Lisa Madigan and James Glasgow
On September 4th, Illinois’ State’s Attorney, James Glasgow, and Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, filed separate objections to motions filed by Drew Peterson’s defense team, which challenged the constitutionality of the so-called “Hearsay Law“.
The objections maintain that the new statute violates neither ex post facto nor confrontation right principles.
Even if you normally have a hard time wading through legal documents, I’d urge anyone with an interest in this case to read through these objections. The quality of the research, the clearness of argument and the absence of silly evidence (i.e., quoting of Google searches) is in striking contrast to the motions that have been filed thusfar by Peterson’s defense.
UPDATE 9/11/09: The defense has filed a response to the objections by the State. It is the last motion to be filed regarding this issue before the hearing on October 2. Scroll down to read the reply. All of the motions can be found on the documents page.
Attorney General’s Filing of Objections to Defendant’s Motion to Declare 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 Unconstitutional
State’s Attorney’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Declare 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 Unconstitutional
UPDATE – Filed September 11, 2009: DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO THE RESPONSES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE WILL COUNTY STATES ATTORNEY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>
Thanks Facs!
Interesting that Madigan’s objection mentions nine specific statements that they want to have introduced into the case, among them statements from:
Kathleen to a roommate
Kathleen to a fellow student
Kathleen to a coworker
Kathleen to her sisters
Stacy to a friend and
Stacy to a pastor
Page 10.
“The People also object to defendant’s insistence on referring to this Statute as ‘Drew’s Law,’ which is nothing more than a thinly veiled effort to sway the Court into believing that this statute pertains exclusively to this prosecution.”
******
One question. Does the defense still have ANY credibility with the Judge?
The two posted Objections sure are different from the defense’s. The State’s Objections are full of case law and cites, a lot of legal-eeze. They don’t jab and snipe at the defense as if in a cat fight, and I didn’t see any Google searches and/or any references to the number of hits the term Drew Peterson brings up.
It’s easier to follow the defense’s documents, since they seem to use less case law, and use more verbatim quotes from blogs and the media to make their points. What if Judge White isn’t computer savvy and has to have someone explain to him just what those hits mean on Google?
After all, neither former President Bill Clinton, nor Senator John McCain, know how to use a computer. Believe it or not, it’s true. So, you know what they say — be careful what you wish for. In this case, trying to convince a Circuit Court Judge that millions of web pages, retrieved by Google while searching the term Drew Peterson, might not be his idea of a railroad job by the media after all, resulting in him ruling in their favor.
Aww. Darn.
Thank you for posting these exciting, high quality reading materials – Motions filed by Lisa Madigan and James Glasgow – that I expect will fly high over the heads of defendant’s legal counsel. LOL
Damn!
Yeah, you mean, the People object to the defendant’s whining about being scorned in the media, even though it was they who sought out constant media attention? Where they whine that as soon as Stacy disappeared, the “public and press automatically assumed foul play?” Yet, instead of avoiding attention and/or buttoning up that major pie hole of his, Peterson criticized and mutilated the character of his young missing wife, all of her family and friends, his late former wife’s character, and her family and friends. Is that what the People mean by objecting to the biased summation of the facts and history of the case? How about where they call Dr. Baden a “talking head for Fox Entertainment Network,” when it’s not Dr. Baden’s autopsy on Kathleen the State is relying on, but their own official medical examiner? Isn’t Lisa Bloom a “talking head for Fox Entertainment Network” when she does an advance kissy, huggy story for the defense’s upcoming motions?
Could the People be objecting to the defense claiming Kathleen’s death was a “newly minted homicide?” Or that they’re objecting to the defense stating that the “Will County State’s Attorney decided to draft a new law” strictly for Drew Peterson? A law which the defense enjoys referring to as “Drew’s Law,” hoping it’ll sway a Circuit Court Judge to rule that it was written and named solely for their client?
The defense sums up, in its Statement of Facts it’s objection to the hearsay law as being the result of “public outcry,” and being written, adopted and passed solely for convicting Drew Peterson, based on “hearsay gossip.” Oh, and they place the blame for this all on James Glasgow, hoping he could “sway” a jury and obtain a conviction.
Snide jabs at opposing counsel, Google searches and hits, and attaching media stories and transcripts to legal documents presented to a Judge is probably what the People object to when referring to what they mean by the “overwhelming majority of which has little to do with legal issues before this court.”
DP and his B.S. is hanging inside his toilet bowl …
with one hand on the rim and one hand hanging onto his butt…
Soon the People will hit the handle and FLUSH!
LOL!!!
After reading their case filings, it appears to me that the DP defense team is making a halfhearted attempt (their best under the circumstances) at representing their defendant … a defendant who appears guilty to everyone on the defense team … or in the mind of any reasonable person who views all the boxes of unrefuted, undeniable factual evidence mounted against him.
What can they say when there is no defense for the truth?
Interesting that the defense argued that they were challenging the constitutionality of the law as early as possible in the case (like it’s the right thing to do), while the prosecution reminds them that the requirment is that “cases should be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds wherever possible and constitutional issues should be reached only as a last resort”
What there is to say is a well-thought-out attempt to bolster their defense with case law as best fits their position, and a compelling, professional response.
Snide jabs and personal shots at the SA, Google searches, attaching media stories, and whining about how the defendant is perceived and blaming everyone but the culprit himself, just isn’t making anyone shake in their boots, I think. But, it’s the Judge that has to read this stuff and determine which side has the more logical, case-on-point argument for making his decisions. I’ll bet most who try to read and understand these legal writings can still figure out which side has the more professional way of addressing the issues.
It makes me wonder if DP is writing all those documents. I don’t think any skilled attorney would embarrass himself/herself with these laughable court filings … isn’t that malpractice?
One thing I have come to see is a pattern with the defense. After Stacy went missing, the personal attacks on involved parties not favorable to Peterson started, and continued relentlessly. The defense then attacked the characters of Kathleen, her family, Dr. Baden and anyone else that wasn’t swooning over Peterson. The defense has been extremely critical of any media outlet that hasn’t patted Peterson or the defense on their heads. The defense didn’t character assassinate some, who had questionable backgrounds themselves (read: Carcerano; Robinson) as long as they were openly supporting Peterson.
It’s very obvious to see how the defense’s court documents are continuing with this line of defense, by attacking the media, and personally jabbing at the SA. Creating their own mess but blaming everyone else. Not really offering solid, reliable alternatives to their accusations. Can’t really respond to the case citings, since that is legal-eeze, but seems obvious to me they’ve got nothing logical to offer, and are basing their defense on continued personal attacks, silly Google searches, and whining about how wrong things are with the perception most have of their client.
rescueapet, you are sooooooo right-on! They have been extremely aggressive with these tactics and have done damage to themselves and their defendant’s case.
They can’t unring a bell. ,.. “the damage was done” as stated by Rheem Odeh, member of the legal defense team.
Looks like DP’s legal defense team will do that ‘FLUSH’ by themselves!
Well, Judgin, in the case of these Court filings, they’re speaking to Judge White. It’s up to him to read and determine whether their whining and hissing within these documents is up to the task of him ruling in their favor. Just as a layperson, I think the defense’s written motions are, at times, beyond silly and unprofessional. Wonder what the Judge thinks? Won’t the judge have to come to the conclusion that the defense is right, that the SA came up with the brainstorm to create a new law especially for Drew Peterson, convince the legislature to adopt it, and the Governor to sign it into law? That is what they’re getting at, isn’t it, or am I just confused and bumfuzzled?
rescue, you are absolutely right … all these filings are for the eyes of Judge White for his ruling. I’d like to be the lil honeybee that flew in his office window to observe when he is reading those defense filings. LOL
rescue, please refrain from reading defense team filings (LMAO) and re-read the filings of AG Lisa Madigan and ST Glasgow. That should protect your great layperson mind from confusion and bumfuzzle.
Yes, my head always spins when I read the defense documents/statements based upon their wishes and dreams unsupported by facts or case law. ::)
Guess it’s the defense’s job to think that besides themselves, those who read and value their motions are bigger pumpkinheads than they are. If they get rulings in their favor, I doubt highly it’s because the Judge thinks the SA “minted” a homicide, or bowed to “public outcry” and invented a new law to push through just to quiet the outrage. Is the Judge supposed to rule that this law is unconstitutional only as it applies to Peterson, or unconstitutional as it applies to anyone who is confronted with it? Because, as I understand it, it’s already been used in a trial, no? Wasn’t there a conviction involved in that trial?
You’re right again, rescue, this federal law has already been on the books from the time the State of Illinois was a territory. As stated in the wording in-between case law references, in
Attorney-Generals-Filing-of-Objections-to-Defendants-motion-to-Declare-the-Hearsay-law-Unconstitutional, and
States-Attorneys-response-to-defendants-motion-to-declare-the-hearsay-law-unconstitutional,
“A. The Act Does Not Change lIIinois Law To Defendant’s Detriment.
Before the Act, Illinois already recognized the common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing as an exception to its hearsay rule.”
“Although federal law did not codify the exception until 1997, see Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6) advisory committee notes to 1997 Amendments, the United States Supreme Court held in 1878 that a defendant who “voluntarily keeps . .. witnesses away [by wrongdoing] … cannot insist on his privilege” to confront those witnesses in court, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158 (1878), and the Court traces the doctrine’s English common law roots to the Seventeenth Century, see Giles v. California, 554 U.S. -’ 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2688-91(2008).
2 Illinois’ ex post facto prohibition is in lockstep with its federal counterpart”
Thanks, Facs. We can see the State is very well prepared. Drew is boiled.
Morning Cyrhla
Bratsky is also kippered, but does he know it?
Morning, Bucket:)
.
I think Brodsky knows his time is over… In fact, he did not risk too much.He has always been a poor lawyer. Now he is a famous poor lawyer!
Perfect analysis, Cyrhla!
I picture the “dream team” scratching their heads and saying “whats all this legal mumbo jumbo?? Give me something I can Google!” Let the smack down begin and those fine peices of legal art, the credit should go to the assistants as John Connor wrote the first and Domenic Osterberger wrote the 2nd.
http://incoldblogger.blogspot.com/2009/09/drew-petersons-pucker-factor.html
Drew Peterson’s ‘Pucker Factor’
September 10, 2009
By Chuck Hustmyre (www.chuckhustmyre.com)
Did you hear that? It was Drew Peterson’s rear-end clamping shut. Guys call it the “pucker factor.” It happens when you get really nervous, and former Bolingbrook, Illinois Police Sergeant Drew Peterson has a lot to be nervous about.
He’s in jail with a $20 million bond, awaiting trial for the murder of his third ex-wife, Kathleen Savio, whose body was found in 2004 in the bathtub of the home the couple once shared, and he is suspected by just about everyone of killing his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who disappeared without a trace on Oct. 28, 2007.
The reason for Peterson’s sudden puckering has got to be a recent jury decision in faraway Georgia.
On Sept. 3, a jury in LaFayette, Georgia found former local Police Sergeant Sam Parker guilty of murdering his wife, Theresa Parker.
Theresa Parker, a 911 dispatcher, was last seen leaving her sister’s house on March 21, 2007. At the time of her disappearance, she was separated from her husband and moving out of their home.
As in the Peterson case, Sam Parker–a 25-year police veteran–initially cooperated with investigators and claimed his wife had run off, probably with another man. Also like Drew Peterson, Sam Parker had a history of domestic abuse.
Although Theresa Parker’s body was not found, a grand jury, and later a petite jury, was convinced that Sam Parker murdered his wife.
Parker was sentenced to life in prison.
So what does that mean for Drew Peterson? Maybe nothing. Maybe an awful lot.
Prosecutors in Illinois potentially get two whacks at him.
A lengthy grand jury investigation into the deaths of both Mrs. Petersons resulted in only one murder indictment, for the death of wife number three, Kathleen Savio.
Savio’s death was initially ruled an accident, but after the exhumation of her remains in 2007, two new autopsies–one by renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden–reclassified her death as a homicide.
“I don’t think there’s any possibility this was an accident, and I don’t think there’s any indication this was suicide,” Dr. Baden told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren. “It’s my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that it’s a homicide.”
Prosecutors could go after Drew Peterson again for the disappearance and presumed death of Stacy Peterson. Depending on what happens at his upcoming trial, Peterson may find himself in the dock facing a second murder charge.
For more information on the Drew Peterson case, read my truTV story. (http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/family/drew_peterson/1.html)
Peterson doesn’t like to read. I hope his lawyers put this into an audio format for him so he can listen to it while he’s fighting off the boredom and hating the isolation of being imprisoned in the Will County Detention Center.
Both Assistant State’s Attorneys.
That Parker conviction must have Drew in a stew – and rightfully so!
Pucker, dude, pucker.
The prosecution against Parker didn’t have anything like as much evidence as The People have against Drew. All the evidence was heard in a few days.
He really should learn to love reading. It’s something he could do sitting on the loo when his pucker clench fails.
I just remembered something about the speculations that DP may have suffered some kind of chemical burn under his bandana. I think you’d expect a splash pattern or similar?…but you most certainly can get an even 1st degree burn standing too close to a fire. (!)….although I’m not 100 percent convinced his face was abnormally red. What do you all think?
Bucket, are you trying to make me look closely at a lot of pictures of Drew Peterson? Please, no!
Does anybody know how many pages of “discovery” the Defense Team has presented to the Prosecution or did Joel just present the State with some character assassinations and web addresses for them to Google ??
BTW I googled the name Drew Peterson the other day.
Does that now mean Drew can’t get a fair trial in Will County ??
Bucket, I think it was said somewhere that the picture of Drew with redish face had been taken earlier, before Stacy went misssing.
But you may be right that the reason he used bandana was that something happened to his face (chlorine? fire?) … or he did not want to be recognized by someone he met on the way to dispose of Stacy.
I have all those pictures of his ugly face swimming before my eyes all the time. LOL
I remember seeing discussions early in the disappearance of Stacy about why Peterson wore a bandanna over his face, and it possibly being because of irritation from bleach splashing into his face. That, of course, evolving from the rumors that swirled about chlorine being in the blue bucket. Other than hearing bits and pieces of things like that, it never went much further.
Once again, Peterson never could have imagined that the disappearance of Stacy would generate such interest, but I think the fact that he was a police officer sparked that from the get-go, and it came out quickly that he had a past when it came to questionable circumstances regarding wives. After that, instead of listening to the advice of his first attorney and keeping his mouth shut, he ran with it and craved the attention, as though losing a young, attractive wife, and mother to his children, was a mere blip on his radar screen. How coincidental that he managed to attract the attention of a personality almost parallel to his when Brodsky answered his appeal for a new attorney.
Thank heaven, IMHO, people like him, so dark, lacking compassion, and evil, don’t come along very often.
I guess the bandanna wearing incident was almost a week later, after Peterson ventured out in front of the media horde.
PETERSON DREW W 9 14 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 1 Motions
PETERSON DREW W 9 14 9 402 930 09CF001048 0 MURDER/INTENT TO 2 Motions
Starting Drew’s Monday off right if nothing changes.
ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 14 9 900 09SC008604 Return Date
ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 23 9 900 04F 000340 Present
ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 25 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 INTIMIDATION/PHYSICAL 1 Jury Trial
ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 25 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 BATTERY/CAUSE BODILY 3 Jury Trial
ROBINSON MICHAEL 9 25 9 404 930 08CF000098 0 DOMESTIC BTRY/PHYSICAL 2 Jury Trial
PRNewsChannel.com
Drew Peterson’s Motion To Silence “Cry From The Grave” Law Now Online
Documents filed now available for viewing online.
September 11, 2009 – thepublicityagency.com
Chicago, Ill. / The final papers and briefs have now been filed in Drew Peterson’s motion to have the new Illinois hearsay law, commonly known as Drew’s Law, declared unconstitutional.
Drew Peterson’s lawyers – Joel Brodsky, Andrew Aboodand Reem Odeh- sent their Reply Brief to the State’s Attorney and the Attorney General today. Judge Stephen White is set to hear arguments on this motion on October 2, 2009.
Anyone wishing to read the full set of briefs from Mr. Peterson’s Motion, the Responses of the State’s Attorney and the Attorney General, as well as the final Reply of Drew Peterson, may view these online at either http://www.brodskyodeh.com or http://www.aboodlaw.com.
Thanks, Rescue. I’ve added the brief to our Scribd account and embedded it in the post above.
And this statement is supposed to help prove Drew’s innocence how?
OMG, in scanning through this, I, too, was jolted by this paragraph.
They’re saying the “overwhelming testimony” will be that Kathleen Savio intentionally set out to tell whoever she could that if anything happened to her, it wasn’t an accident, and that Peterson did it. However, the defense is saying she told varying embellished stories, knowing that it would be used against Peterson in a “potential” criminal trial. Oh, and they threw in there that she didn’t trust the BB PD, so that’s another reason she spoke of her fear of Peterson. (Shaking my head!)
Huh? This defies logic. You mean they’re admitting Kathleen knew she was a dead woman, and she intentionally did this to pin her death on Drew, even if she died by accident? Are they admitting she had the power to foresee her death, and regardless of how she died, she was going to get revenge on her ex-husband by telling people she feared him and for her life, solely for the purpose of pinning her death on him? The problem here, though, is that she did this knowing she’d never see him on trial. No. See, the problem is, she’s dead, just like she feared, just like she said she’d be!! Kind of difficult for her to stand back and reap the benefits and get personal satisfaction from such a tangled web when she’s dead. WTH is wrong with this defense? Are they nuts?
How does the defense justify a moronic statement like this when the woman is dead? She’s not walking around, making up tales, hoping to get personal satisfaction. She died with a gash wound on her head, multiple bruising on her entire body, and was the victim of an entirely botched death investigation, for lack of a better description.
She was going on with her life, had a new career, and two young boys to raise. Would Judge White read this and believe the defense’s contention that Kathleen embellished confrontations with Drew to use against him in what’s now going to be his criminal trial for her murder?
If this paragraph doesn’t quite make sense, it’s copied as it was written.
This helps their argument how? That she vindictively singled out her ex-husband as being responsible for her death, even though she knew she was going to fall dead in a bathtub — by accident?
In some way, funny to read, you are right.
I tell you that taking all the evidence into account, there is no way to prove Drew is innocent and any defence force would have little to do about it. The only goal they can achieve it is a chance to promote themselves.LOL
The defense has confirmed that they have nothing at all!
What they’ve submitted here is a long form version of “she’s lying”?
Heh, that’s right, Bucket. She made it her dying last wish that her ex-husband be held accountable for her death, even though (they say) she fell dead by accident in a bath tub. Or is it she accidentally fell alive in a bath tub and got dead? To allow her “proffers” into evidence, her embellished stories, is to violate her ex-husband’s Constitutional Rights, don’t you know? Because he has the right to confront her. And she was determined to “get” him and see him pay. Umm, forget see him pay. She’s dead. That’s not going to happen.
I am wondering — usually, do prosecutors, legislators, state and federal officials get together a few times a year and take suggestions out of a hat on what laws they should present and enact just for the hell of it, to pass their time? Run a contest for the best one? Bills and laws that happen to crop up in their minds, which they can think-up to win an all-expense, paid vacation for the family if their idea is chosen to be the one to make it all the way through and signed into law?
Or do they usually act after a major event, where it would seem logical to create a well-thought-out bill to ensure that the law will prevail and prevent harm or damage to someone should the same type of event occur in the future?
Naw. A bill and then a law is only acted upon for the sole purpose of using it to convict Drew Peterson. And it shall be called Drew’s Law. It sucks to become the victim of one’s own doing, heh?
I would love if the prosecution was able to prove that the letters from the ‘eyewitnesses’, pictures of ‘Stacy” and the documents robbed from the ISP car was a job of Drew or his buddies.
I thought it was a little funny that the reply tries to use a statement Glasgow made in a press release as basis for showing the law changes the rules of evidence, even though the law itself states that it does now.
So…Joel is trying to use “hearsay” to argue against the hearsay law?
And what would a legal brief from the defense be without an arguement based on the results of a Google search?!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-drewpeterson-moti,0,2340024.story
Small, similar story in the examiner as well: http://www.examiner.com/x-15948-Homicide-Examiner~y2009m9d12-Drew-Petersons-attorneys-challenging-state-hearsay-laws
Funny thing. It seems to me they expected from the State’s Attorney to defend Drew and help him improve Drew’s image.
That is the State Attorney to blame now but I can also remember Joel_Bowel complaining with the State during the interview with Nancy Grace that the State Attorney should have announced that Stacy could return without any problems and she would not be accused of the disordely conduct by the State.
Is it customary for a legal brief to include snarky footnotes? This is from page 9:
This is short, so not so much to read, but, oh how a dead man’s hearsay comes into play. Oh, and it mentions an incompetent attorney, necessitating a retrial. Ooops.
August 11, 6:49 PM Homicide Examiner Richard Battin
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-15948-Homicide-Examiner~y2009m8d11-He–allegedly-admitted-shooting-Yogi-was-a-boo-boo-andor-Dead-men-do-tell-tales
Will Drew Peterson’s dead third wife testify at his trial?
August 11, 6:58 PM Homicide Examiner Richard Battin
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-15948-Homicide-Examiner~y2009m8d11-Will-Drew-Petersons-dead-third-wife-testify-at-his-trial
Isn’t it so typical too, that Joel sees the need to issue a press release about filing a paper? The State filed two onjections last friday and yet didn’t feel the need to publicize the fact.
On a sidenote, it would appear that Derek Armstrong’s Kunati Books publishing venture has failed.
http://www.quillandquire.com/google/article.cfm?article_id=10830
http://cherylktardif.blogspot.com/2009/08/kunati-books-is-going-under.html
http://www.kunati.com/
http://drewpetersonexposed.com/
http://www.quillandquire.com/google/article.cfm?article_id=10831
Ding. Dong. The Bitch is dead.
Thanks, facs.
God could not stand what was going on and decided to take care of this House of (Moral) Bankrupts LOL.
It’s nice to see that we weren’t the only people to notice these things.
We said it from Day 1 – his book was one big fat lie. His neither researched anything, spoke to anyone, or did his own investigations. He merely recreated what was already published, printed, recorded and taped. His only interview was Peterson. A one-sided, biased recounting of what Peterson and his attorney wanted him to publish, not what the facts were. He resurrected from the missing every time he got a hot lead from his bud, Brodsky. But, since Brodsky got his pie hole shut up for him, he dragged this imbecile down with him. Dr. Phil supposedly gave him glowing reviews for his in-depth book. Bah. That book was nothing more than a novel.
What a disappointment that guy was. Unfortunately, it was other authors that he screwed over. If it were just him — good riddance would have been an appropriate response to this news.
Armstrong seemed to have unethical practices from start to finish. The book was a money-hungry sham that revictimized the victims, his publishing company was built upon unsavory practices; his scammy “personas” (pun intended) and media-whoring all paint a picture of a unprincipled, greedy not-nice person.
And let’s not forget how he made an unauthorised recording of a phone conversation with a witness (Neil Schori) then tried to sell the recording to the media, and also provided it to Peterson and Joel Brodsky.
Look for Drew Peterson Exposed in the bargain book bin soon, if it isn’t already there.
I feel very sorry for the authors who signed on at Kunati, hoping it was the chance of a lifetime.
http://behlerblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/implosion-of-a-house-of-cards/
At least the authors haven’t really lost anything but empty promises. He could have strung people along for years and years. Disappointing, sure, but a lucky escape, really.
I hope it means Armstrong’s suffering here,
,not just skipping out on his obligations.
Kind of difficult for her to stand back and reap the benefits and get personal satisfaction from such a tangled web when she’s dead. WTH is wrong with this defense? Are they nuts?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think they are !
Oh and Kunati is going under ?
So Armstrong, Drew and Joel never got rich from their multi million dollar book deal after all.
The chicken wing bar is’nt doing too well either, Drew is still in jail with a 20 million dollar Bond on his head and the Defense can’t put a proper motion together.
It sucks to be Drew and Joel !
Derek Armstrong was definitely playing with fire….as well as the rest of (what is the collective noun for crooked little shits?) them.
JAH, It’s always sucked to be them, always will LOL.
I wonder if Joe will cover Robinson’s trial….
I also feel for the genuine authors with that Company that were duped into thinking they were with a Book Publisher that was going to go places.
Instead they got mixed up with the Armstrong/Joel/Drew triangle of deceit, mismanagement and illusions of grandeur.
I’m sure we haven’t heard the last of it.
Can’t wait for the fur to start flying when Drew and Joel want their moneys worth – LOL !
As far as the “Hearsay Law” is concerned, Joel has been crowing from day one the hearsay law is “unconstitutional” as it allows double/triple hearsay, speculation, gossip and innuendo to now be indiscriminately used against his client and then uses double/triple hearsay, speculation, gossip and innuendo to strengthen his defense of same (!!)
A little bit off topic, but I am sure you will be interested in learning more about Fred Morelli, Drew’s first lawyer and his suspension from the bar.
http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=896229803 click on R&D link and read the story.
Cyrhla – Have you read through the reason for the suspension? I quickly peeked, but it’s very legal-eeze, and I didn’t get into the gist of it.
He was recently in an election (Republican) to become a Judge, but was unsuccessful.
http://www.fredmorelliauroralaw.com/
(Very) shortly saying, “representing a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests [Melanie Starnes] are materially adverse to the interests of the former client [a drug dealer, Gary C. Starnes]“. While Morelli was representing Gary Starnes in divorce proceeiding with his wife, he got into a sexual relationship with this woman and did not inform his client about.
BTW, the story of Gary C Starnes is also very iteresting as well as his conflict with his wife. He was an IL drug dealer between 1978-1988 and was distributing drugs brought from Florida. He was convicted and released in 2003.
G Starnes hired Morelli to represent him in his divorce case which was arranged in order to protect assets in the event he was arrested on drug charges. However, Melanie Starnes claimed that was not true though the police had audio tapes records with G Starnes talking about it.
Brodsky’s opinion on hearsay, evidence and Glasgow originating from Nov.2007
“[...]There’s not one thing that…[...]they could bring into a court of law…[...]because that’s because Jim Glasgow, Mr. Glasgow, the state’s attorney in Will County, is a good lawyer. He’s a fine prosecutor. And he is not going to walk into a courtroom on a murder — on whatever type of charge he may choose to bring when he doesn’t have evidence to support it.[...]“.
He was damn right! LOL
Cyrhla – very good find!
Joel never ceases to amaze with his contradictory statements, sometimes even in the next breath or next sentence.
Never let the truth get in the way of a change of mind (!!)
For anyone with a long memory, it started by him declaring he took on this case PRO BONO (October/November 2007).
Next he said like anyone else he didn’t work for nothing.
And that was only the beginning – LOL !
Hi All, We’ve added a new area to the blog. On the home page, check out the “Member’s Corner”. Special notices and updates for your eyes only!
It looks like Joel gets proper legal advise from who-ever and then puts his own spin and logic to it thereby completely butchering the whole concept, which he then presents as a motion.
Remember he is the one driving the bus – LOL !
SPIN appears to be the magic word here. Their ‘logic’ makes my head SPIN. I can’t wait till the jury gets to hear them in action. Judge White is gonna have to be sure jurors have no tomatos or rotten eggs throw at the Dream Team during the Trial. LOL
I’m just happy to read the fine documents filed by the AG Madigan & SA Glasgow.
BTW, I’ve giggled till it hurt reading all the intelligent comments made on this blog. Very smart posters here.
One can only wonder how does the States Attorney deal with receiving such bizarre child like motions in a professional environment and involving such serious issues as in Drew Petersons case ???
You can really see Brodsky, Drew and Abood in full flight in this Video clip and watch Joel lose at at approx 6.15, which is pretty indicative of what is to come in the Court room !!
Youtube video
Ya mean at 8:13, 8:14 and 8:15 when JB was diggin in his nose? Guess he couldn’t find it either
Thanks for the link, Judgin’ …..probably my all-time favourite telly appearance. M and J were excellent. It makes me want to reiterate my admiration for Paula and Lenny…and Cass, Sharon, all searchers and supporters and real good-guy LEOs. I find them all inspirational.
and Joe Hosey and all who seek to tell the truth 
I wonder how Danya is…..
Any time I watch this video I want to sing Goran Bregovic song from “Arizona Dream”.
This is a film about a man and a fish
This is a film about dramatic relationship between man and fish
The man stands between life and death
The man thinks
The horse thinks
The sheep thinks
The cow thinks
The dog thinks
The fish doesn’t think
The fish is mute, expressionless
The fish doesn’t think because the fish knows everything
The fish knows everything
LOL
Well, I don’t have that song on my iPod (and don’t want to LOL) but if Drew is the fish, he was in court today.
Even if Drew is not the fish, he is in court today. Or his lawyers are on his behalf.
FYI – We’ve got a running banner at the top of the page showing Drew’s current court dates.
Thanks! I just head to the bottom of the page and log in and read up. That will be helpful!
Hehe. Like the banner!
Heh. Just for the “record,” Adrian Peterson and Drew Brees get top honors today in a Google search of the term Drew Peterson.
Since Facs and I strive to keep Justice Cafe accurate and informative, today’s first result of the term Drew Peterson in Google’s Blog search is:
In Cold Blog: Drew Peterson’s ‘Pucker Factor’
10 Sep 2009 by chuckhustmyre@gmail.com (Chuck Hustmyre)
It was Drew Peterson’s rear-end clamping shut. Guys call it the “pucker factor.” It happens when you get really nervous, and former Bolingbrook, Illinois Police Sergeant Drew Peterson has a lot to be nervous about. …
Pucker up, Drew Peterson.
justanotherhen: Thank you for posting this all time favorite Dream Team Disaster. Now that we can see the amount of ‘truth’ that they are defending against, we can understand why they were so nervous. and DP just kept talkin and tellin… LMAO
Abood (dated of May 20, 2009 in regard to the State Attorney’s motion to replace the judge):
“Judge Schoenstedt has been very fair and even handed,” says Brodsky. “By all accounts, he has conducted himself according to the highest standards of ethics and integrity. On many occasions Judge Schoenstedt has made rulings which favored the State and were against Mr. Petersons interests.”
Abood says there are several criteria required in order to satisfy the substitution motion filed by the State’s Attorney. He says case law suggests that the mere assertion of prejudice against the State is all that is required and then the burden shifts to the Defendant opposing the Motion to establish that the Motion was made for some improper purpose.
“The State’s Attorney will not be able to show, or establish, actual prejudice on the part of Judge Schoenstedt, or that there was a previous relationship between Drew Peterson and the Judge. Both claims are wholly without merit,” says Abood.
… and they were wrong again. LOL
I will leave the below extracts without any comments… but I think it was easy to prove that there might be a confict of interest.
—–
Committee to Elect Richard Schoenstedt Circuit Judge
Jeffrey Tomczak
13910 W. Delaney
Manhattan, IL 60442
$200
2002-04-30
Citizens for Roger C. Claar
115 Concord Lane
Bolingbrook, IL 60440
$1000
2002-04-25
—–
From the RESOLUTION 05R-029
ACKNOWLEDGING CANVASS OF THE ELECTION HELD ON APRIL 5, 2005, IN AND FOR
THE VILLAGE OF BOLINGBROOK, WILL AND DUPAGE COUNTIES, ILLINOIS
Mayor Claar announced that they will be sworn-in during the May 10th Village Board meeting by Judge Richard Schoenstedt.
——-
MIMS on Nov. 13, 2007: [...] I’m waiting till Roger Claar gets back in town for me, he’s in New Orleans on some business for the village and he gets back in town Monday and I want to sit down and talk with him. I want to find out from him, I trust him, he’s like an Uncle to me.
——-
Drew Peterson claims he knew Claar very well. Claar refuses to have any private relationship with Peterson, and then says that Kathleen had never told him about her problems with Drew.
Is it already working? How to get the membership?
Cyrhla, if you log in to your WordPress acount, you should be able to see it.
FYI – The San Francisco Chronicle Crime Scene Blog has a story about bail bonds. Included is one comment: “Neither the judge nor the DA’s office should do anything that publicizes these worms.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?&entry_id=47538#ixzz0R7l8iE68
Go directly to jail and stay there
Phillip Garrido’s $30 million bail amount, set at a Monday hearing by an El Dorado County judge, is not the highest ever.
In 1988, for instance, the late San Francisco Judge J. Dominique Olcomendy — weary that a 25-year-old alleged prostitute was continually being arrested and released — briefly set her bail at $5 billion.
“I know the amount of bail is outrageous,” Olcomendy admitted.
Leaving aside the oddities of the city by the bay, Garrido’s bail is right up there, putting the alleged kidnapper-rapist of Jaycee Dugard in the company of a band of similarly notorious killers, molesters and scam artists.
Many accused killers, particularly in death penalty cases, aren’t given the opportunity to bail out at all. But in California, defendants have a basic right to a reasonable bail, the idea being that “you shouldn’t be punished until you’re convicted,” said former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer.
Bail is an insurance policy against a suspect ditching a trial. Judges set an amount based on two factors — the defendants’ flight risk and the danger he presents to the community.
Don’t expect Garrido to hit the streets. Bail agents typically require a fee of 10 percent of a bail amount — cash that is never returned — and want collateral on the rest. Plus, even if Garrido made bail, prosecutors said, he could be held on charges that he violated conditions of his federal parole.
Monday’s action in Placerville was “a way for the judge to give him bail without giving him bail,” Hammer said. “It’s the same thing as saying no bail, except it’s harder to challenge.”
Some high bail amounts of the past include:
– $10 million in Oakland for Lakireddy Bali Reddy, the Berkeley landlord arrested in 2000 for allegedly smuggling girls into the country for sex.
– $20 million in Joliet, Ill., for accused wife-killer Drew Peterson.
– $50 million in Boston for Christian Karl Gerhartsreiter, also known as Clark Rockefeller, who was charged with kidnapping his 7-year-old daughter last year. When Gerhartsreiter asked for a reduction, a judge took away the bail option entirely.
Posted By: Demian Bulwa (Email) | September 14 2009 at 11:45 AM
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/crime/detail?&entry_id=47538#ixzz0R7k210IA
Trying to imagine how Blobsky will work this into his next filing…
Facs & Rescue – Thanks for the new banner w. court dates & the Member’s Corner. I love this place. x
Hello Judgin,
There is a video part II of this Defense Team disaster with Joel losing it even more (!!).
Joel gets so worked up about Lenny, he goes into an over the top rant and it looks like he is not even in control of what he is saying.
Very telling of what we can expect in the Courtoom by way of Joel Brodsky outbursts !
CYRHLA – September 14, 2009 at 3:57 pm | #92 Quote I will leave the below extracts without any comments… but I think it was easy to prove that there might be a confict of interest.
—–
Committee to Elect Richard Schoenstedt Circuit Judge
Jeffrey Tomczak
13910 W. Delaney
Manhattan, IL 60442
$200
2002-04-30
Citizens for Roger C. Claar
115 Concord Lane
Bolingbrook, IL 60440
$1000
2002-04-25
—–
From the RESOLUTION 05R-029
ACKNOWLEDGING CANVASS OF THE ELECTION HELD ON APRIL 5, 2005, IN AND FOR
THE VILLAGE OF BOLINGBROOK, WILL AND DUPAGE COUNTIES, ILLINOIS
Mayor Claar announced that they will be sworn-in during the May 10th Village Board meeting by Judge Richard Schoenstedt.
——-
OMG Cyhrla, where do you always find this stuff ??
LOL !!
Coffee – Aww, we’re glad you love it! Keep coming back.
rescueapet
I don’t know were you get your info from but the here say law is not DREWS law there is no name attached to it. The media is only calling it that! The here say law is for victoms like Kathleen Savio!!!! The law is called KATHLEENS LAW!!!!
Umm, theo, I never said it was “Drew’s Law.” The attorneys for Drew are calling it that. I am confused as to where you got the idea I am calling it “Drew’s Law?” Can you clarify that, please? Thanks.
I might add, to be clear here, that Facs and I have consistently objected to the defense using that term, as we have felt it’s their way of getting across their belief that this law was enacted solely for Drew Peterson.
This blog has been absolutely supportive, as best we can, of the victims’ families and friends.
Wow, Theo. I hope you’ll read upthread and see that nowhere have we referred to the Illinos hearsay law as “Drew’s Law”. For the sake of convenience I refer to it as “the hearsay law”, but technically it’s an amendment to the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Act.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
These bizarre paragraphs in the Defense’s latest reply are no doubt in relation to page 11 of the State Attorneys objections to their Hearsay Law motion.
The State very clearly and concisely explains the difference in (hearsay) statements, quoting relevant case law etc but the Defense opts to run with their own interpretation which is grotesquely illogical and as a result quite comical, which surely isn’t their intent, but that’s it now reads in an official document !!
Me, too. All of that stuff was so obviously manufactured. Will they repeat it during the trial to show she’s still alive? ROFL
Drew has not always been so emotionless. If my memory serves me well, on the day (probably Nov.8 2007) the State Attorney announced they were going to exhume Kathleen’s body, Drew banged Sharon’s back door and was running around with the urn of ashes of Stacy’s sister so that Sharon had to move out to a motel for a few days. Did he get upset by the news?
I remember that. He can put on a cucumber-cool act, but Paula and Lenny told us how he would freak out particularly on Grand Jury day, pacing, would wake suddenly as if startled in the night and and jump out of bed in a cold sweat. We’ve seen him flip out on video calling Paula and Lenny names and almost begging to be arrested to put him out of his misery. Jabbing his finger into camera lenses….but he still “kinda challenges” anyone to say they’d seen him angrySO glad he’s in jail
So he must have missed a few lessons when he was trained (as very policeman) to hide his emotions. LOL
I wonder if Drew’s visit at the hospital after TM helped him move the barrel, phone calls to Rick Mimms or the above mentioned behavior towards Sharon, was one of the reasons Drew was given such a high bail. That would make sense in addition to what Abood and Brodsky said about dealing with all the witnesses in the case.
I’m sure the high bail is because he is unstable and dangerous, too. Suicide-by-cop and all that.
New post is up now!
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/remember-stacy-peterson-and-help-victims-of-abuse/