indicating he believes they have been rough.
We have learned the intent of Mr. Baez was never to work with the prosecution, only to attempt to do so.
We have learned Mr. Baez, whether it be in official court motions or casual e-mail correspondence, does not believe grammar, punctuation, or internally consistent capitalization to be of importance.
Bull Stopper Stops Bull 