posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:03 PM
Let me state upfront that I personally believe that the real "Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez" has a firm standing in her civil suit against Casey Marie
Anthony concerning the civil suit that Zenaida has brought against Casey of defamation and intentional injury.
With that said, we move to the fact that Morgan & Morgan law firm in Orlando has been presented by media as one of the top law firms in the area, and
with that information I say *cheers* that what is reported to be an outstanding high-profile firm has taken up this woman's (ZG) situation, and
probably pro bono.
BUT, pro bono does not equate to a requirement to accept incompetence.
In recent days the Orange County court reviewing the civil suit case that ZG has against KC has ruled that because of the impending murder case
against KC, ZG's lawyers will be required to depose KC in the civil suit in writing. They will not be allowed to record or video an in person
Today Morgan & Morgan law firm, on behalf of ZG, released the written questions they are submitting to KC for a written response.
Morgan & Morgan get an F on this action.
Let me list the problems...the amateurish problems...that riddle this submitted written deposition questionnaire:
Beginning with question 2, and through out the questionnaire, Caylee's name is misspelled. Her full name is not listed and, therefore, for each
question containing a misspelled first name, and an incomplete full name for Caylee Marie Anthony, the respondent can answer whatever they wish and
not be answering falsely, considering no one in the wild wild world of sports knows who "Caley" is, or could be referring to. What an absolutely
embarrassing and incompetent mistake to make. And I stand on that review of the situation without reserve. I'd take my 19 year old daughter to
the wood-shed if she couldn't produce a better document than this.
Now, let's talk about the particular problems of each question:
Question 3. "As to the Zenaida Gonzalez you claim was a babysitter for Caley, please answer the following questions:"
And then the questions are listed in the same style as the following first question lifted from the deposition...
"To your knowledge, how many children did she have?"
For those of us actually educated in pronoun use (though we may personally slip in this rule), we expect better than this from "high-powered
lawyers"...the rule is the pronoun points to the last person listed. Let me repeat that the pronoun points to the last person listed. Now,
whether this grammatical rule is always followed by all in the universe, from a legal standpoint, why would you risk the ambiguity of the question by
placing a pronoun in a question when the last person referenced in the prefacing statement isn't the person you are asking the question about? And
especially when you have managed to misspell the wrong noun the defense can rightfully assume the question is directed toward?
And the list goes on...
"what were the children's names?"
"did she have any tattoos?"
Who "Caley"...no she didn't.
Here's a wonderful example of a question that should flunk a 7th grade English exam...
"Who else did you tell that Zenaida Gonzalez (at least they mentioned the person they were referring to) was babysitting?"
Should KC's defense team answer this as "Who else did you tell that ZG was babysitting...
What the heck does this question ask?
Let's move to question 10...
"Do you admit the Zenaida Gonzalez who is suing you:
b. "You have never met her?"
What did they do, recruit a drop-out of legal school to write these questions???
Let's get something straight. I'm not one of those people who critiques people's grammar. I commit as many grammatical offenses as anyone else I
know. I'm not some one that rails on posters here at the board because they misspell, or have sentence structure issues. Every day grammar is
not what we are talking about. This is a legal case and this is utter incompetence.
Morgan & Morgan - you fail.
Hopefully LE will do better.
[edit on 1-30-2009 by Valhall]