Michelle Young - Dec. 1 thru 4 [Archive] - In Session Message Boards

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 08:44 AM

Barbara2

12-01-2008, 09:28 AM

If you think a news reporter knows more than they are printing then you are living in a fantasy world.

I have personal experience with a reporter knowing more but only printing what I authorized. I asked to keep other info off the record and the reporter did not disappoint me. They don't want to burn bridges for future stories so no, it's not a fantasy world to accept that reporters don't print everything that they know. IMO

JHP

12-01-2008, 09:42 AM

Motion was filed to extend the sealed warrant until 12-19-08

Thats an interesting time. Only 18 days, hmmm maybe something is finally going to happen.

We can hope.

JMO

JHP

12-01-2008, 09:51 AM

What would a SW that LE as had for 17 months have to do with an arrest now?

I guess we will just have to see. Why do you think they would request just an extra 18 days? Cause they were bored?

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:36 AM

I doubt things are put in SWs to make people angry. People were angry enough at Jason's blatant disinterest in the murder of his wife and unborn child and the affair with MM (which many denied happened).

LE wouldn't be executing SWs if they were not intent on proving he murdered Michelle, imo.

I think the SW to be unsealed tomorrow is either for MM's or KY's computer. Not to see what was said between them and JY but correspondence between either one of them and 3rd parties.

Why was it necessary then, to include a search for transgender bars, what does that have to do with the case?

:confused:

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:37 AM

I was hoping there was news before I left for work. Can you tell I'm anxious?

:seeya:

Yep, me too.

I just got all my work out of the way so I can read the new s/w..

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:43 AM

"I still think a lot of the stuff in the last s/w was to make people angry at Jason.."

Seriously, do you think that when LE wrote up the search warrant their goal was to just put in "stuff" to make people angry? Maybe LE is different in your state but I don't think our local LE really cares what people think.

When the search warrant is unsealed it should be on the wral.com website at some point today.

Yep, I do.

There was no reason at that time to go into some of the stuff the last s/w revealed.

That stuff should have been saved.

No, this was more like we are mad and,
"We can't get you, but here, try and defend yourself on all this."

It could have also been a way to get SM to confront Jason.., can you imagine if both MM and Jason had told SM that all communications between them had stopped after MY's death, and then this was released?

How about the part where MM wants a baby with him?

You think that went over well in the Money household?

Do we have a link yet for the s/w?

Tia.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:48 AM

So much information has finally been made public, doesn't it seem that LE could maybe hold a press conference and say where they are in this investigation ? Or maybe give the smallest bit of an idea of what's going on, or what the hold up is ? Now that the SW returned and is going to be unsealed, why not let that community in on their progress ?

I agree with you ,I mentioned that before.

That is why when I see comments about this being a big case in the media, it just hasn't happened, and it is not going to be.

People Magazine did a story in Jan, 2007, they never followed up.

None of the talk shows have discussed the case , if there is an arrest, then maybe , but no one is going to air this case as their prime story.

Look at the Cooper case, there has already been an arrest, and there is nothing in the news about it at all.

:shrug:

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:51 AM

Did the judge approve it?

Where there is a link saying this has been postponed?

And, why the 19th of Dec? That is a Friday.

I know I asked last nite if it could be extended, and apparently , it was.

So, now you have to ask why...

If it was something just about a computer, I can't see them doing that, as they already released other computer info and emails.

I think it is to protect someone.

JMO

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:54 AM

If you think a news reporter knows more than they are printing then you are living in a fantasy world.

True...any media source wants to be the one to break the story and get their "exclusive".

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:57 AM

ITA. The latest warrant only reinforced what most of us already knew. Its rediculous to think LE put info out there to "make people angry at Jason".

This is a murder investigation, not a popularity contest.

I disagree, at this point, if the investigation has stalled and L E is frustrated, I would think they would say anything to get to Jason.

Maybe even hope he would come foward to defend himself on some of the things released.

When things are taken out of seguence or context, it may have looked worse than it really was.

Who knows?

Kat

ETA........ I am disappointed, anyone else?
Is there an official link yet?

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 01:05 PM

Motion was filed to extend the sealed warrant until 12-19-08

Oh shoot. Home from work and was hoping for some good news or at least something new to discuss. :(

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 01:11 PM

I agree with you ,I mentioned that before.

That is why when I see comments about this being a big case in the media, it just hasn't happened, and it is not going to be.

People Magazine did a story in Jan, 2007, they never followed up.

None of the talk shows have discussed the case , if there is an arrest, then maybe , but no one is going to air this case as their prime story.

Look at the Cooper case, there has already been an arrest, and there is nothing in the news about it at all.

:shrug:

Kat

They go for sensationalism, what the public wants to see. Men killing their wives is an everyday thing now. SP had the good looks, the added attraction of the pretty girlfriend testifying against him. That kept that case in the media spotlight.

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 01:12 PM

There was a motion filed....have not heard the judge's decision.
He may decline and we will see it later today.

Oh okay, thanks.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 01:26 PM

They go for sensationalism, what the public wants to see. Men killing their wives is an everyday thing now. SP had the good looks, the added attraction of the pretty girlfriend testifying against him. That kept that case in the media spotlight.

I agree.

I mean, think about it, who decides which case is more important than another, or whose life was more valuable, or who was more loved, or missed..

The Cooper case is hardly getting any attention, it does not seem fair.

:shrug:
Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 01:28 PM

Sad, but true. Scottie was always yammering too. JY was smart to keep quiet and get out of town. It's bought him two years.JMO.

And, Laci was pregnant and missing ,and the case was all over the news and internet, you could not get away from it.

Kat

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 01:45 PM

I agree.

I mean, think about it, who decides which case is more important than another, or whose life was more valuable, or who was more loved, or missed..

The Cooper case is hardly getting any attention, it does not seem fair.

:shrug:
Kat

Ultimately the public decides because we are the ones who are tuning in to see certain things in the media.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 01:45 PM

I know that, but some posters here don't see it that way. They see it as poor Jason, all of his personal business is out there and LE put it out there just to make people angry at him.

There is a simple solution then, arrest him.

:cool:

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 01:48 PM

Ultimately the public decides because we are the ones who are tuning in to see certain things in the media.

I agree completely, the case here has slowed down even since the last s/w was released.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 05:14 PM

According to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report for 2007, “The incidents of murder, in which the relationship of the victim to the offender was known, showed that 22.2 percent of victims were killed by family members and 53.7 percent were slain by acquaintances (neighbors, friends, boyfriends, etc.).”

The report categorized the remaining 24.1 percent as stranger killings.

In a chilling statistic for women, the report noted, “Among female victims, [in cases when] their relationships with their offenders were known, 32.9 percent were murdered by their husbands or boyfriends.”

http://www.ncwanted.com/ncwanted_home/story/3748426/

N C Wanted still has the wrong date of Michelle's murder in posting their People Magazine article dated Jan 2006. :no:

Michelle was still alive in 2006, and that feature does not appear until 2007.

:rolleyes:

Kat

TopsyCrete

12-01-2008, 05:25 PM

Well sorry I'm not an attorney , I sell insurance.

:lol::lol::lol:

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 05:27 PM

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 05:30 PM

I just got another reply from Amanda that says "Cynthia Bobbit says nothing is sealed in the case to her knowledge." This is just getting weirder and weirder, imo.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 05:55 PM

I got a reply from Amanda Lamb to the effect that there are no sealed SWs. I replied and gave her the info. relating to the July SW and she again replied with a sorry, I am not aware of that. No wonder WRAL doesn't report much on this if she doesn't keep up with what is happening, imo.

You are kidding, right?
This is strange , but thank you for taking the time to do that!!

Hmmm...

I was waiting for an official link earlier.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 05:57 PM

I just got another reply from Amanda that says "Cynthia Bobbit says nothing is sealed in the case to her knowledge." This is just getting weirder and weirder, imo.

There is a warrant that was signed 6/05 of this year with an extension of 180 days that was granted to keep it sealed

Again, thank you, Leanne.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 05:58 PM

maybe it was unsealed today. Maybe wral isn't going to carry it.

I am confused as you are, Confused!!

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 06:03 PM

Hi Kat, It was issued 07-05-07 if I am remembering correctly.

It was , and on June 5th, 2008, 11 months later, it was granted an extension of 180 days which could mean Dec. 5th, this Friday.

But, it has been posted it was extended until 12-19, where is this info coming from?

There was no link..

Kat

ETA:

No info at WRAL or the News Observer..

?????????????????

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 06:21 PM

Bud Wiser post this morning that a motion had been made to keep it sealed till 12/19/08. There has been no follow up on it. Now Bobbit is saying there isn't any sealed warrants. That tells me it was unsealed today.

God, I'm so confused now that I'm not even going to bother Amanda again. She probably thinks I'm some kind of nut.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 06:22 PM

<snipped> There has been no follow up on it. Now Bobbit is saying there isn't any sealed warrants. That tells me it was unsealed today.

Then either the warrant did not get an extension and has been released, and something is going to break...

But, then why has the contents not been posted?

Or the warrant is being held until an arrest is made?

Maybe something is happening right now, for all we know.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 06:24 PM

God, I'm so confused now that I'm not even going to bother Amanda again. She probably thinks I'm some kind of nut.

Not at all, I think there is some confusion though about what is going on.

Is it possible that L E declined the additional extension, and is ready to indict?

Kat

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 06:25 PM

Then either the warrant did not get an extension and has been released, and something is going to break...

But, then why has the contents not been posted?

Or the warrant is being held until an arrest is made?

Maybe something is happening right now, for all we know.

Kat

I hope you're right that something might be happening now. Hopefully, if the extension wasn't granted, my emails to AL might light a fire under her to investigate that elusive SW. When is the next GJ? Does anyone know?

alter ego

12-01-2008, 06:27 PM

Not at all, I think there is some confusion though about what is going on.

Is it possible that L E declined the additional extension, and is ready to indict?

KatIt would have been the DA asking for the seal to be extended.

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 06:27 PM

Not at all, I think there is some confusion though about what is going on.

Is it possible that L E declined the additional extension, and is ready to indict?

Kat

Oh please please please.

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 06:37 PM

I capitulated and again wrote to AL setting out all we know about the SW and have asked her to please try to get to the bottom of it so we know if what we think we know is true or rumour. She is pretty speedy at replying so I'll update if and when I get a response. I still think she must think I'm a nut with all these questions from Australia but still, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 06:39 PM

Here we go:

"I'll check on both.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leanne Weich
To: Lamb, Amanda
Sent: Mon Dec 01 18:32:40 2008
Subject: Re: WRAL.com Feedback - Michelle Young

Amanda

Going back over notes I've kept, this is what I have found:

search warrant issued on 07/05/07 and not returned to Court until 06/05/08 when a request was made for it to be sealed. This was granted for 180 days. Then, apparently another request for same SW to be sealed for 18 days which would take us to 12/19/08. I'm not sure when the last request was made, nor whether it was granted. It is difficult to keep up with this case from Australia and I am relying on Raleigh residents for a lot of the information I get.

Do you know if a response to the wrongful death suit was filed? It was due today."

alter ego

12-01-2008, 06:43 PM

Thanks Leanne :)

And not to worry, there are plenty here that will vouch that you are not a nut.

Cardinal

12-01-2008, 06:55 PM

No news on either the SW or the WDS?

ETA: I guess the media doesn't realize we're all anxiously awaiting. :) Thanks, Leanne, for your efforts today.

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 06:57 PM

No news on either the SW or the WDS?

Nuttin Card.

Cardinal

12-01-2008, 07:00 PM

Nuttin Card.

Hi, Anna. You know, I'm starting to think Kat is right - that maybe the sealed SW has something to do with Cassidy. I mean, we've seen PC relating to Jason's emails, MM's emails, Kim's emails. What could be so sensitive that it would warrant an extension on the seal?

Cardinal

12-01-2008, 07:09 PM

I suggested that it may have to do with Cassidy like three weeks back and got a big "poo-poo" from several JIIs. Not sure why. Maybe a few them will jump back in and discuss why they laughed off the notion when I mentioned it.

Sorry, onederwomyn, I guess I missed that. I saw Kat's reference earlier today/last night instead. But I've always thought your theories had credence, so I'm not surprised.

So what do you think it might have to do with Cassidy?

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 07:13 PM

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 07:13 PM

I suggested that it may have to do with Cassidy like three weeks back and got a big "poo-poo" from several JIIs. Not sure why. Maybe a few them will jump back in and discuss why they laughed off the notion when I mentioned it.

I do recall you bringing it up. I think it might have merit and makes sense that the SW was held onto for so long after it was issued and was then sealed and has not been released today. If it pertains to voice enhancement of what Cassidy said in the 911 phone call, it could be sealed for Cassidy's safety, imo.

Cardinal

12-01-2008, 07:16 PM

Or it's for someone other than Jason?

I think so. But I also think it must have something to do with Jason as a suspect, since the subsequent SWs obviously targeted him.

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 07:17 PM

I do recall you bringing it up. I think it might have merit and makes sense that the SW was held onto for so long after it was issued and was then sealed and has not been released today. If it pertains to voice enhancement of what Cassidy said in the 911 phone call, it could be sealed for Cassidy's safety, imo.

Now I'm confused. LE would need a sw to get the voice enhancement results?

Cardinal

12-01-2008, 07:17 PM

I am not understanding why Amanda is not all over this.

This was her story.

Kat

I'm surprised, too, Kat, for the same reason. Unless......she knows something but can't publish it yet.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 07:19 PM

Hi, Anna. You know, I'm starting to think Kat is right - that maybe the sealed SW has something to do with Cassidy. I mean, we've seen PC relating to Jason's emails, MM's emails, Kim's emails. What could be so sensitive that it would warrant an extension on the seal?

To release a warrant that contains more computer info or emails wouldn't require a extension, I don't think, anyway.

Why would additional time be needed for something like that?

This sounds like it could be very sensitive material.

:confused:

Kat

JHP

12-01-2008, 07:21 PM

Hi, Anna. You know, I'm starting to think Kat is right - that maybe the sealed SW has something to do with Cassidy. I mean, we've seen PC relating to Jason's emails, MM's emails, Kim's emails. What could be so sensitive that it would warrant an extension on the seal?

Well, I was very hopeful that SOMETHING might be in the works when it was reported that a motion was filed to have it extended for 18 days. I was assuming that it was the DA or LE. Now it's very odd IMO that Amanda Lamb's contact have no record.

Maybe it is about Cassidy but, I would think due to her age there would be no problem keeping it sealed.

JMO

Cardinal

12-01-2008, 07:22 PM

To release a warrant that contains more computer info or emails wouldn't require a extension, I don't think, anyway.

Why would additional time be needed for something like that?

This sounds like it could be very sensitive material.

:confused:

Kat

Same here. :confused:

Which makes me ask again - if LE/the DA has evidence so explosive, what in the world is preventing an indictment???

Cardinal

12-01-2008, 07:24 PM

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 07:26 PM

Sorry, onederwomyn, I guess I missed that. I saw Kat's reference earlier today/last night instead. But I've always thought your theories had credence, so I'm not surprised.

So what do you think it might have to do with Cassidy?

I never saw the post suggesting that it might have something to do with C either, but, at this point, I don't care who is right.

My feelings have always been protective when it comes to C, and the fact that she has always been labeled as a possible witness and then just left out there.

And, then with the possible "drugging". accusation?

Kat

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 07:28 PM

Now I'm confused. LE would need a sw to get the voice enhancement results?

You're right. I'm so confused now I'm not thinking right. I do think it probably pertains to CY in some manner. That is the only reason I can think of for the long delay in returning and then sealing and wanting a further sealing of the SW.

Cardinal

12-01-2008, 07:30 PM

I never saw the post suggesting that it might have something to do with C either, but, at this point, I don't care who is right.

My feelings have always been protective when it comes to C, and the fact that she has always been labeled as a possible witness and then just left out there.

And, then with the possible "drugging". accusation?

Kat

FWIW, I'm still not sold on the "drugging" scenario. But if that beautiful child is at risk, AT ALL, someone in authority somewhere needs to deal with this situation and protect her. IMO

JHP

12-01-2008, 07:32 PM

I'm baffled at this point, JHP. Okay, I've had a tough day and my brain cells are fried. What could warrant extending the seal AFTER the judge only granted 180 days?

I agree I was hoping if the DA had requested just 18 days perhaps an indictment was coming. However I honestly don't get what the hold up is. And if one is coming in 18 days Just go ahead and do it now.

I am not at all familiar with NC laws.

Sorry about your tough day. It's probably time to put your feet up;)

JMO

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 07:33 PM

You're right. I'm so confused now I'm not thinking right. I do think it probably pertains to CY in some manner. That is the only reason I can think of for the long delay in returning and then sealing and wanting a further sealing of the SW.

Maybe her counseling sessions? I don't know. I'm just disappointed no news today.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 07:33 PM

FWIW, I'm still not sold on the "drugging" scenario. But if that beautiful child is at risk, AT ALL, someone in authority somewhere needs to deal with this situation and protect her. IMO

I could not agree more, but wait!!

Someone posted that the s/w was to be extended until 12/19, are we to think that Amanda did not know about this?

That no one from WRAL went down there today to find out about this warrant being unsealed??

I mean, this was supposed to be the big day.!!

I am not understanding this, are any of you?

Kat

Cardinal

12-01-2008, 07:37 PM

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 07:37 PM

Well, I was very hopeful that SOMETHING might be in the works when it was reported that a motion was filed to have it extended for 18 days. I was assuming that it was the DA or LE. Now it's very odd IMO that Amanda Lamb's contact have no record.

Maybe it is about Cassidy but, I would think due to her age there would be no problem keeping it sealed.

JMO

Exactly!!

But, we have never had an official link to the extension, yet.

And, according to Amanda, she does not know anything about it.

Why wouldn't one of the media sources in Raleigh just print that the s/w in the Young case that was to be unsealed today, has been postponed for 18 days??

How hard is that?

I think something has to be going on, or someone is not covering the story like they should be.

:no:

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 07:39 PM

Maybe her counseling sessions? I don't know. I'm just disappointed no news today.

But can C's counseling sessions even be released at all?

Don't they fall under the same category as Michelle's records with her therapist?

Doesn't the confidentiality clause come into effect for C as well?

Where is Alter Ego?

Kat

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 07:42 PM

But can C's counseling sessions even be released at all?

Don't they fall under the same category as Michelle's records with her therapist?

Doesn't the confidentiality clause come into effect for C as well?

Where is Alter Ego?

Kat

Yeah I guess you're right. Wasn't thinking about them being released. Long day for me too. :tongue:

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 07:44 PM

I'm not, Kat. WRAL has been all over this case from day one, and I'm having difficulty believing that they "lost track" that the SW was to be unsealed today.

But I don't have any answers, so I'm going to take JHP's advice and put my feet up. :)

I'll check back later, but if there's no news........have a good one, everyone. :seeya:

The only thing I can figure out is if you count the 180 days from
June 5th, making it to Fri. Dec 5th..counting the 6 months that way.

This makes no sense.

Rest up, Card, this could be the beginning of the end.

I hope.
I hope.
I hope.

:crossing fingers:

Kat

JHP

12-01-2008, 07:45 PM

Exactly!!

But, we have never had an official link to the extension, yet.

And, according to Amanda, she does not know anything about it.

Why wouldn't one of the media sources in Raleigh just print that the s/w in the Young case that was to be unsealed today, has been postponed for 18 days??

How hard is that?

I think something has to be going on, or someone is not covering the story like they should be.

:no:

Kat

Strange Strange very Strange.

I have always thought the media in Raleigh was a little lax in their investigative skills about this case.

JMO

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 07:48 PM

Yeah I guess you're right. Wasn't thinking about them being released. Long day for me too. :tongue:

Me too, Mondays can be rough.!!

We have waited so long for this last warrant (that we know of) to be unsealed, maybe I am completely off track...

I think Vanessa said she was up at the crack of dawn.

The fact that Amanda is even answering emails does not sound like she is real busy, though.
:(

Does it?

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 07:54 PM

Strange Strange very Strange.

I have always thought the media in Raliegh was a little lax in their investigative skills about this case.

JMO

It is strange, but maybe Leanne will report later if and when Amanda replies.

I got to check out too for awhile..bbl.

Kat

Barbara2

12-01-2008, 07:59 PM

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 08:05 PM

It's very possible that the reason they want to keep the warrant sealed is because of the information it contains rather than who it was served on. They may not want the killer to know what evidence is contained in that warrant.

That makes more sense. What is the time in NC now? I wonder how long it will take AL to get back to me given that all my other ems got an immediate response.

Barbara2

12-01-2008, 08:27 PM

That makes more sense. What is the time in NC now? I wonder how long it will take AL to get back to me given that all my other ems got an immediate response.

It's almost 8:30 p.m. in NC right now.

jerry50

12-01-2008, 08:36 PM

But can C's counseling sessions even be released at all?

Don't they fall under the same category as Michelle's records with her therapist?

Doesn't the confidentiality clause come into effect for C as well?

Where is Alter Ego?

Kat

Think about this for a moment--search warrants are used when LE is looking for evidence relating to a crime. It is the legal way to search a piece of property, home, car, etc.
When LE wants to see records, they subpoena the records which already exist and someone (phone company, therapist, banks, etc) has access to them. LE doesn't use a search warrant in these instances.

So, since we saw in the last search warrant for JY's work computer part of the probably cause was parts of emails between JY and Kim. Where did LE get this info? Doesn't it make sense that the sealed warrant relates to how LE obtained that info? It was way after the murder so it would not be contained in the search warrrants that were issued right after the murder.
My inclination is that the sealed warrant is for either JY's or Kim's computer, otherwise explain where that info came from.

annalyzer

12-01-2008, 08:50 PM

Think about this for a moment--search warrants are used when LE is looking for evidence relating to a crime. It is the legal way to search a piece of property, home, car, etc.
When LE wants to see records, they subpoena the records which already exist and someone (phone company, therapist, banks, etc) has access to them. LE doesn't use a search warrant in these instances.

So, since we saw in the last search warrant for JY's work computer part of the probably cause was parts of emails between JY and Kim. Where did LE get this info? Doesn't it make sense that the sealed warrant relates to how LE obtained that info? It was way after the murder so it would not be contained in the search warrrants that were issued right after the murder.
My inclination is that the sealed warrant is for either JY's or Kim's computer, otherwise explain where that info came from.

Then why seal it?

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 08:58 PM

It's almost 8:30 p.m. in NC right now.

Thanks Barbara. Guess I may only get a response tomorrow.

alter ego

12-01-2008, 09:01 PM

alter ego

12-01-2008, 09:08 PM

But can C's counseling sessions even be released at all?

Don't they fall under the same category as Michelle's records with her therapist?

Doesn't the confidentiality clause come into effect for C as well?

Where is Alter Ego?

KatYup, same dr-patient confidentiality would be in play.

LE took Cassidy's therapy notes in the Feb warrants.

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 09:18 PM

Yup, same dr-patient confidentiality would be in play.

LE took Cassidy's therapy notes in the Feb warrants.

The most recent search warrant says CY's medical records were obtained with court order in May, '08

alter ego

12-01-2008, 09:20 PM

Then why seal it?
"If...release of information that is a public record ...will jeopardize the right of the State to prosecute a defendant or the right of a defendant to receive a fair trial or will undermine an ongoing or future investigation, it may seek an order from a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent disclosure of the information.."

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_132.html

alter ego

12-01-2008, 09:25 PM

The most recent search warrant says CY's medical records were obtained with court order in May, '08Oh that's right.

So it's doubtful the sealed warrant from June '07 is for Cassidy's medical records - not that I would ever expect that warrant to be anything but sealed.

jerry50

12-01-2008, 09:32 PM

Then why seal it?

Kim may end up being an accessory after the fact and the DA is trying to cut a deal with her.
Also it may be sealed because of sensitive info that was listed in the probable cause. Maybe it mentions the enhanced 911 call and Cassidy saying "Daddy did it."

I would think that JY knows all about the search warrant because if it wasn't issued for him directly he has to know who it was served on.

Lindsey

12-01-2008, 09:33 PM

I waited until I caught up reading to comment.

This is the craziest thing I've heard of yet! If there is something so damning in that SW, get an indictment and make an arrest already!

What happened today to go from 'motion to extend sealing' to 'no sealed warrants in this case'? Something strange is going on, IMO.

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 09:40 PM

Oh that's right.

So it's doubtful the sealed warrant from June '07 is for Cassidy's medical records - not that I would ever expect that warrant to be anything but sealed.

If there is a search warrant that pertains to CY, it would have been served on her father. Only reason to seal it is to protect her safety from someone other than her father.

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 09:47 PM

Lindsey

12-01-2008, 09:54 PM

Is the "motion to extend" a fact or just message board rumor?

I haven't seen a link. But that's strange too IMO, not a peep out of the media about anything that was supposed to happen today.

Lindsey

12-01-2008, 10:16 PM

Leanne, Amanda is no longer working full time for WRAL and is obviously not following the details if she had no idea there was a sealed warrant outstanding.

I personally spoke to Ms Bobbitt at 9:15 am today. She pulled the file and said there was a motion filed to extend the seal until 12-19-08.
I don't think she would make up the story.;)

What about this? Did Ms Bobbitt make up a story for Amanda Lamb this afternoon? :confused:

I just got another reply from Amanda that says "Cynthia Bobbit says nothing is sealed in the case to her knowledge." This is just getting weirder and weirder, imo.

Lindsey

12-01-2008, 10:25 PM

I have no idea Lindsey, i can only stand by what Ms Bobbitt told me today.
Call her tomorrow and find out for yourself if you think I'm lying.

I didn't mean to imply I think you're lying. Nor do I think Leanne is lying. But the two things told to y'all by Ms Bobbitt today doesn't match up and I'm wondering why. I'm sure you are too?

Leanne Weich

12-01-2008, 10:51 PM

Well mine comes first hand direct .
I can't speak for AL and her apparent conversation with Ms Bobbitt.

From the speed in which AL responded to my email, I'd guess she didn't have time to speak to Ms Bobbit before replying unless she'd spoken to her earlier in the day. I don't, for one minute, think you're lying. I think AL has dropped the ball on this one personally.

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 11:14 PM

Others have pondered that same question, Jerry. The cops published an email Jason sent to Kim. How did the cops get that email? From Jason? No. From Kim? No. From a third party one of those two sent it to? Who knows? From a court-ordered 'interception'? Who knows?

My guess: from a third party.
JMO and all that jazz.

Maybe a better question is why the cops included that email in their application for a search warrant.

==Kingcole

My guess is the cops sent a subpoena to Jason's ISP and got the email off their server.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:15 PM

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 11:16 PM

The e-mail between the Young's was to show obvious consciousness of guilt...guess you missed it since you think he is innocent ;)

he missed it because there was no "obvious consciousness of guilt" in the portion of the email included in the search warrant.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:17 PM

Is the "motion to extend" a fact or just message board rumor?

Just a rumor, so far.....QQ

I haven't seen a link, and I believe Leanne's emails to Amanda to be true.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:18 PM

What about this? Did Ms Bobbitt make up a story for Amanda Lamb this afternoon? :confused:

This is very strange too, now Amanda is not on the case, since when?

Kat

Lindsey

12-01-2008, 11:23 PM

I know and I agree, but what is going on.?

:shrug:

Kat

Wish I knew. I was just reading the court order again, for sealing in the first place. How could those same conditions still be in effect today?

LINK TO COURT ORDER (http://www.wral.com/asset/news/news_briefs/2008/07/30/3305206/19508-myoung_sealed.pdf)

Link to the story that went with it. http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3305132/

alter ego

12-01-2008, 11:24 PM

A judge does not decline a decision. He makes a decision.

A judge does not decline a motion. He makes a decision.

==KingcoleCorrect. And that decision is to either deny or grant a motion.

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 11:26 PM

From the speed in which AL responded to my email, I'd guess she didn't have time to speak to Ms Bobbit before replying unless she'd spoken to her earlier in the day. I don't, for one minute, think you're lying. I think AL has dropped the ball on this one personally.

I thought the search warrant is supposed to be unsealed tomorrow?

alter ego

12-01-2008, 11:26 PM

Wish I knew. I was just reading the court order again, for sealing in the first place. How could those same conditions still be in effect today?

LINK TO COURT ORDER (http://www.wral.com/asset/news/news_briefs/2008/07/30/3305206/19508-myoung_sealed.pdf)
Absolutely the same conditions would be in effect as they are the only legal basis for asking for a seal.

Lindsey

12-01-2008, 11:30 PM

This is very strange too, now Amanda is not on the case, since when?

Kat

That was news to me too.

I'm looking for a story that ran last week (?) about the sealing of search warrants in general. I thought AL's name was on that too but not sure. Still looking.

alter ego

12-01-2008, 11:30 PM

I thought the search warrant is supposed to be unsealed tomorrow?
June 5 julian date is 157 + 180 = 337 which is the julian date for Dec 2.

So tomorrow it is.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:34 PM

Amanda Lamb works 3 days a week, see link!

http://www.wral.com/lifestyles/family/story/3634614/

Thank you, Irish..

PS.

Some people need to check PM's and emails..:cough:

Kat

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 11:34 PM

Jason uses a web based yahoo account, not a POP-3 from his ISP.
A subpoena won't get much from yahoo.com.

I seriously doubt Jason only uses yahoo email and also seriously doubt you are aware of the details.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:35 PM

June 5 julian date is 157 + 180 = 337 which is the julian date for Dec 2.

So tomorrow it is.

Okay, so which is it, Dec 2nd or Dec 19th?

I need to borrow some wite~out.

Kat

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 11:41 PM

June 5 julian date is 157 + 180 = 337 which is the julian date for Dec 2.

So tomorrow it is.

Unless it is extended tomorrow. The DA would have to prevent a pretty compelling reason to continue a seal on something that 18 months later, still hasn't resulted in an arrest.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:44 PM

Thanks, poster, for describing the sweater you don't want to see. Now I know the photo you want to see. Yep, thought so.

--Kingcole

H KC,

Some of us haven't completely bailed on you, but the last s/w and the wrongful death suit all came down hard at once.

There is still a lot I don't understand in the s/w's, like the need for showing so many cards, when only one would have won that hand easily.

:shrug:

Kat

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 11:44 PM

Too bad for you I do :lol:

Very doubtful, considering you didn't know which day the search warranted was to be unsealed. Fact is, the cops got those emails and they didn't need a search warrant, only a subpoena.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:48 PM

Sorry for the confusion, Kat. You thought Amanda Lamb was her real name? Not true.

Like some of the posters here, she goes by several names, or so I've been told. I think one is "Agent Angel". Another is super secret "Agent 051". Maybe she divides her time between the tabloid and WRAL. If so, it's not her fault if she occasionally gets the two confused in her reporting. But again, I emphasize this is just stuff I've heard. Treat it as just another of those weird board rumors.

--Kingcole

Again, Hi KC.......!!

Interesting when you read how BIG this case is supposed to be, and then when something is supposed to happen, there is no one around to even cover it..

Big case, huge, uhhhh huhhh.

Kat

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 11:49 PM

I said there was a motion to seal...not that it would be opened 12-1-08
That is your fantasy .

Fact is , you have no idea how the cops got the e-mails.

I know for fact the emails were not obtained via search warrant.

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 11:56 PM

I said there was a motion to seal...not that it would be opened 12-1-08
That is your fantasy .

Fact is , you have no idea how the cops got the e-mails.

It was Wyn's fantasy posted here earlier today. :shrug:

My confusion is because I saw you posting under the Wyn nic on another site also today.

MerriMent

12-01-2008, 11:58 PM

What about 'decline'? Is no longer an option, poster? This is what you said earlier: Originally Posted by Bud Wiser
"There was a motion filed....have not heard the judge's decision.
He may decline and we will see it later today."

Whoops. Just had an insight, poster: Sometimes one poster will post something for someone else, and this is obviously what happened here.
Is that you, Wyn? I reckon it's against board rules to use someone else's computer.

--Kingcole

I saw that, too. Very confusing.

Kat4Eagles

12-01-2008, 11:59 PM

Unless it is extended tomorrow. The DA would have to prevent a pretty compelling reason to continue a seal on something that 18 months later, still hasn't resulted in an arrest.

But, what good does 18 more days do?

They have had close to 750 days already.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:01 AM

It was Wyn's fantasy posted here earlier today. :shrug:

My confusion is because I saw you posting under the Wyn nic on another site also today.

You have to be kidding, right?

Wow.

Kat

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:02 AM

You stating that is , well :lol:

Not nearly as funny as the fact that apparently you didn't know all that's required to obtain emails is no different than obtaining phone data: a subpoena or court-ordered wire tap. :lol:

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:04 AM

You have to be kidding, right?

Wow.

Kat

Not kidding.

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:07 AM

Not on a web based yahoo account.
Why is that so hard for you to understand :shrug:

fyi: yahoo has servers.

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:12 AM

Yep...and a SW is needed to access. ;)

No, only a subpoena is needed and the data is turned over to LE by the provider. LE do not directly access the servers and retrieve the data themselves.

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:14 AM

But, why would someone use someone else's computer and then forget who and where they are?

Kat

sounds like a lame excuse when busted, doesn't it?

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 12:23 AM

So, it's been decided that tomorrow 12-02-08 is 180 days from June 5? ok

What about the answer to the WD suit? Was it due today or was that a mistake too?

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:26 AM

So, it's been decided that tomorrow 12-02-08 is 180 days from June 5? ok

What about the answer to the WD suit? Was it due today or was that a mistake too?

I don't know,Lin, but I asked someone earlier about the 180 days, and it

could legally mean exactly 6 months from the date issued, so I am

thinking Fri.. the 5th for the s/w. ( June 5-Dec 5)

Unless there is an extension, for which I have seen no offer of proof.

:shrug:

Nite!!
Kat

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:26 AM

You are wrong.

why are you so desperate to believe a search warrant is required to obtain data from an ISP?

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:29 AM

So, it's been decided that tomorrow 12-02-08 is 180 days from June 5? ok

What about the answer to the WD suit? Was it due today or was that a mistake too?

The way I read it, the search warrant was sealed for 180 days, beginning June 5. Today is 180, therefore the seal is lifted on 181, tomorrow.

I don't recall what day the WD suit was served on JY

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 12:31 AM

I don't know,Lin, but I asked someone earlier about the 180 days, and it

could legally mean exactly 6 months from the date issued, so I am

thinking Fri.. the 5th for the s/w. ( June 5-Dec 5)

Unless there is an extension, for which I have seen no offer of proof.

:shrug:

Nite!!
Kat

Maybe we'll get news tomorrow. Surely not gonna hear anything new tonight.

'nite

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:32 AM

The way I read it, the search warrant was sealed for 180 days, beginning June 5. Today is 180, therefore the seal is lifted on 181, tomorrow.

I don't recall what day the WD suit was served on JY

It was right near Halloween, the 30th.

Jason was in PR.

Kat

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 12:32 AM

I thought it was you that gave us the dates :confused:
30 days from the service date .....Sunday, 11-30-08

Nope, wasn't I.

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:33 AM

I don't know,Lin, but I asked someone earlier about the 180 days, and it

could legally mean exactly 6 months from the date issued, so I am

thinking Fri.. the 5th for the s/w. ( June 5-Dec 5)

Unless there is an extension, for which I have seen no offer of proof.

:shrug:

Nite!!
Kat

I'm pretty sure it means, literally, 180 days from the date issued. Not all months have 30 days.

I think there is a good chance an extension will be asked and granted.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:35 AM

Nope, wasn't I.

Nor me.

:)

Kat

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:36 AM

Because I just read a SW executed in NC on a web based e-mail account.
Why are you so desperate to argue all night ?

Where is this search warrant? I'd like to read it.

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:37 AM

It was right near Halloween, the 30th.

Jason was in PR.

Kat

His attorney may have filed for an extension.

Leanne Weich

12-02-2008, 12:37 AM

I'm pretty sure it means, literally, 180 days from the date issued. Not all months have 30 days.

I think there is a good chance an extension will be asked and granted.

In America would the 180 days be exactly that or 180 Court days. Here, we don't count weekends.

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 12:40 AM

In America would the 180 days be exactly that or 180 Court days. Here, we don't count weekends.

180 days exactly. Makes it easier to keep track that way.

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 11:21 AM

She just replied as follows: "Leanne-warrant release 9am Friday."

Oh well guess we can wait til Friday. What's four more days? :shrug:

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 11:23 AM

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 11:37 AM

Sounds like she needs to be replaced. She can't keep cases straight and told AL there wasn't any sealed warrants.

This is wrong, someone posts there is an extension without any kind of link or proof, then is wrong about it, and does not offer either a retraction or apology?

Isn't this exactly what happened with C's trust fund and the charges that were supposedly going to be filed?

I think there should be more responsibilty taken when posting things as fact, like maybe getting confirmation or double checking their sources.

This info , once again, turned out to be not credible.

:no:

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 11:39 AM

Jason didn't respond to the WD suit.

Slain mom's husband fails to respond to wrongful death lawsuit

Posted: Today at 10:16 a.m.
Updated: 16 minutes ago

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4061834/

ETA: Reporter: Amanda Lamb

Lin,
You scooped it, good for you!!

And, you have a real credible link!!

So, Jason defaulted!!

Wow.

Kat

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 11:42 AM

So now what happens?

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 11:43 AM

So, what does this mean?

Does this mean he is giving up all rights to Michelle's estate?

What happens next?

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 11:44 AM

So now what happens?

That's what I want to know, GMTA.

:)
Kat

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 11:47 AM

Lin,
You scooped it, good for you!!

And, you have a real credible link!!

So, Jason defaulted!!

Wow.

Kat

Did you notice the reporter on this story is Amanda Lamb? Sounds to me like she's still on the case.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 11:50 AM

Did you notice the reporter on this story is Amanda Lamb? Sounds to me like she's still on the case.

Yep, I saw that!!

Now what. though?

Bu defaulting, it means Jason does not have to answer any questions in the civil suit, he is basically giving it up.

But, that doesn't necessarily mean guilt, just that he has no desire to collect any money..

But, it does not look good.

Kat

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 11:52 AM

So now what happens?

Good question. This is a strange case so who knows what surprises lie in store. Maybe Jason's attorney will make a statement later today? Or maybe not.

IMO

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 11:54 AM

Yep, I saw that!!

Now what. though?

Bu defaulting, it means Jason does not have to answer any questions in the civil suit, he is basically giving it up.

But, that doesn't necessarily mean guilt, just that he has no desire to collect any money..

But, it does not look good.

Kat

I really expected there would be some kind of answer so I don't know what to make of this. Maybe it will make sense later? I dunno.

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 11:56 AM

Color me a bit shocked. I thought he would at least deny, deny, deny.

In the wishful thinking part of my brain, I am hoping that this means he finally realized his days were getting numbered and will turn himself in and give a confession. However, I am pretty sure my wishful thinking part of my brain isn't anywhere near synchronized with Jason's brain.

That was my first thought, that he was going to give it up and confess.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 11:57 AM

Good question. This is a strange case so who knows what surprises lie in store. Maybe Jason's attorney will make a statement later today? Or maybe not.

IMO

What can he say though?

"My client refuses to address the civil suit at this time, as there is still

an active criminal investigation going on.

No one has been charged in the death of Michelle Young."

This is why it is so weird, that the civil suit came first, I am curious to

hear from someone with real legal expertise in this.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:02 PM

I really expected there would be some kind of answer so I don't know what to make of this. Maybe it will make sense later? I dunno.

Well, first of all, Jason has to file the advice of his attorney.

So, I would think this was a mutual decision on their part.

I am guessing it is more like this..

There is not enough evidence at this point to arrest him, so he is conceding the wrongful death suit, kinda like who cares?

And, therefore not giving them anything more to work with.

Kat

ETA.
************************************************** *

Maybe they were all hoping for the last s/w to be revealed first, and then address this, but it didn't happen that way!
Hmmm.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:09 PM

That was my first thought, that he was going to give it up and confess.

Nahh, I doubt it.

He has kept quiet this long, and it is only now because of this civil suit, he has been forced to respond by not responding!!

No, he is going to sit back and make them prove their case.

His chances are still good, if there has not been an arrest in all this time.

I guess, that is how he is thinking.

Kinda like
"You think I killed Michelle?, ok, then prove it."

:shrug:

Kat

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 12:19 PM

Nahh, I doubt it.

He has kept quiet this long, and it is only now because of this civil suit, he has been forced to respond by not responding!!

No, he is going to sit back and make them prove their case.

His chances are still good, if there has not been an arrest in all this time.

I guess, that is how he is thinking.

Kinda like
"You think I killed Michelle?, ok, then prove it."

:shrug:

Kat

I probably shouldn't even address this since I know nothing about WD lawsuits but I thought in any civil action, if you don't file a response, the other party automatically wins without having to prove anything.

I stand to be corrected.

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 12:24 PM

Nahh, I doubt it.

He has kept quiet this long, and it is only now because of this civil suit, he has been forced to respond by not responding!!

No, he is going to sit back and make them prove their case.

His chances are still good, if there has not been an arrest in all this time.

I guess, that is how he is thinking.

Kinda like
"You think I killed Michelle?, ok, then prove it."

:shrug:

Kat

This non response to the suit will definitely hurt him if he ever does go to trial. imo

alter ego

12-02-2008, 12:28 PM

So now what happens?I believe a court has to affirm the default.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/document/4062450/

alter ego

12-02-2008, 12:29 PM

This non response to the suit will definitely hurt him if he ever does go to trial. imoNot really.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:31 PM

I probably shouldn't even address this since I know nothing about WD lawsuits but I thought in any civil action, if you don't file a response, the other party automatically wins without having to prove anything.

I stand to be corrected.

I am still waiting for someone to tell us.

I am not sure if you are wrong, Lin.

I am not even sure if the words default or concede are the correct legal terms either.

He could just be ignoring the suit, for all I know.

On advice from counsel.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:33 PM

I believe a court has to affirm the default.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/document/4062450/

Thank you, AE!!

So, there could have been an answer, a motion, or an extension.

Yet, they failed to do any of the three.

Hmmm.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:37 PM

I believe a court has to affirm the default.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/document/4062450/

So, it is called an entry of default.

And, that is the official document from today, already made public!!

You are so good at this.

Thank you.

Kat

alter ego

12-02-2008, 12:38 PM

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6534474

"Legal experts tell Eyewitness News that Jason Young's failure to respond to the civil lawsuit means the court may be able to consider the allegations in that suit as fact."
Right, the civil court.

What ABC News fails to report is that the defendant can file a motion to set aside the default.

jerry50

12-02-2008, 12:38 PM

I probably shouldn't even address this since I know nothing about WD lawsuits but I thought in any civil action, if you don't file a response, the other party automatically wins without having to prove anything.

I stand to be corrected.

I believe that you are correct. And for him not even to file a legal response to the court is mystifying. A lawyer cannot knowingly allow his client to commit perjury so maybe that is part of it also.
Whatever the case, this is a legal proceeding with the legal repercussion that an unanswered suit is a admisson of guilt. His silence speaks volumes.

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 12:40 PM

Not really.

Likely would if I was on the jury.

alter ego

12-02-2008, 12:40 PM

Thank you, AE!!

So, there could have been an answer, a motion, or an extension.

Yet, they failed to do any of the three.

Hmmm.

KatMotion to set aside, that is if they do anything.

Sure would like to know what was said in court this morning.

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 12:41 PM

I believe that you are correct. And for him not even to file a legal response to the court is mystifying. A lawyer cannot knowingly allow his client to commit perjury so maybe that is part of it also.
Whatever the case, this is a legal proceeding with the legal repercussion that an unanswered suit is a admisson of guilt. His silence speaks volumes.

Always has.

alter ego

12-02-2008, 12:41 PM

Likely would if I was on the jury.Not if it isn't allowed in as evidence.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:43 PM

Right, the civil court.

What ABC News fails to report is that the defendant can file a motion to set aside the default.

What exactly does that mean?

Is it, in essence, like taking the 5th, and not having it held against you?

Can the civil response, or lack of, be used against you in a criminal court?

Thank you.

Kat

( I am so glad you are here)

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:44 PM

Motion to set aside, that is if they do anything.

Sure would like to know what was said in court this morning.

Me too.

:biggrin:

Kat

alter ego

12-02-2008, 12:45 PM

Even so, he is basically admitting he murdered Michelle.According to the plaintiffs. I would like to hear the reason for the failure to respond from his atty.

And if the default judgement is set aside, then pleadings can go forward.

alter ego

12-02-2008, 12:46 PM

What exactly does that mean?

Is it, in essence, like taking the 5th, and not having it held against you?

Can the civil response, or lack of, be used against you in a criminal court?

Thank you.

Kat

( I am so glad you are here)
It means they ask a judge to reverse the default judgement which would make it a 'live' tort case with the defendant basically granted permission to respond past the deadline.

Not that I have ever seen. Still researching.

I'm heading out for lunch and errands, will be back later.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 12:47 PM

Even so, he is basically admitting he murdered Michelle.

Jason is not talking or admitting anything, not even through his attorney.

Does silence = guilt?

Kat

freejason

12-02-2008, 12:57 PM

What can he say though?

"My client refuses to address the civil suit at this time, as there is still

an active criminal investigation going on.

No one has been charged in the death of Michelle Young."

This is why it is so weird, that the civil suit came first, I am curious to

hear from someone with real legal expertise in this.

Kat

The statute of limitations was going to expire - LF had to file by November 2, 2008, regardless of the criminal case or she would use that tool to pressure Jason.

Also - the lawsuit was not just trying to get the rights to the life ins., etc....it's also to get additional money from JY to cover funeral, etc.......he not only will not get any money - he will have to pay, as well.....it will all go towards CY.

This is very interesting.......I'm surprised.

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 01:03 PM

Not if it isn't allowed in as evidence.

True. ....

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 01:12 PM

The statute of limitations was going to expire - LF had to file by November 2, 2008, regardless of the criminal case or she would use that tool to pressure Jason.

Also - the lawsuit was not just trying to get the rights to the life ins., etc....it's also to get additional money from JY to cover funeral, etc.......he not only will not get any money - he will have to pay, as well.....it will all go towards CY.

This is very interesting.......I'm surprised.

Thanks, Free.

I knew the statutes of limitations were just about ready to run out, and that the suit had to be filed.

I guess we are all a little surprised, at the non~response.

But,that is what you pay lawyers for.

Kat

Barbara2

12-02-2008, 01:15 PM

Perhaps this opens the way for a request to remove the child from Jason's custody since he has admitted guilt by default. IMO

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 01:18 PM

Linda Fisher's attorneys are surprised too. Updated 11 minutes ago.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4061834/

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 01:28 PM

1)Answer.

What could he say, not guilty?

2)Motion.

To what? Dismiss, on what grounds?

3)Extension.

For how long?
And, what good would that do?

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 01:31 PM

Yes, his silence has always spoken volumes. How foolish to not respond when he could have at least asked for an extension. No judge is going to view his lack of response very kindly. A bigger question here would be is Roger Smith still Jason's attorney?

Jason's bud came out of the woodwork last night to insult and find out info on the sealed warrant. Too bad he isn't able to answer any questions since he has proclaimed himself so close to Jason. KC, we know you read here, why don't you mosey on over to the Young's house and find out what exactly is going on? :tongue:

It says in the article, that Smith is still JY's attorney.

:shrug:

Kat

Barbara2

12-02-2008, 01:34 PM

It says in the article, that Smith is still JY's attorney.

:shrug:

Kat

How would the reporter know that?

:shrug:

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 01:36 PM

How would the reporter know that?

:shrug:

He showed up at court for him this morning?

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 01:38 PM

1)Answer.

What could he say, not guilty?

2)Motion.

To what? Dismiss, on what grounds?

3)Extension.

For how long?
And, what good would that do?

Kat

Number one ~ why not if he's not guilty?

BSNBREVARDNC

12-02-2008, 01:39 PM

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 01:42 PM

How would the reporter know that?

:shrug:

Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe the fact he was in court this am to file the default motion.

:read:

Kat

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 01:42 PM

Did he? This morning? :shrug:

I dunno. I just read that he had no comment or something. Didn't I? :shrug:

Barbara2

12-02-2008, 01:44 PM

Oh, gee, I don't know, maybe the fact he was in court this am to file the default motion.

:read:

Kat

I would be happy to read it, but you forgot to supply the link. :no:

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 01:48 PM

I would be happy to read it, but you forgot to supply the link. :no:

Lin did it for me, I guess you didn't :read: it

Hope this helps though!

Kat

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 01:49 PM

So was Jason's attorney in court this morning on another matter that has nothing to do with this?

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 01:51 PM

I dunno. I just read that he had no comment or something. Didn't I? :shrug:

Yep, it says, and I quote:

"Jason Young's attorney, Roger Smith, was in court Tues. morning, and not immediately available for comment."

I am not understanding why no one questioned a link for yesterday's extension, but Lin posted a link to this today, and we all just forgot to
:read: it?

:shrug:

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 01:52 PM

So was Jason's attorney in court this morning on another matter that has nothing to do with this?

"NEWS"

There is now new video with Amanda Lamb at WRAL
She also spoke with LF since the default.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 01:54 PM

"NEWS"

There is now new video with Amanda Lamb at WRAL
She also spoke with LF since the default.

Kat

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4061834/

Link to story and video.

Barbara2

12-02-2008, 01:57 PM

Yep, it says, and I quote:

"Jason Young's attorney, Roger Smith, was in court Tues. morning, and not immediately available for comment."

I am not understanding why no one questioned a link for yesterday's extension, but Lin posted a link to this today, and we all just forgot to
:read: it?

:shrug:

Kat

It doesn't say anything about Mr. Smith being in court as a representative of Jason Young. I thought perhaps you had read something in another article that gave that information. I'm guessing that there is none.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 01:57 PM

Linda's attorney's would have filed the default motion. Why exactly would you think, if Roger Smith is Jason's attorney, he would have filed a default motion against his client? :)

I did post that wrong, sorry.

Kat

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 01:59 PM

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4061834/

Link to story and video.

Thanks Kat. I wonder if LF could've also asked for custody of the child in that suit?

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 01:59 PM

It doesn't say anything about Mr. Smith being in court as a representative of Jason Young. I thought perhaps you had read something in another article that gave that information. I'm guessing that there is none.

Yep, it is just a big coincidence that Roger was there when this entry of default came into play.

:biggrin:

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 02:03 PM

Thanks Kat. I wonder if LF could've also asked for custody of the child in that suit?

I don't think so, these are 2 completely different issues.

BUT, she could have gone after C from the very beginning, if she believed Jason murdered Michelle, instead of letting C live with what she thinks is a coldblooded killer.

This is what upsets me the most.

Let a child live with a "murderer" for 2 years,and do nothing, but lets go file for some money, before the 2 year old stat runs out.

Unreal.

:(
Kat

Barbara2

12-02-2008, 02:03 PM

Yep, it is just a big coincidence that Roger was there when this entry of default came into play.

Kat

I'm sure that Jason Young is not his only client.

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 02:04 PM

Yep, it is just a big coincidence that Roger was there when this entry of default came into play.

:biggrin:

Kat

I think they just said that he was in court and not available for comment. Not what court or why he was in court.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 02:04 PM

Probably. Do you think he just showed up to watch Michaels & Michaels file the paper work? What would be the point? He didn't assist Jason in a reponse to the WD Suit, but you think he'd show up for this? :biggrin:

Hope that helps.

Basically Jason has admitted guilt. WOW.

Wow, is right.

It was my first comment too, hours ago.

:rolleyes:

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 02:06 PM

I think they just said that he was in court and not available for comment. Not what court or why he was in court.

Well, I guess we just have to wait for Mr Smith to respond to the non~responsive issue, or else file a motion against him too.!!

:)
Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 02:10 PM

Yes, I know. :lol: :lol:

A comment on the N&O site says that Jason has moved to Heather's. Gee, hope KC comes back with his fountain of knowledge on this case and enlightens us with his "wisdom" on why he thinks that may have occurred.

Link?

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 02:22 PM

I can't understand why JY, being such a proud product of the mountains, will not stand up and defend himself? He has been accused of a heinous crime, yet he has no compulsion to defend the family name?

If JY lets this civil suit proceed without being contested, the court will accept the allegations as fact. This can't be a positive aspect for any future proceedings.

I am not understanding the comment of being from the mountains or what that has to do with this murder...:shrug:

People in the mountains are better than those from big cities?

Can you explain?

Kat

Barbara2

12-02-2008, 02:22 PM

Link?

Kat

It's a comment from someone in the comments section of the online site of the paper. I don't think we are supposed to bring comments from other boards here. It was also posted in the comments section of the article at the wral site.

jerry50

12-02-2008, 02:23 PM

BSNBREVARDNC

12-02-2008, 02:36 PM

I am not understanding the comment of being from the mountains or what that has to do with this murder...:shrug:

People in the mountains are better than those from big cities?

Can you explain?

Kat

According to some....(OK, just one) Mountain folk are cut from a stronger piece of pine and have a higher set of morals. Maybe someone...(or just that one)...can help us understand the discrepancy in the advert when compared to the actual product.

I'm not demeaning my neighbors at large by any means. I'm just questioning the one that didn't stand up and the one that excuses him for not having the character that he seems to hold in such high esteem.

And yes, you are right Kat. Mountain folk are no better or worse than others. They put their pants on one leg at a time....unless it's one of those skirts made from an old pair of jeans. Then I guess you could do two legs at a time, but are they still pants or are they a skirt. So many questions and so little time.

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 02:37 PM

I can't understand why JY, being such a proud product of the mountains, will not stand up and defend himself? He has been accused of a heinous crime, yet he has no compulsion to defend the family name?

If JY lets this civil suit proceed without being contested, the court will accept the allegations as fact. This can't be a positive aspect for any future proceedings.

No response to something that has no merit. Brilliant strategy on the part of Jason's attorney. I applaud it.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 02:41 PM

It's a comment from someone in the comments section of the online site of the paper. I don't think we are supposed to bring comments from other boards here. It was also posted in the comments section of the article at the wral site.

So, then it is not a fact that Jason moved back to Heather's,
okay, got it, it was just a comment!!

No link to a comment, and an unsubstantiated comment/rumor at that...

:shrug:

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 02:43 PM

According to some....(OK, just one) Mountain folk are cut from a stronger piece of pine and have a higher set of morals. Maybe someone...(or just that one)...can help us understand the discrepancy in the advert when compared to the actual product.

I'm not demeaning my neighbors at large by any means. I'm just questioning the one that didn't stand up and the one that excuses him for not having the character that he seems to hold in such high esteem.

And yes, you are right Kat. Mountain folk are no better or worse than others. They put their pants on one leg at a time....unless it's one of those skirts made from an old pair of jeans. Then I guess you could do two legs at a time, but are they still pants or are they a skirt. So many questions and so little time.

I wasn't picking on you, just your choice of words about mountain men having better morals or being held to higher standards.

:)
Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 02:45 PM

No response to something that has no merit. Brilliant strategy on the part of Jason's attorney. I applaud it.

and, I would too, if you could elaborate?

Kat

jerry50

12-02-2008, 02:50 PM

I wonder why he left his mommy's house.

Maybe she started to wear pants and he couldn't hide under her skirts anymore.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 02:52 PM

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 02:55 PM

Maybe she started to wear pants and he couldn't hide under her skirts anymore.

But, we don't know if this is true.

:no:

Kat

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 03:13 PM

and, I would too, if you could elaborate?

Kat

For a plaintiff to receive a default judgment, evidence must be presented to the court to persuade a judge the defendant is 100% responsible.

jerry50

12-02-2008, 03:22 PM

I wish Jason's lawyer would make a comment.

Last nite, regarding the Plaxico Burress incident, Plax's agent came
forward and put such a spin on what happened,
that you almost felt sorry for Plax.

Jason needs his attorney to publicly come out and express his belief in his client and the sorrow Jason feels over losing Michelle, if he is innocent.

We know that Jason is not going to do this, and I think that is one of the reasons he looks so bad.

Kat

Doesn't the Smith firm also represent Nancy Cooper's family? The lawyers came out in defense of Nancy and her family and said some derogatory statements about BC. It is extremely possible that the law firm either knows JY is guilty or strongly suspects he is and they cannot come forward and state he is innocent.

BSNBREVARDNC

12-02-2008, 03:30 PM

No response to something that has no merit. Brilliant strategy on the part of Jason's attorney. I applaud it.

I don't know if it reaches the level of being brilliant? I kinda expected it. After all, Cooper answered a civil suit, was disposed, and went to the slammer. That was the Smith law firm on behalf of the victim's family. They know how it works and know that he can never be disposed or it will result in slammer-time.

I just wonder how much he is willing to give up?

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 03:37 PM

Doesn't the Smith firm also represent Nancy Cooper's family? The lawyers came out in defense of Nancy and her family and said some derogatory statements about BC. It is extremely possible that the law firm either knows JY is guilty or strongly suspects he is and they cannot come forward and state he is innocent.

Making derogatory statements about Linda Fisher would serve no purpose, would it?

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 03:40 PM

I don't know if it reaches the level of being brilliant? I kinda expected it. After all, Cooper answered a civil suit, was disposed, and went to the slammer. That was the Smith law firm on behalf of the victim's family. They know how it works and know that he can never be disposed or it will result in slammer-time.

I just wonder how much he is willing to give up?

LE needs a deposition in order to make an arrest? That's pretty pathetic, imo.

jerry50

12-02-2008, 03:55 PM

Making derogatory statements about Linda Fisher would serve no purpose, would it?

What does stating that their client is innocent of the charges have to do with being derogatory to Linda Fisher?

BSNBREVARDNC

12-02-2008, 04:06 PM

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 04:07 PM

What does stating that their client is innocent of the charges have to do with being derogatory to Linda Fisher?

their client, Jason Young, hasn't been charged.

You said the law firm made derogatory statements about their client's opponent and Linda Fisher is their client's opponent. Evidently this esteemed law firm believes her "charges" aren't deserving of public comment.

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 04:09 PM

Aren't attorneys barred from making false statements when they know their clients are guilty?

I thought that is why they usually try and avoid asking clients about their actual involvement in a crime.

But I could be wrong.....stranger things have happened.:shrug:

Attorneys can say publicly whatever they want but usually don't say anything until their client is actually charged with a crime.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 04:19 PM

For a plaintiff to receive a default judgment, evidence must be presented to the court to persuade a judge the defendant is 100% responsible.

So, by LF asking the courts to name Jason the slayer, she is asking for higher proof than can be given?

Right now, at this time?

Sorry, I am a little confused about this.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 04:20 PM

Doesn't the Smith firm also represent Nancy Cooper's family? The lawyers came out in defense of Nancy and her family and said some derogatory statements about BC. It is extremely possible that the law firm either knows JY is guilty or strongly suspects he is and they cannot come forward and state he is innocent.

Yes, I think you are right, I don't think we have ever heard or read a statement from Smith, unless it happened before I started posting here, have we?

Kat

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 04:24 PM

So, by LF asking the courts to name Jason the slayer, she is asking for higher proof than can be given?

Right now, at this time?

Sorry, I am a little confused about this.

Kat

Linda has to provide the court with proof Jason is responsible.

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 04:25 PM

Yes, I think you are right, I don't think we have ever heard or read a statement from Smith, unless it happened before I started posting here, have we?

Kat

no.........

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 04:25 PM

Attorneys can say publicly whatever they want but usually don't say anything until their client is actually charged with a crime.

K, I got it.(finally)

So, Jason's attorney is actually following the same rules he gave Jason, not to speak.

I wonder what Smith thought when he saw the emails between Kim and Jason discussing the case although nothing incriminating was exchanged.

And, basically, if you think about it, this is what Jason told Kim, that Smith was not a glory lawyer........

And, so it continues......................................

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 04:26 PM

Linda has to provide the court with proof Jason is responsible.

Gotcha..!!

Thank you.

:)
Kat

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 04:28 PM

K, I got it.(finally)

So, Jason's attorney is actually following the same rules he gave Jason, not to speak.

I wonder what Smith thought when he saw the emails between Kim and Jason discussing the case although nothing incriminating was exchanged.

And, basically, if you think about it, this is what Jason told Kim, that Smith was not a glory lawyer........

And, so it continues......................................

Kat

Smith was probably pleased to see the emails. Jason and Kim weren't discussing the murder, they were discussing Jason and his attorney's silence as well as Jason's commitment to follow his attorney's advice.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 04:38 PM

Linda has to provide the court with proof Jason is responsible.

According to the video link I provided, Amanda says LF is seeking 3 things.

1) Jason to be charged under the slayer statute law to prevent him from collecting any money
2)Damages to be paid for the loss of Michelle's life
and
3)Resolution

But, still no mention of custody or visitation with C.......

:shrug:

Kat

MerriMent

12-02-2008, 05:18 PM

According to the video link I provided, Amanda says LF is seeking 3 things.

1) Jason to be charged under the slayer statute law to prevent him from collecting any money
2)Damages to be paid for the loss of Michelle's life
and
3)Resolution

But, still no mention of custody or visitation with C.......

:shrug:

Kat

What Linda wants is a default judgment and it isn't going to happen without proof Jason is 100% responsible. The burden is on the plaintiff.

Linda has no legal standing to request custody. Jason's parental rights are intact.

BSNBREVARDNC

12-02-2008, 05:28 PM

K, I got it.(finally)

So, Jason's attorney is actually following the same rules he gave Jason, not to speak.

I wonder what Smith thought when he saw the emails between Kim and Jason discussing the case although nothing incriminating was exchanged.

And, basically, if you think about it, this is what Jason told Kim, that Smith was not a glory lawyer........

And, so it continues......................................

Kat

Even so, I'm sure the attorney was a little miffed that he was discussing the case at all.

alter ego

12-02-2008, 06:05 PM

Barbara2

12-02-2008, 06:14 PM

I don't see it as admitting guilt. Hes is just saying bring it on. LF has to prove to a judge that he did kill his wife. It does say to me that if he killed his wife is wasn't for money.

Not responding to the civil suit is the legal equivalent of conceding all the allegations. He's saying in effect that he has no defense against the charges made so he is guilty by default. IMO

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 06:15 PM

I don't see it as admitting guilt. Hes is just saying bring it on. LF has to prove to a judge that he did kill his wife. It does say to me that if he killed his wife is wasn't for money.

Yeah, that is true, I guess.

I never thought money was a motive anyway.

Kat

Cardinal

12-02-2008, 06:15 PM

What Linda wants is a default judgment and it isn't going to happen without proof Jason is 100% responsible. The burden is on the plaintiff.

Linda has no legal standing to request custody. Jason's parental rights are intact.

I think a default judgment is what Linda got today.

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 06:18 PM

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 06:18 PM

Not responding to the civil suit is the legal equivalent of conceding all the allegations. He's saying in effect that he has no defense against the charges made so he is guilty by default. IMO

We really don't know what Jason's defense is, they may be saving that for the criminal trial where it will count the most.

Kat

Lindsey

12-02-2008, 06:19 PM

I think a default judgment is what Linda got today.

I thought so too but this is from the link I posted above.

A judge will be asked to rule on the two issues in the coming weeks. If Jason Young is declared his wife's killer, under law, he would not be allowed to collect insurance benefits.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 06:23 PM

The story was updated again 4 minutes ago.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4061834/

It also answers a question here earlier today if Roger Smith Jr. is still Jason's attorney.

His attorney, Roger Smith Jr., declined to comment.

Thank you for the update, I see that it says the Judge will rule on these 2 issues in the upcoming weeks.

(slayer statue and damages)

It also says the DA and sheriff decline comments.

And, that it would have been very expensive for Jason to have fought this.

Kat

Barbara2

12-02-2008, 06:23 PM

We really don't know what Jason's defense is, they may be saving that for the criminal trial where it will count the most.

Kat

That very well could be. It seems that he has conceded that there will be a criminal trial. It seems that he is expecting to have to fight for his life. If not, he could have at the very least answered the civil suit with a simple "deny". He doesn't have to give up any secret information to do that. It doesn't make sense that an innocent man wouldn't at least file the denials. I can see why a guilty man might let it go. The civil suit is the LEAST of a guilty man's worries. IMO

Cardinal

12-02-2008, 06:25 PM

I thought so too but this is from the link I posted above.

A judge will be asked to rule on the two issues in the coming weeks. If Jason Young is declared his wife's killer, under law, he would not be allowed to collect insurance benefits.

I read the article after I posted, but it also says "In layman's terms, it allows us to get a default judgment against Jason Young," said Raleigh attorney Paul Michaels...."

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 06:25 PM

Howdy, Confused. I don't mind them chewing on me.
But it does perturb me to see some posters more
interested in insulting a victim's family than in
commenting on the case. That ought to be stopped. Mrs.
Young has done nothing to deserve their insults.

I reckon it won't be. That's okay. Mountain folk are
like oak, locust, hickory. When the wind of the blowhards
comes through, we bend but do not break. We can wait
for our turn. In the meantime, ignore the blowhards.

--Kingcole

You are always welcome here, KC..
It is good to hear from you and the fact that you remain positive..
I am one of the ones who will wait to hear your turn..

Kat

Cardinal

12-02-2008, 06:29 PM

You are always welcome here, KC..
It is good to hear from you and the fact that you remain positive..
I am one of the ones who will wait to hear your turn..

Kat

His turn? What does "KC" have to do with Michelle's murder?

alter ego

12-02-2008, 06:30 PM

I think a default judgment is what Linda got today.No judgement has been made, just an entry.

Cardinal

12-02-2008, 06:31 PM

No judgement has been made, just an entry.

Okay, I can understand that distinction. But what will be different when it's in the judge's hands? Is Jason going to respond then?

Barbara2

12-02-2008, 06:32 PM

So that's what he's saying? Think again.

Well, as Linda's lawyer pointed out, a defense against Linda's
foolish (my word) action would be expensive. That lawyer has money
on his mind.

I reckon I would save my
money to use in providing for my daughter.
Linda has no child to provide for....only an older daughter.
She can feed the lawyers.

--Kingcole

What would it have cost for him to turn in a piece of paper with his denials?

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 06:34 PM

That very well could be. It seems that he has conceded that there will be a criminal trial. It seems that he is expecting to have to fight for his life. If not, he could have at the very least answered the civil suit with a simple "deny". He doesn't have to give up any secret information to do that. It doesn't make sense that an innocent man wouldn't at least file the denials. I can see why a guilty man might let it go. The civil suit is the LEAST of a guilty man's worries. IMO

If he has guilty, he has had over 2 years to prepare for this.

There should not be a single question that he can not answer.

But, the fact that he has not, can work either way.

He is also conceding any claims to the insurance money , or any other financial gain from this case..

Jason has no employment, so they can not attach his wages, he sold his home, maybe he is pulling a OJ and selling everything and putting it in C's name.
:shrug:

Kat

Cardinal

12-02-2008, 06:34 PM

What would it have cost for him to turn in a piece of paper with his denials?

A filing fee.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 06:36 PM

His turn? What does "KC" have to do with Michelle's murder?

I would think he is still speaking for Jason and the Young family.

Kat

Cardinal

12-02-2008, 06:36 PM

If he has guilty, he has had over 2 years to prepare for this.

There should not be a single question that he can not answer.

But, the fact that he has not, can work either way.

He is also conceding any claims to the insurance money , or any other financial gain from this case..

Jason has no employment, so they can not attach his wages, he sold his home, maybe he is pulling a OJ and selling everything and putting it in C's name.
:shrug:

Kat

You're right, Kat, there shouldn't be a single question he couldn't answer. So it really astounds me that he didn't even bother to file a pro forma denial.

JMO

alter ego

12-02-2008, 06:36 PM

Thank you for the update, I see that it says the Judge will rule on these 2 issues in the upcoming weeks.

(slayer statue and damages)

It also says the DA and sheriff decline comments.

And, that it would have been very expensive for Jason to have fought this.

KatDunno why Linda's atty is commenting on costs to defend a civil suit that he filed. :confused:

annalyzer

12-02-2008, 06:37 PM

A filing fee.

What was that guy talking about in the video, about not knowing what kind of finances Jason has/whether he could afford it or whatever?

Cardinal

12-02-2008, 06:37 PM

I would think he is still speaking for Jason and the Young family.

Kat

I'm sorry; I don't believe that.

alter ego

12-02-2008, 06:37 PM

You're right, Kat, there shouldn't be a single question he couldn't answer. So it really astounds me that he didn't even bother to file a pro forma denial.

JMOIt was Jason's atty that didn't get the filing done. Jason is not representing himself :shrug:

alter ego

12-02-2008, 06:39 PM

A filing fee.And atty fees.

Cardinal

12-02-2008, 06:39 PM

What was that guy talking about in the video, about not knowing what kind of finances Jason has/whether he could afford it or whatever?

My guess is he was talking about the expense of a trial. But it would only have cost a nominal fee to file a response of denial.

Barbara2

12-02-2008, 06:40 PM

A filing fee.

Exactly. And then he might have been in a position to file a counter suit to recover any monies if he did have to pay fees to defend himself (if innocnet). I don't see this lack of response being in the best interest of JY (if innocent). If Roger Smith really is still his lawyer, he should be fired. I sure wouldn't be hiring him if I were in a position to need a good lawyer. Of course if Jason is guilty, it was the only move to make. IMO

Cardinal

12-02-2008, 06:41 PM

It was Jason's atty that didn't get the filing done. Jason is not representing himself :shrug:

Do you think Roger Smith so incompetent an attorney that he failed to file a response? If that's the case, Jason should definitely consider new representation. IMO

Cardinal

12-02-2008, 06:43 PM

Exactly. And then he might have been in a position to file a counter suit to recover any monies if he did have to pay fees to defend himself (if innocnet). I don't see this lack of response being in the best interest of JY (if innocent). If Roger Smith really is still his lawyer, he should be fired. I sure wouldn't be hiring him if I were in a position to need a good lawyer. Of course if Jason is guilty, it was the only move to make. IMO

I agree. Of all the alternatives I considered, not filing a response at all wasn't one of them.

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 06:43 PM

What was that guy talking about in the video, about not knowing what kind of finances Jason has/whether he could afford it or whatever?

Lol, that guy was LF's lawyer , saying he did not know if Jason could afford to see this through.

Most of the time, and we all know this, a civil suit is more of a formality than anything else and much easier to win.

I don't think any of us expected Jason to win this, but we would have liked to have seen a response of some kind, even from his attorney.

Something,
Anything.

Again, anti~climatic.

Kat

Kat4Eagles

12-02-2008, 06:44 PM

I'm sorry; I don't believe that.

And, you know that I do, and we respect each other's choices.

:)
Kat

alter ego

12-02-2008, 06:45 PM

Okay, I can understand that distinction. But what will be different when it's in the judge's hands? Is Jason going to respond then?

(2) By the Judge. –

a. In all other cases the party entitled to a judgment by default shall apply to the judge therefor; but no judgment by default shall be entered against an infant or incompetent person unless represented in the action by a guardian ad litem or other such representative who has appeared therein. If the party against whom judgment by default is sought has appeared in the action, that party (or, if appearing by representative, the representative) shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least three days prior to the hearing on such application. If, in order to enable the judge to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to take an investigation of any other matter, the judge may conduct such hearings or order such references as the judge deems necessary and proper and shall accord a right of trial by jury to the parties when and as required by the Constitution or by any statute of North Carolina. If the plaintiff seeks to establish paternity under Article 3 of Chapter 49 of the General Statutes and the defendant fails to appear, the judge shall enter judgment by default.

b. A motion for judgment by default may be decided by the court without a hearing if:

1. The motion specifically provides that the court will decide the motion for judgment by default without a hearing if the party against whom judgment is sought fails to serve a written response, stating the grounds for opposing the motion, within 30 days of service of the motion; and

2. The party against whom judgment is sought fails to serve the response in accordance with this sub‑subdivision.
Rule 55 (http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_1A/GS_1A-1,_Rule_55.html)