^^^In laymen's terms: Maria De La Rosa is ONLY supposed to be doing what ja's(the client) attorneys instruct her to do in this case. The "exception" to this is when ja went Pro Se. During the time that ja was "acting" as her own attorney, Maria De La Rosa was only supposed to be doing what ja instructed her to do. Of course, within the legal limits of the law. During the time that ja was "acting" as her own attorney, ja was bound by the rules of an attorney.
With that being pointed out... Who, ja, her attorneys, or did anyone, directed Maria De La Rosa, statements made by Elizabeth Schilling and Jason Weber(in earlier posts on this blog), to keep an eye out on the donations that some of ja's supporters are collecting that are supposed to be sent to an "alleged" trust fund? Remember, the ONLY time ja was allowed to direct Maria to do anything was when ja was acting as her own attorney. Did Maria take it upon herself to keep an eye on those donations? I haven't read anywhere that the "alleged" trust fund donations were part of the first trial, the first sentencing phase, or that anything about the "alleged" trust fund donations will be entered into the retrial of the sentencing phase. The "alleged" trust fund donations are not a part of ja's finances, stated by her Aunt Sue, that set the "alleged" trust fund up. IMO, ja's attorneys would have no reason to direct Maria to keep an eye on the amount of "alleged" trust fund's donated.
Maria was banned, for a short time, from going to the jail to help ja with her case after Maria was caught "smuggling" a piece of ja's artwork out of the jail. Maria was allowed back into the jail after making it known that she took the piece of artwork to give to ja's attorneys, that are/were "allegedly" using ja's artwork as a mitigation factor in her case. According to the website that ja and her family endorses they can get the pieces of the artwork that have been sold, that wasn't authenticated with ja's thumbprint at the time some buyers purchased the unauthenticated artwork, authenticated. The ONLY way to do that would be for someone to get said unauthenticated artwork back, take it to the jail and get it authenticated by ja, take it out of the jail, and then send it back to the buyer(s). The administrator of said website that stated it can get ja's artwork authenticated is either lying OR has set something up with someone on ja's defense team to do it. Who other than one of ja's DT can walk into the Maricopa County Jail with her artwork, have ja put her thumbprint on it, and walk back out with the artwork??? When I read where the administrator of that site made the statement it could get the artwork that hasn't been authenticated, authenticated, via ja's thumbprint, it made me wonder just how long the "smuggling" has been going on and if it's still going on. I wouldn't think that ja's attorneys would be directing anyone to break jailhouse rules by "smuggling" her artwork in/out of the jail to get it authenticated for ja's online business.
Also, Who was it that not only called Elizabeth Schilling putting ja on three way, recorded the conversation, but leaked that recorded conversation via internet(Youtube)? I believe, I'm not positive, that ja was acting as her own attorney at the time the three way call was made, the recording of it, and it being put on Youtube took place. Even if ja was going Pro Se at the time this happened and directed Maria to do those things, if it was Maria that made that call, recorded it, and leaked it to social media(Youtube), Maria is not supposed to break the rules or possibly the law for ja.
Why is/was Maria informing Sandra Webber aka the blogger of "Inconvenient Truths" anything that she has and may/may not do in this case??? (Below)
Sandra Webber, the blogger of "Inconvenient Truths" is the female that claimed via internet that Det. Flores wife was harassing her via internet. I don't recall all of the details about that mess but I do recall that Sandra Webber was under suspicion, herself, of being the one that created an alias screen name to harass herself with to make it look like it was Det. Flores wife that was on the alias screen name harassing her. The whole mess was so childish and ridiculous that I didn't follow most of it.
If it was Maria that made the three way call, recorded it, and put it online for it to go viral...as it did, then I'd think that might fall under the code above. Anyone that read Elizabeth Schilling's reaction (the comment that she made after she found out that the three way call had been recorded and put online for anyone to hear it) could tell that Elizabeth did not give the person that recorded her permission to record her via phone, let alone give anyone permission to post the recording online. She seemed upset about it.
Why "The Maricopa County Jail" didn't pursue any action against ja and whomever she called, that called Elizabeth on three way, is unknown to me. I was under the impression that "The Maricopa County Jail" has a policy that restricts inmates from engaging in three way calls. Some jails will block an inmate from calling someone that engages in three way calls. Some jails will discipline an inmate that engages in a three way call.
^^^Nurmi's doing here. Why isn't the Court making ja turn in a financial report concerning the money that her business has made and is making? When ja asked the Court to appoint her an attorney ja claimed that she was broke. Since then, ja has someone(s) via internet selling her artwork, "jodi bands," and "survivor tee shirts," that have been selling according to the media and her supporter(s).
http://www.maricopa.gov/OPDS/Assets/Documents/Legal_Service_Contracts/Service_Provider_Contracts/11075-c.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment