Mark NeJame Responds to Baez and Mason

I just got my hands on Mark NeJame's Reply to Defendant's Response to Motion to Quash the Court's Order on Defendant's Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum for the Documents in the Possession of Texas Equusearch Based on Bad Faith. Since Mr. NeJame doesn't "leak" his motions to the media prior to them being filed with the Clerk of the Court, I had to wait for Muzikman to post them. Thank you so much!

In his reply, NeJame begins with some very pungent language to express his opinion of the defense reply:

It is apparent that the Defense response is little more than a smoke screen devised to cloud and obfuscate the real issue at hand...

He then clearly explains TES's position:

...the documents in the possession of TES are no longer relevant to the Defense since Mr. Mason has publicly acknowledged in a television interview to a variety of media outlets that no searchers were able to search the exact area where Caylee Anthony's body was ultimately found.

NeJame thoughtfully included exhibits of that statement, one a page in huge bold type of Mason's statement:

Uh, yeah, it's been, the public has been made to believe that these people searched the exact area, um, where the body was, or tried to and couldn't. The fact is they didn't try to, and they didn't, they weren't there, and it was impassible at the time. So there's a lot of people who are mistaking things of what happened back in the summer of 2008 and what happened in the Winter of 2008.

He also includes a disk which I assume contains a copy of that particular presser.

NeJame also says that it was the defense's previous position that there had been TES searchers at the exact spot, which is the reason Judge Stan Strickland accepted the TES recommendation that the only the names of those searchers within a specific distance of that spot be released to the defense.

Now that the defense has changed their stance, as indicated by Mason, the TES documents are not relevant at all to the defense. That's what his entire argument was in his original motion filed with the court, and it is the only argument he puts forward here. It is plain and simple and based upon Cheney Mason's own words.

It is so simple, it puts to shame Mr. Baez' response which I attempted to dissect in my previous article. I don't know why I even bothered. I was replete with lack of logic and clarity. It was mainly a smear job of Mr. NeJame.

In his response, NeJame gives Judge Perry the facts as he sees them.

In his response to Cheney Mason's version of events the day of the document review, NeJame tells the judge that the behavior by the Defendant's counsel was the "epitome of unprofessionalism".

He states that he did not attend the session "in order to preserve order and allow the Defense counsel in an unobstructed manner to focus on reviewing the documents..."

He did have another attorney, Ms. Balani in the office in case there was a problem. That attorney, to allow them to view the documents without an attorney present, went to another room. Bill Fitzgerald, the TES monitor was informed she was available.

As for the two boxes Fitzgerald did not allow them to view at the time, because he thought they were TES administrative documents, Mason had him sign a document stating they could not inspect them. Fitzgerald added "at this time". Instead of conferring with Jalani or himself (he was on phone standby), the defense "stormed out... spewing and sputtering rude and untrue comments...

Oh, and by the way, those documents in the two boxes were indeed administrative documents which had nothing to do with the searchers.

NeJame again points out the long delay of nearly eight months before the defense ever came to review the documents and that the only reason they want them all is to harass the searchers and create "spurious appellate issues".

Next, NeJame discusses the issue of the waiver we read all about in Cindy and George Anthony's letter. As a former educator, Mr. NeJame gets an A+ for colorful adjectives:

4. In the Defendant's response they falsely claim that the undersigned compelled a waiver of conflict from Mr. and Mrs. Anthony in exchange for allowing their attorney, Brad Conway, to review the TES files. In the time that the Defense took to write this ludicrous and untrue response, they could and should have performed their due diligence and contacted Brad Conway, attorney for George and Cindy Anthony, who would have informed them that these allegations were frivolous, untrue and lacked any measure whatsoever of truthfulness or veracity...

There's more there, but I know you will be reading it all!

NeJame then goes on to blast the defense's apparent "flip-flop" by Mr. Cheney in the presser. Again, as a lover of language, I must quote a bit of it.

... The claim by the Defense that this was "mischaracterized" is nothing more than a shabby spin and feeble attempt to minimize the contradictory and dueling statements that have been made by Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez. The Defense Response is simply a ploy to fix their self-induced and self-inflicted mess.

And what a mess this whole TES issue has been!

NeJame went on to explain the comments by David Lohr. He said it was an apparent misunderstanding of what had been said. According to NeJame:

(the discussion) was regarding the general opinion from seasoned and experienced attorneys and undersigned counsel's opinion that a competent attorney should have and likely could have worked towards a plea deal that might have possible secured a deal for 10-15 years for the Defendant, prior to Caylee being found, so long as the Defendant led law enforcement to where Caylee was and truthfully told what happened to her.

That possible deal would have been impossible once the body was found.

Before his closing statement, NeJame hopes that if more names are given to the defense, that they not be released to the public. Likewise, the names of the 32 searchers should also not be made public.

Again, NeJame asks the judge to quash the subpoena.

Let's hope this motion makes it to a hearing. It would be well worth watching.