Crump VS. O’Mara : The Apology/Condolence Controversy and Much, Much More (Videos)

From the efforts of a very industrious and hard working Treeper Ad rem we are able to present a special delivery.   Also, a very special note of appreciation and  Thank You to Fox News for allowing us to host, as fair use qualified, these two video segments in the interest of continuing dialogue, truth seeking, and discovery in our continuing analysis of the Trayvon Martin shooting.  

The videos are from a little watched (because it wasn’t previewed) Geraldo Rivera show segment last Sunday 4/20 on Geraldo Live it stands as the only time Crump and O’Mara have faced off in real time on any issue.   Enjoy.

PART ONE

PART TWO

About these ads
This entry was posted in media bias, Racism, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

174 Responses to Crump VS. O’Mara : The Apology/Condolence Controversy and Much, Much More (Videos)

  1. chopp says:

    Crump is full of it.

    • Annie says:

      Yes!! he certainly is! but you would need to be to have that kind of an agenda. The top of my head nearly blew off when he said “equal rights under the law”! If anyone has not had equal rights under the law it is white people when involved with a black person! The laws are clearly not the same for each of us. To start, the black community has freedom of speech, the white community does not! We can not say how we feel (and I don’t mean the extreme either) in public because PC has taken away that right and it is now infiltrating what we think! and now an insidious new trend is emerging where you can not defend your life when attacked or robbed by a black person! I don’t even recognize this country anymore!

    • John Galt says:

      Crump has been trash talking quite a few people:

      “It’s been a nightmare,” Fulton said. “I don’t understand why this man has not been arrested.” As Fulton stepped back from the microphones she was embraced by her other son, Jaharvis Martin. Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Travon’s family, said this morning that he may file a complaint against Sanford police for witness intimidation, tampering and obstruction of justice. “If the Sanford Police Department continues to engage in this unsavory fashion, we will assist with filing an official complaint with the Department of Justice for witness tampering, witness intimidation and obstruction of justice,” Crump said.”

      Similar:

      “Family attorney Benjamin Crump said the video and lack of evidence of a struggle knocks down Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense and shows officials botched their investigation. “You’re witnessing a conspiracy in the first degree,” Crump said. “If they don’t arrest this guy — there’s a conspiracy at this point.”

      Is Crump’s conduct illegal?

      Now consider this Florida criminal statute:

      836.05 Threats; extortion.—Whoever [CRUMP], either verbally or by a written or printed communication, maliciously [SEE CASE LAW AT LINKGS BELOW] threatens to accuse another [Sanford Police Dept.] of any crime or offense [WITNESS TAMPERING, WITNESS INTIMIDATION, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, CONSPIRACY], or by such communication maliciously threatens an injury to the person, property or reputation of another, or maliciously threatens to expose another to disgrace, or to expose any secret affecting another, or to impute any deformity or lack of chastity to another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage [ZIMMERMAN'S ARREST IS A PREREQUISITE TO DEFEAT CIVIL IMMUNITY] whatsoever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened, or any other person, to do any act [ARREST ZIMMERMAN WHERE POLICE PREVIOUSLY STATED THEY HAD NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST] or refrain from doing any act against his or her will, shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

      Now consider this analysis:

      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6367/is_6_83/ai_n31945800/

      Now consider the Florida case law set forth on the top of the first page here:

      http://holysmoke.org/minton/mintonsg.htm

      More Florida case law:

      http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=19841476447So2d1029_11253.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985

  2. tara says:

    Wow, just in the first 5 seconds, “Ben is getting high praise for his moderating tone throughout this wrenching controversy” What?? Am I still asleep or something and I’m in a dream world of opposite reality? Should I keep watching?

    • tara says:

      (ongoing comments as I watch this) Crump sounds like a really really stupid person. I think the Martins were not wise to choose him as their attorney.

      • tara says:

        O’Mara is really awesome, totally shredding all of Crump’s bogus claims.

        • tara says:

          I think at that time O’Mara wasn’t aware of the widespread support for GZ. If he had known he probably would have corrected Geraldo’s statement that GZ’s supporters are “freaky”. I am anything but. I’m a well-educated hard-working law-abiding tax-paying home-owning white-collar professional who leads a very very normal life. I’m just angry that this incident was hijacked by self-serving race baiters and others (hello Ryan Julison) who wished to profit from a tragedy.

          • reginaszooworld says:

            Hell Yes!

          • doug1111 says:

            Crump did a much better job than I expected. He’s good at making emotional arguments.

            I actually didn’t think O’Mara did that well in this one. He sure did at the bail bond hearing though, and has generally before the media.

            • tara says:

              I totally disagree with you. I think O’Mara came across as a total professional. Crump on the other hand looks like a snake-oil salesman.

      • howie says:

        He is a PI shakedown artist. Not stupid. Vile. His position weakens as facts surface.

      • justice099 says:

        Crump is not stupid. He is intentioanlly keeping it in the “emotional domain.” That is what you do when you don’t have facts to back things up. You appeal to emotions. Every single thing he said was purely an appeal to emotion. No logic, no facts. Nothing. That’s where things are polarized. People that live in the “emotional domain” and people that live in the “logical domain.” Team skittles is VERY aware of that, and intended from the very beginning to use that strategy to their full advantage. How many times have you been debating with a team skittles clan member and when you are starting to beat them with the facts, they retort, “How would you feel if it were your son?” and it all goes downhill from there and people start piling up on you.

        Take for example commercials: When was the last time you saw a straight-forward, fact based commercial for anything? A politcal ad? Nope. As a “seller” (I am not one any more but I was classically trained as one previously) you are taught to sell the benefits. You are taught to talk about how the person will “feel” after making a purchase. Not to run through a list of technical features and logistics. And when a customer starts wanting to talk about “how much is it going to cost?” you are trained to bring them back to the emotional points again. You might be surprised the amount of research that has gone into this.

        I am particularly proud of my college debate final project. The teacher took a list of controversial topics and asked us which side we were on concerning them. Then he picked one for us and told us that we had to argue the other side of it. During my presentation, I was so convincing, one student grew so outraged that he actually threw profanity at me and threatened me. And I used that to my advantage and won the debate. My presentation position was atrocious. I did not believe even one bit what I was presenting. But because there were simply no facts to support my position, I knew I had to resort to emotional appeal. It may sound horrible, but as I mentioned in a different post, this is how the majority of the world thinks and why we just sit here and sulk that people just don’t understand us. They never will.

        The way that O’Mara handles it is masterful as well. He is forcing Crump to grow more and more agressive, while seeming calm and cool. People like smiles and we associate it with trust, while scowls intimidate us and we associate it with malice intent. He is getting intelligent jabs in there without being obvious about it.

        As an aside: I am very concerned at the suggestion in this interview that Crump has seen the prosecution’s evidence while O’Mara has not. Why in the world would the prosecution have shared that with Crump? He isn’t a criminal lawyer and he isn’t prosecuting this case. He hasn’t even given any reason to trust that he won’t blab about it all over the news (to the contrary, if I were the prosecution, I would be VERY worried about him doing that based on how he has handled things so far.)

        • ZurichMike says:

          I remember that, too, from my debate club participation — we had argue the side we were against! It was soooooooo easy to adopt the emotional position of the other side.

        • tara says:

          You just made me think that the prosecutors probably HATE working with Crump. :)

        • cookbook says:

          I think, at least to some degree, O’Mara is implying that a great deal of the special prosecutor’s case was given to them by Crump. And also by implication that the prosecutor did not vet the evidence. The media reports are full of poor old Crump having to do the police’s job for them because they are so prejudiced and incompetent. O’Mara will get down to impeaching the evidence and insulting its’ probative value which is nil. This may have been Crump’s problem with the Sanford police and why he had to push to get rid of the police chief and demand a special prosecutor as they knew the Crump evidence was defective.

          • justice099 says:

            I got that, too. Crump is very good at this game, honestly. The only real flaw I saw was his trying to hold back smirks when he realized what he was doing at certain points. Geraldo asked him what he thought about the reveal in the bond hearing that the state may not have the evidence, and Crump didn’t even answer it at all. He moved on to how the Martin’s are just “regular folks” and how they were in tears, etc… Without even answering the uncomfortable question, he moved it right into the emotional domain again and Geraldo gave him a complete pass on it. The second time Crump did this, look at his face carefully. He is smirking while he does it.

            • cookbook says:

              He is a blackmailer. He uses emotion rather than facts to extort. The central crime in this entire mess is insurance fraud. He wanted settlements immediately. Every single action he has taken has been to remove impediments to his payout.

            • ytz4mee says:

              Also, if you read his body language carefully, esp when he talks about the Special Prosecutor Corey, you can see he is lying. Watch his eyes – the rapid shifting back and forth. Ly-ing. He knows they don’t have a case, and he needs to keep it emotional.

              And no, I don’t think Crump is clever. He is cunning, which is different. He can’t keep up with responding to O’Mara other than to stick to the script that has been written.

              • justice099 says:

                Good point about clever vs. cunning. Unfortunately, it is still effective either way. I do find it hilarious how they keep repeating how they have faith in Angela Corey and the prosecution when right up to the moment before she had the press conference, they were publicly saying they were upset that she was taking so long and starting dialogue about how she was inept and trying to sweep this under the rug as well. At least that is how I remember it.

              • justice099 says:

                I still do think his whole “simple talk” character is intentional and contrived. His body language gives it away (it is very exaggerated and unnatural.) He is speaking and acting like his intended target audience on purpose so that they can relate to him and the emotions.

                • jd says:

                  I thought Crump sounded like he had a low IQ and kept wondering if he had to bully his way through law school.

        • stellap says:

          The other telling point, to me, was Crump’s statement that the special prosecutor had assured them that she was “holding back” information from her affadavit. That is prosecutorial misconduct, as described by Alan Dershowitz in his analysis.

          • stellap says:

            “They explained to us at the bond hearing that they were not going to show their hand….”

            • justice099 says:

              Yep, and O’Mara pointed that out as well. It did piss me off how Geraldo cut off O’Mara while he was responding because “Crump wanted to respond.” Yet, he allowed Crump to just go on and on and on while O’Mara was trying to speak.

              • That’s what I noticed too, almost as if Geraldo felt bad about the hoodie comments, so he is on his knees to the Martin family saying how wonderful they are, stroking Crump on the air, then giving him more air time.

                And did you notice when they were showing the real Trayvon with pics in the background Geraldo quickly said to “stop showing the pics.” It was funny because the last pic shown was Trayvon showing off his gold grill to the camera.

              • tara says:

                Yes, because the snake oil saleman Crump makes for better television (to the ignorant masses) than the logical and professional O’Mara.

        • John Galt says:

          “As an aside: I am very concerned at the suggestion in this interview that Crump has seen the prosecution’s evidence while O’Mara has not.”

          O’Mara was putting it very politely by using the word “seen” in view of Crump’s involvement with Dee Dee’s testimony. I think the absence of any response from Crump is rather telling.

        • g8rmom7 says:

          Very cool post here. I remember having the same experience in debate class. And you MUST be in marketing…VERY TRUE about everything appealing to the emotion. That is all we do these days. Maybe that’s why I’m so frustrated all the time.

          • justice099 says:

            No. I am an electrical engineer. But one of my careers in a “previous life” was high-end sales (actually, computers when they were considered ‘high-end’) and had went through very thorough training on the “Counselor Selling” approach which is always used in Luxury and high-end sales. You also learn to use logical fallacies to your advantage. You learn things like never answering a closed ended question when a possible answer is NO. You create a serious of questions to which you know the person agrees. The idea is that once you get them in the habit of saying ‘yes’ they will be more likely to answer yes to the sale.

            You really can’t debate with someone when they are good at this, because they framed the whole debate from the beginning. All you can do is go on the defensive. And in doing so, you spend all your time whacking at strawmen and never get to actually get your facts out.

            In short, people LOVE drama.

        • doug1111 says:

          I agree with you. That is why I said that Crump actually did a pretty good job on Geraldo’s show, especially in appealing to “his people”.

    • There are strange relationships here, on a TV appearance. Everyone tries to be complimentary and civil.

      I have no doubt that Chump is skilled at extorting insurance settlements, but he won’t ever conduct a trial unless he has a lawyer to the right, left, and back helping him out.

    • John Galt says:

      “moderating tone” WTF?? How can he even say that without laughing? Is this a SNL parody?

      • tara says:

        I wish SNL would do a parody of this, but of course it would appear ***racist*** and nobody would allow that.

    • Annie says:

      let me translate that…I think what he said was Crump and the Martins are not going berserk like the Panthers or the crazy crowds that are attacking white people….that’s what he meant.

      • tara says:

        Yes, they’re just hosting rallies every 10 minutes to incite others to engage in hate and violence toward whites.

    • doug1111 says:

      Yeah that was one of the biggest crocks of sh*t I’ve heard in a long time. Crump’s whole strategy has been to do the exact opposite in spinning the media and the black community.

  3. ItsMichaelNotMike says:

    WOW… I woke up and feel like a kid and it is CHRISTMAS!
    Damn… I was headed out on an early morning bike ride.

  4. Just_tired says:

    Look at this carefully:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/michael-davis-held-without-bond-in-petworth-hammer-attacks-5th-victim-comes-forward/2012/04/28/gIQAhFGFoT_story.html
    You can see the photo bellow the comments.
    Michael Davys is a black young male. I am just wondering if Michael Davys is a crazy trayvoner.

  5. Joel says:

    Thank you, sundancecracker. I have been trying to find this head to head matchup. It is as billed!

    Crump implying that the state has more evidence, but didn’t want to tip their hand is proof that the state really doesn’t have a case. The state prosecutor by law has to put everything including exculpatory evidence in the affidavit. If they don’t put it into this affidavit or quickly come out with more, and there is more evidence, there could be a mistrial. The state is not allowed any surprises.

    I do credit Crump with putting forward the notion that more will come out. It is a lie, but he tells it so well. I also noticed that Crump was moved to crocodile tears especially with that little quiver in his voice indicating that he almost broke down. Good acting.

    • ytz4mee says:

      He almost broke down because he knows his big jackpot is not going to happen. So close, so close ….. and it’s all falling apart faster than they can keep up. I honestly think they thought they would have their shakedowns and payoffs from the city, PD, HOA, etc all ready finalized and the $$$ would be in the bank by now. It’s a formula that’s been so successful in the past for dirtbags like Crump&Co.

      • Joel says:

        You are right. I think. I just hope that all that Crump says comes back to bite him in that enormous rear-end he is carrying around.

  6. chopp says:

    I love how Rivera cautions O’Mara about the right wingers supporting GZ while ignoring the violent thugs who have looted stores, issued death threats to GZ and his family, issued death threats to anyone who supports GZ, who have assaulted people in the name of TM, and the numerous extortionists.

    • tara says:

      Great point!

    • ytz4mee says:

      Yes, I would like to hear one anchor challenge Team Skittles on the “trademarking” application and the immediate launch to litigation. If all you are concerned about is the “truth” and “justice”, then why the focus on civil litigation and payoffs? I need to hear Crump’s answer on that one. He has already admitted any “fee” will come from civil suits.

  7. The biggest “get” out of this interview for me was two fold.

    #1.) When given the wide open opportunity to confront the “non-evidence” to disprove Zimmerman’s account of events, Crump could have immediately followed up with his DeeDee on the phone narrative. He did not. He did not because it is ficticious.

    #2.) O’Mara sharing that he reached out to Team Skittles, and Benjamin Crump on Wednesday 4/16 for a private apology. Then again on Thursday 4/17. He got no response. Then he approved Zimmerman to deliver his apology Friday 4/18.

    We now know that Crump was stating a rejection of O’Mara offer on Thursday 4/17 to the media, but he never communicated to O’Mara. Says more about his and Tracy/Fulton’s intentions.

    • justice099 says:

      100% agree. Wish more people would see this exchange. I’m sure it was pretty down low (I check for news on the case nearly every day and had not heard of this segment before.)

    • howie says:

      I believed I heard Crump say somewhere that he wanted Zim to apologize in a deposition.

      • howie says:

        Let me correct. It was Natalie Jackson who said the Martins want Zimmerman to apologize in a deposition.

        • ytz4mee says:

          The whole point of the demanding an apology was to try and trick Zimmerman into admitting liability. $$$$. Hear the cash register sing! It didn’t work out the way they planned. I am beginnning to suspect all of Team Skittles is as stupid as they appear to be.

          • cookbook says:

            Well O’Mara smacked that down pretty fast I’m sure and that is why Crump wouldn’t call him back.

          • howie says:

            The Sheen Team has been stepping on a lot of wrong toes in Florida. I am wondering when they will start to feel some pain. I wonder if that lawyer in Georgia that helped Herman Cain is lurking.

          • cookbook says:

            Zimmerman did not apologize. He said he was sorry for their loss. I am fairly sure O’Mara helped carefully craft that to make sure it was not an apology per se and not an admission of any guilt. It also helped humanize Zimmerman, let him speak without being on cross. O’Mara probably agreed to the non-apology apology to make the Crump spinners shut up already about it.

            • tara says:

              I honestly don’t think O’Mara coached GZ to say that. I it was exactly what GZ wanted to say because it was exactly how he felt. And my gosh, considering the crazy circumstances, considering that people want to kill him, he was so composed when speaking! Because the truth is on his side, he doesn’t have to feel nervous because he’s trying to remember what he’s supposed to say, he’s saying exactly what happened.

            • minpin says:

              I thought I read that Sybrina Fulton said in one of her myriad’s of appearances that she wanted GZ to answer if he knew that TM was a child, and she wanted to know if he knew that TM was unarmed. Didn’t O’Mara say that GZ was just answering her questions?

  8. OK, just got up 30 min. ago and have not had a coffee. I am going to get some and form initial impressions of Plaintiff counsel, I mean a Martin family lawyer; I forget he has not filed his bogus lawsuits yet.

    As I teach, have been taught, and learned in war/combat, never underestimate the opponent. Assume every mistake the enemy makes is disinformation directed toward me, so I let my guard down or make erroneous assumptions.

    But like most, I can’t resist looking at Chump as appearing to be a moron. (To be sure, I have never heard the word pronounced “tem pour wear we.” See minute marker 1:14 in the first video.) Then again, maybe he has a speaking disability (that makes me the clod for commenting on it, eh), overcome hardships and physical infirmities, or has an accent that I am not used to.

    OK, I won’t wonder and judge based on his manner of talking. I will look at his substance and logic. I will detect signs of scholarship or being a contender for this year’s mental slob award.

    Bonus Information this line ____________
    (no need to read if your breakfast is burning):

    I was fortunate to learn early i life that we don’t prejudge people, based on appearances, the way they talk, etc. (well not that early, it was after the military, when I went law school and all) .

    I recall when in class at Berkeley the girl in front of me turned in homework. My paper was in proper format, as required by the Professor (typewritten, etc.) Her paper was handwritten, and on a haphazardly torn out page from a spiral notebook. When I saw that I thought to myself “You fool, This professor is gonna give you an F because you can’t follow simple directions. And he said don’t “file” sloppy papers. You will get the F, I will get the A.”

    When we received our graded homework I observed I got a B+ and I was fine with that for a first paper, besides I was work 48 hrs. a week and carrying 17 units. I then took a look at “her” paper.

    Ha… I could see that the professor wrote something on her paper, no doubt chewing her out for being a dumb ass. Probably says “next time follow directions.” I then slyly focused at the top of her homework. Let me see it says “A+ Compendium of well-written, detailed analysis of each issue.”

    And that is how I learned not to judge Chump simply because he says “tem pour wear we.”

    • ytz4mee says:

      I believe O’Mara doesn’t underestimate his opposition or what lengths they will go to to reach their final destination – payday. Note it is O’Mara who references that much of this has been “emotional”.

      And, IMO Crump is not the lead in this. He is a bit actor, the front man. I want to know who is directing this stage play and force them to step in front of the curtain.

      • M Simon says:

        I am very grateful for those who have NOT chosen to look at MY book and judge it by its cover. It allowed me to work my way up from bench technician to aerospace engineer without benefit of a degree. I LOVE AMERICA.

    • howie says:

      I have learned that lesson too. Never judge the book by its cover. He has a Law Degree, passed the Bar, and has a large practice. You do not do that by being stupid.

      • minpin says:

        Affirmative Action laws were helpful to many, including another Lawyer, Barack Obama, and another Lawyer, Michelle Obama. They met while working at the same law firm in Chicago.

        • minpin says:

          Oh, and, Ambulance Chasing is a very profitable business, especially if you can get insurance companies to settle out of court, rather than fighting a long and expensive court case.

        • rjp says:

          Michelle Obama never passed the bar.

      • tara says:

        I disagree. You can be very stupid and get a law degree and pass the bar exam. I know someone who did it. He’s stupid but he’s got a great memory. As a result, his law practice is failing.

        • howie says:

          His firm has won 20 of these cases with settlements of over 1 million each. Crump and Parks is well connected in the state. Very well connected.

          • tara says:

            Well, many companies are quick to settle because it’s easier. It doesn’t mean that Crump is a good attorney, it just means he chose what is probably the most profitable – and least difficult – field of law.

            • solaratov says:

              Which, in itself, speaks of being “smart enough” to know one’s limitations. Crump probably knows that he’d be a failure as a litigator – but that many companies, etc., will settle out of court if the demands are not *too* onerous. That’s where he goes and what he does. And he makes money for his clients and for himself.
              Crump knows that he’ll never be in the same league as Derschowitz or O’Mara – but that doesn’t matter to him. He’s discovered his niche and he’s filling it.

              :evil:

          • minpin says:

            Were they settlements or were they shakedowns? The fact that Crump has won many “settlements” only adds fuel to the idea that he is ultimately looking to shakedown the state and insurance companies when he brings a civil suit for the parents. He said himself that he will make his money in a Civil Trial.

            • howie says:

              Most civil trials end in a settlement . The shakedown is why they settle with him. He may even have some legit cases. Probably does. I hope this one falls apart. But the odds are that money will change hands no matter what. Crump and Parks are not lightweights. They are putting on an act. Sho Nuff.

          • Financial success at small law firms (one to 50 lawyers) is not a reflection of skill, it usually is a matter of luck, timing, sometimes others giving you help.

            The U.S. legal system is shoddy because of its disgraceful lawyers. At the beginning of semesters I tell students that in my opinion 80% of the California lawyers (there’s over 200,000 of us in California alone) do “C average” work or below.

            Also IMO many lawyers have no business being lawyers. And very, very few should be litigators, and by that I mean lawyers who actually can try a case.

            Fact is there’s a lot of bullsheeting in the legal profession, about actually trying a case. Many lawyers rattle their sabers that they are going to kick your ass in court (excuse me, ssɐ). But when we remove the saber from the scabbard, to the laughter of the entire courtroom we find out there’s no blade. Some other lawyer broke it off long ago.

            Disclaimer: I am not saying lawyers who can’t try a case are bad, especially since in my estimate less than 1% of the nation’s lawyers can effectively try a case.* The others may work on elements of litigation (prepare pleadings, conduct research, handle law and motion matters, meet with clients, etc.), they just don’t belong in a court trying cases.

            (“Effectively” means you can do whatever is required to get a result, you are not simply “getting through it without a major mistake.” Many lawyers can get through a trial, less than 1% are “naturals” in the courtroom. The former plod through trial more concerned about making a mistake and looking foolish. The latter when in “trial mode” think 24/7 about how to win for the client. For example, when I have trials I lock myself in a hotel room so I won’t be disturbed, even if the trial is in town.)

            1%? Don’t despair. If you are thinking about law school and want to try cases some day. Unlike many professions and skills, one can learn to be a “natural” in the courtroom. It is my belief that half the battle to becoming a good trial lawyer is caring about the client and what happens to him, her or it (“it” being a corporation :)

            Oh, if you are a pantywaist, a man in name only, you can’t call opposing counsel a “dumb fcuk” to his face, or the thought of getting in front of 8 people (federal jury trials) or 12 (in state jury trials), stay out of the courtroom.

            OK, let’s have a little levity here:

            If you don’t see this as FUN and wishing you were there to partake, don’t become a litigator:

            By the way, the lawyer to the right of the witness being deposed is Joe Jamail, the “King of Torts” who got the biggest jury award in history. As you can tell from that depo, Joe has an ego as big as the room you are in. Enjoy his words of inspiration:

            • howie says:

              Whoa! What did the Judge say? That guy is a real Racehorse.

            • Sharon says:

              Ok, professor. Larn me. (You knew you were taking this risk, I’m sure ;) ) In my funny little world–that’s not one bit funny. That’s just a bunch of nasty, unprofessional, out of control viciousness that has nothing to do with a useful deposition. Good grief. I actually did work for small bit attorneys in California a hundred years ago, but beyond that, I know nuttin’.

              Serious question (as serious as I can articulate at this point)–how on earth can they have that kind of crap filling a deposition record and come away with something useful to be used in a court room? If these are the good guys, we’re dead meat. Or are they the bad guys…I sure can’t tell. Yikes.

              • howie says:

                No doubt it never got to court.

              • ItsMichaelNotMike says:

                You don’t find that funny? LOL. That video is played in every trial practice class in the nation’s law schools. And it has gotten play by Judges in their lectures.

                And guess what, it brings the house down everywhere it is played. Even Joe Jamail looks back at it and laughs.

                The fact that YOU don’t find it funny, can’t help you there. Sorry for your (mental) loss.

                Sidenote: I bet you don’t like Italian food either.

              • ItsMichaelNotMike says:

                By the way, don’t ask me what Joe was thinking. Feel free to contact Joe Jamail and register your strong objection to his behavior.

                He is in the phone book and he takes calls. I am sure he would be happy to to hear from someone, to give him an earful.

                • M Simon says:

                  Non responsive to the issue at hand sir.

                  M. Simon – aerospace engineer

                  Heh.

                  BTW I like most of your other stuff around here. And for the record the closest I have come to lawyers is the First Mate was a paralegal back in the day. Patent lawyers and the firm of Milt Black in Chicago. Among others.

      • barnslayer says:

        If it’s anything like it was when I was in dental school minorities got EZ Pass. One classmate of mine (black) got insulted by the whole thing. Let left some answers blank on a fill-in anatomy lab practical exam. He showed me his marked/scored test paper. The instructors had filled in his missing answers (different color ink and handwriting) and marked those answers as correct! Affirmative action.

        • MRM says:

          barn, that’s horrible!! and good for your classmate for being insulted! Did he do anything about it?

          • barnslayer says:

            He wasn’t doing well there. But the school was determined to meet their “quota” and thus the underhanded test scoring. After a year he transferred to another school.

            • MRM says:

              Wow. I don’t know how anyone can think that quotas and lowered expectations are a good thing. I hope your classmate didn’t lose his instinct to be insulted by the patronization.

              • barnslayer says:

                I see the same thing in the NYPD. You have minority (women mostly) who could never pass a standard physical fitness test are walking around in uniform. Glad it hasn’t carried over into the FDNY. Thinking that minority doctors could have gotten their credentials by receiving special consideration removes all confidence in them as professionals.

                • MRM says:

                  Exactly. It’s so sad… and, it just perpetuates the downward spiral for the very people it’s supposed to be “helping”

                • ytz4mee says:

                  Lots of minority “Docs” in the VA system and DoD system have never been credentialled in the US and are graduates of off shore “medical schools”. I refuse to be seen by them.

    • tara says:

      Correction: Tem Puh Wearrrrr (I had to fight hard to keep the coffee in my mouth when I read your post!)

  9. laura says:

    http://www.city-journal.org/2012/cjc0427hm.html
    Heather Mac Donald
    What We Should Have Learned
    Police must put down violence immediately and without apology.
    27 April 2012

    excerpt:

    The press could use the 1992 riots as an occasion for self-examination. Instead, history is repeating itself. The build-up around the Trayvon Martin shooting seems almost designed to provoke riots should the case not come out the way the race agitators and the media think it should. As with the King beating, the press has doctored evidence and suppressed relevant context. It is once again promoting falsehoods—that the criminal justice system is racist and that blacks are under assault from racist whites. (To the contrary, young black males are under assault from other young blacks, who commit homicide at ten times the rate of young white and Hispanic males combined. White-on-black killings are negligible compared with black-on-white killings and are a minute fraction of the over 6,000 blacks mowed down every year by other blacks. Blacks kill whites and Hispanics at two-and-a-half times the rate at which whites and Hispanics kill blacks, though blacks are only one-sixth of the combined white and Hispanic population.)

    • kinthenorthwest says:

      During the 1992 riots they didnt even block entrances into the neighborhoods where it was happening, the police just retreated.
      There was nothing on the radio either, only tvs…For those still at work, very few of them knew anything about what was happening.
      I left work about 5 mins after it started and got on the 110 freeway heading to my home in the Manhathan Beach area. Crossing over on Florence and Manchester was a quicker way home when the Freeway was jammed.
      If not for a ham radio friend telling me to stay on the freeway I would have been going right down the streetsand right by where the beatings and pulling people out of cars was happening…
      I will say that on the drive home I thought everyone that was talking to me on my radio was over playing it..When I got home I was totally shocked at what I saw on TV and what was already happening in just an hour after the outbreak.

      On my way back to work that following Monday the sides of the 110 freeway looked like a way zone…Almost every building was burned down.

      • laura says:

        In the comments thread of MacDonald article is an fascinating post by an retired LAPD officer providing insight into the underlying politics which lead to a police stand down.

        I am an independent thinker, I came to the site because I found much of the analysis about the agitprop media railroading GZ accurate. But as soon as I commented on the silly comments about democratic women looks as offensive and gender bashing I was subjected to bullying.

        It is troubling how polarized basic community principles like public safety has become. Group think is practiced on all sides, there are some unnecessary and racially offensive comments on this site, it does not do justice to the serious issues and social implication
        this case has tapped into and the otherwise decent analysis and reporting.

        I grew up in LA, I was ten during the 1965 riots. I grew up in a politically diverse extended family environment, arguments at Sunday dinners were delightful, no one resorted to meanness and ugly comments though. We agreed to disagree and took care of one another.

        • barnslayer says:

          Since I was involved I’ll chime in. Given most of our regulars are conservative we reflexively protect our own. We’ve witnessed all levels of filth aimed at Condoleezza Rice, Michelle Malkin, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and others that don’t immediately come to mind. So if what we fight back and dish out a little bit of payback? It’s never as bad or threatening. Considering the high regard with which we hold these conservative women it would be wrong to think we are painting all women with a broad brush. It would be the same as us taking a swing at oblamer and being called racist. Ask Allen West about that.

        • ytz4mee says:

          I read through those threads. Nice deflection on your part. From my viewpoint, you came across as arrogant with a chip on your shoulder and determined to “lecture” people here.
          It seems you want to attempt so again – “there are some unnecessary and racially offensive comments on this site”. That is your opinion. I think most commenters here are making a forthright attempt to hold honest conversations about troubling issues. This isn’t NRO or any of your “politically correct” emasculated/neutered sites. If my memory serves me correctly, you threatened to leave. So go. No one is holding you here. We won’t be lectured to.

          • solaratov says:

            If it wasn’t for double standards, the leftists would have no standards at all. I would suggest that you take a good look at the behavior of the leftists on sites such as dkos, DU, huffpo, etc., to see true racism, incivility, bullying, and cruelty at work. Yet, the leftists constantly whine and snivel any time they are treated as anything less than precious flowers by anyone on the Right.
            Frankly, I haven’t the time or the inclination to deal with and cater to their hypocrisy and outright lies. And any leftist who thinks (feels?) that they are going to snivel enough to ‘guilt’ me into cutting them any slack and not call a spade a spade is in for a very rude awakening.
            Leftists keep yammering about wanting a “level playing field”. Well, here it is. Come on and play. Or get the hell out and leave life to the adults.

            :evil:

            • Well put. That should be our answer to the “Whine… there’s some incivility here” comments. “Before we respond, go over to KosHoles or HuffPoo and read the first 5 comments on ANY THREAD. Then come back here and explain that we’re worse.”

          • Sharon says:

            Apparently if we would “change the way we think here” and “speak differently here” it would be ok? No, it wouldn’t.

            Being offended is a default condition for some folks. If Laura is one of them, there’s no fixing the furniture enough. No pruning the branches enough. No buying different chocolate for the ‘smores. It’ll always be something. The smoke drifting off the evening campfire will always be going directly at her.

        • WeeWeed says:

          “..there are some unnecessary and racially offensive comments on this site..” Throwing THAT in there didn’t score you any points. When visiting the homes of people you don’t know, do you crap in the middle of their living room floor, as well?

          • I’ll take ‘yes’ for 500, Alex.

          • My dogs have rudely crapped on sidewalks in front of people’s homes, does that count as crapping in the middle of the living room floor? (Hmm… maybe not, because I hurriedly clean up the mess before The Dog Poop Police show up. Heck, I am known in the neighborhood for cleaning up other dog piles, so that MY dogs don’t get a bad rap.)

            I don’t know why I mentioned this, it is Sunday. That’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it.

        • GracieD says:

          Well, Bless your heart. If you are looking for sympathy, you will not find much here. You come to the Tree and try to tell us how to behave. Tell me Laura, do you go into a stranger’s home and start an argument? That is what you have tried to do here. I can assure you that we will not tolerate that kind of behavior without reacting. You would get along much better if you remove that chip on your shoulder. Pffft…some people just have no manners.

      • Sharon says:

        DH worked in east LA at the time, at a big trucking outfit…he was a career diesel mechanic. His shift ended at 11. For about 10 days, the area was considered so dangerous that at dusk the managers would lock the 10″ chainlink fence that surrounded the huge garages and truck corral. So for those 10 days, he slept in his camper inside that fence overnight. It would have been too dangerous for him to try to make his way through the streets to the freeway in the MOTN anyway. We lived 120 miles north of there. While he was locked in there, I was at home up on the High Desert where the neighbors were cleaning their pistols. The related attacks (black on white, clearly related to the Planned Riots (speaking of PR) flowed north from Los Angeles and got as far as Lancaster, about 50 miles from Los Angeles.

  10. Did Jaggoff-D’oh REALLY say Chump had taken a “moderating tone”?!

    And am I the only one who finds it hard to have ANY respect for a so-called Attorney who speaks like Uncle Remus’ retarded younger brother? Listening to him drone on about idiotic nonsense – such as JZ’s statement in any way influencing the bond decision…. Is this man as stupid as he appears (and if so, how in the HELL did he ever pass a Bar-exam?) or is he actually a genius playing the illiterate moron so as to lead people to underestimate him?

    How can he keep claiming there is plenty of evidence to convict? How does he know more about the evidence than O’meara or anyone else?

    If the prosecutors have been able to give Chump “all the evidence” then what is the holdup with giving it to O’meara?

    And Chump is allowed to close – after saying how much faith they have in the system – saying “certain people can’t get equal justice, all we want is equal justice…”

    Well, they HAD “equal justice” – it was ruled self-defense by everyone but TMs family!

    What they WANT is JZ in prison – and I can’t help but wonder what they’ll do if they don’t get it?!

    • howie says:

      Crump wants $$$$. The Martins want $$$$. The Media wants Gun Control. CBC wants unwarranted power. Obama wants votes. State of Florida wants to appease. The useless idiots don’t know what they want. What a mess. They are trying to make a deal before the case is tossed. The media has been ordered to shut up. Just like they were ordered to make a big stink.

      • barnslayer says:

        I sort of disagree about the media. Yes I think most of them are anti-gun ownership. But they thrive on headlines. If guns were not the issue, it would be knives, or SUV’s, or red meat, or contact sports, or Christianity. They may have a list of hot buttons but it’s all about revenue since they are just a bunch of whores (no offense to whores intended).

        • tara says:

          Did you ever see that old film of wildabeest’s crossing a river? They practically trample and drown each other trying to get to the other side, and then some decide to turn around and head back to cross the river in the other direction, which of course causes mayhem. That’s what the media reminds me of.

    • ytz4mee says:

      “The Constitution guarantees everyone a right to a bond hearing”.
      Uh, no.
      I think Crump is very good at what he does – threat based extortion. Actually, you don’t need a law degree for that, it just helps facilitate some of the paperwork.
      But nice to know that Crump&Co have won some big awards, so they have nice, deep pockets for Zimmerman’s civil litigation team to go after.

    • barnslayer says:

      Jay Z says “What did I do now?”
      You mean GZ.
      Photobucket

  11. I think the gig is up on Crump, for the reasons many have said on this site.

    One reason: after looking that Crump’s performance on Geraldo, I have concluded the guy is good at only one thing, shaking down people to get money. He is NOT a professional, he is a lawyer in name only, and take away the trappings, he is no different than a hustler on the street corner playing a shell game with passers-by on whom he can pull his con, getting them to part with $20, $50, or on a real mark, $200.

    Another reason: It is coming out that Crump’s MO is to submit false evidence to anyone and everyone, as part of an overall scheme to put his cases in a winning posture and extort settlements. Here in California that is a crime.

    Consider there two events. You can decide if Crump, et al. are a pack of liars and extortionists.

    Criminal Alteration Of 911 Audio

    In the other article on the Site (about Julison, NBC and the editing of the 911 audio), I said at the end of the day this has Crump’s fingerprints all over it. Look how things are falling into place there, WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE:

    - Julison is a PR guy RETAINED BY CRUMP.

    - Julison specializes on working for attorneys like Crump to get media attention on their cases.

    - Julison lives and works in Florida.

    - Julison gave a recent interview BRAGGING that on Trayvon Martin case, (Crump, et al.) could not get media attention on it. However, things “really took off” when 911 audio was played on The Today Show. (See links in my comment under that article).

    - What Julison was really bragging about is that AFTER Crump retained his services, Julison used his Today Show connection to set up Crump and the family to appear on the Today Show, and to play the (fraudulently altered) 911 audio to millions of TV viewers).

    - The New York Times and other newspapers revealed that there were actually two separate, unrelated edits of the 911 audio, both the same editing result, and that both edits occurred at NBC properties in Florida.

    - Julison, again, someone working for Crump, also brags on his website about his Today Show connections.

    - The common thread to those fraudulent 911 edits: attorney Crump, Julison the PR guy, two NBC affiliates, The Today Show, and that all the actors, stages, and action took place in Florida.

    See how all these smoking guns make everything fall into place.
    __________________
    Another piece of evidence that Crump fabricates and tells lies, to extort money from insurance companies:

    Lying In A Letter To The Dept. of Justice – To Get It Involved

    I will just post the article as my evidence, I don’t need to add anything to it. Here is the article (redacted to only relevant parts):
    ___________________

    A lawyer for Trayvon Martin’s family is asking the U.S. Department of Justice to review what he alleges was a meeting the night the 17-year-old was killed between Sanford’s police chief and State Attorney Norm Wolfinger.

    Benjamin Crump sent a formal request to the federal agency Monday, saying he believes Wolfinger and police Chief Bill Lee Jr. met Feb. 26 and overruled a homicide investigator’s recommendation that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter.

    Monday afternoon, Wolfinger said there was no meeting and that the letter was based on “outright lies”. He also denounced “those spreading irresponsible rhetoric”.

    Some news agencies have reported that Sanford’s lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger’s office put a stop to it. The city of Sanford issued a statement saying that is not true.

    Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists “manslaughter” as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.

    Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman’s account that he had acted in self-defense.

    “The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event,” Serino told the Sentinel March 16. “Everything I have is adding up to what he says.”

    In his letter Monday to Roy Austin, deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Crump wrote, “We look forward to your thorough and comprehensive review of the suspicious circumstances surrounding this meeting, and the decision to disregard the recommendation of the lead homicide investigator, Mr. Serino, who felt compelled to prepare an affidavit memorializing his recommendation to arrest the shooter George Zimmerman.”

    Here is the letter, with my highlights of Chump’s lies (after I was done I realized I had highlighted almost the entire letter).

    http://litigationuniverse.com/Crump'sLetterLyingToDeptOfJustice.jpg

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter-20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-a

    • Sharon says:

      Thank you, MichaelNotMike.

    • ytz4mee says:

      Yes, my husband had to deal with exactly the same tactic with a black female. She made up outrageous lies in an effort to get him to back off administratively punishing her. Her lies were proven just that – unfounded, spurious allegations, and the administrative action against her resumed. She then created more, newer, even more outrageous lies and filed a complaint with a different agency. All administrative action against her ceased, until the investigation was cleared. All her allegations were found to be without merit. The administrative action resumed, at which point she made direct threats to him. She was forced to leave the military, but later resurfaced as a lifetime appointment as a social security administrative judge, when it is doubtful she has ever passed a bar exam and had no experience in adjudication. Her entire application for the position was predicated on lies.

      There is a whole industry out there within segments of the black community that practises Taqiya. Unfortunately, most Americans are honest and good-hearted so they can not believe this is what someone would do. Crump seems to operate in this sphere.

      Another reason I hope Zimmerman et al stand firm. Crump & Co need to be held accountable for their actions, and not rewarded. The very foundation of our belief in “due process” is what is being tried here.

      • jd says:

        Reading this site has really opened my eyes, thank you all again. Anyway, if somebody wants to get around the hiring quotas for Affirmative Action, it’s easy enough. Just hire non-blacks who are smart enough to check that little box marked “I identify as black”. Boom, done.

        And yes I realize black people have just as much as potential to be as qualified an anybody else, but sometimes not enough qualified applicants actually apply.

        • ytz4mee says:

          Let me be clear. I was talking about a certain segment of the black population, who have been trained/steeped in grievance mongering as a modus operandi. This is not a blanket indictment of all black people, or an insinuation that all black people are undeserving AA award winners. There were several black staff members when interviewed stood for the truth and fully supported my husband, and refused to let him be railroaded. I also count as colleagues many highly qualified, hard working, honorable black professionals.

          No matter where you go in the world, you will find decent, honorable people and you will find dirtbags and thieves. It’s a fact of life and no one culture has a lock on it.

          That being said, I think the outrageous play out of the classic grievance/race-baiting shakedown in this case has really been a wake-up call for many people.

  12. tara says:

    We should predict how Team Skittles will react if GZ is awarded immunity. How soon after the announcement will they announce their first Rally For Hatred? In what city will it be held? Not Sanford, of course, there’s not enough people to participate. Will Angela Corey be there or will she be too afraid to be in a crowd of angry blacks (and a smattering of whites), a crowd she primed with her absurd charge? When will Michelle Williams of the Black Pity Party embarrass herself with another racist-rant phone call? How long will it be before the Pity Party issues a death threat against Judge Lester or Mark O’Mara?

    I can say this much, even though I’m in a city with a significant black population and the risk for explosion is probably quite high, if GZ is awarded immunity I’M GOING TO LAUGH MY ASS OFF. :)

    • barnslayer says:

      I work in NYC. I hope they rally in Washington D.C.

      • tara says:

        I hope they do too. Maybe Trayvons “father” (the one in the White House) will attend. And Eric “My People” Holder. And the entire Pity Party.

  13. tara says:

    Just saw this cartoon, it’s hilarious and not at all funny at the same time:

    Photobucket

  14. tara says:

    So now I see there’s some faux crisis going on because the media wants to see Corey’s notes but O’Mara (WISELY) wants to control when they’re released to the public, for the protection of witnesses and no doubt for other reasons. The GZ web site has an explanation. Why doesn’t the media just get more BS from Team Skittles? That’s where they’ve been getting their info since day 1 …..

  15. ytz4mee says:

    The O’Mara team has posted an answer regarding the Discovery request.
    Once again, O’Mara has demonstrated he is a cool, calm professional and wants to act in an abundance of caution.
    He again makes reference to the “emotions”.
    http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/8-press-releases/8-questions-regarding-discovery-deadline-in-george-zimmerman-case

  16. Wow, lots of activity on my Facebook posts and comments. Lots of people have liked my comments and links. And today I got a personal message from the man himself, Mr. O’Mara.

    Let’s keep the heat up folks, we are going to win this war!! Let’s hold everyone accountable who has conspired against George Zimmerman, defrauded the Nation, and attempted to extort money from good Americans (aka taxpayers) and insurance companies.

    For now, of course, the main battle is getting George Zimmerman out of legal jeopardy and harms way. To that end, the best way to assure victory if for George to go on the OFFENSIVE rather than defending against punches.

  17. IMPORTANT UPDATE:

    Attorney Mark O’Mara is reading Facebook postings and personal messages sent to him via FB or his e-mail account.

    So if you have insights (which most posts in here are), send them to Mark. Like I said before, with social media, the Net, and so many good Americans contributing their time and thoughts to helping George Zimmerman, it is like Mark has 1000 lawyers working for him on the case.

    I love it.
    ___________________

    Here is what Mr. O’Mara posted a few hours ago (paragraph breaks and slight spelling/grammar edits mine, because the web crawlers are picking of these pages):

    “We understand there are some questions and concerns regarding the discovery deadline suggested by our Criminal Rules. While the rules do state that discovery is due 15 days from demand, that is a right which George Zimmerman enjoys, and it is up to his defense team to decide how to handle these matters.

    We are concerned about the release of witness information to the general public, solely due to safety concerns. There has been a lot of animosity and emotions caused by incomplete and premature disclosure of information.

    Because those emotions still run so high, we want to do everything we can to protect the sanctity of the process and the safety of the witnesses. No good purpose will be served by a media frenzy directed at witnesses.

    While the media and the public have an absolute right to know about this case, that right has to be balanced with the rights of these witnesses. They are doing their civic duty in testifying in this case. We doubt any of them enjoy the scrutiny they are under due to the coincidence of their involvement in such a high profile matter.

    We are delaying demanding the discovery until we can file motions to protect these witnesses. Once that is in place, discovery will flow to us, then the media and the public has access to it, under our rules.

    Ms. Corey is not violating any rule or statute, as it is our decision, not hers, to wait until proper motions regarding the witnesses have been drafted and filed. Tks for your understanding.

    • John Galt says:

      “We are delaying demanding the discovery”
      Negative, O’Mara demanded discovery on April 12.
      http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf

      Rule 3.220 (b) provides that the prosecutor has to disclose to the defendant. I don’t see anything that requires public disclosure in Rule 3.220, or provides that materials disclosed by the prosecutor to the defendant become part of the court file. Apparently you have to wade through the open records statutes to figure out what needs to be disclosed to the public, an exercise that I am not inclined to pursue.

      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0119/0119ContentsIndex.html

      Another issue is whether the media has standing to assert violation of the 15 day deadline set by Rule 3.220. Off the cuff, I would guess that they do not, since Rule 3.220 is intended to govern disclosures between the prosecutor and the defendant, and does not reference disclosure to the public. In practice, my off the cuff guess is that if O’Mara doesn’t move to compel discovery pursuant to the Rule, then nothing happens.

      Rule 3.220:
      (b) Prosecutor’s Discovery Obligation.
      (1) Within 15 days after service of the Notice of Discovery, the prosecutor shall serve a written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to the defendant and permit the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material within the state’s possession or control:

      Rule 3.220 (l) contemplates the filing of a motion for protective order to protect witnesses, which O’Mara will probably undertake when he gets around to it:

      (l) Protective Orders.
      (1) Motion to Restrict Disclosure of Matters. On a showing of good cause, the court shall at any time order that specified disclosures be restricted, deferred, or exempted from discovery, that certain matters not be inquired into, that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters, that a deposition be sealed and after being sealed be opened only by order of the court, or make such other order as is appropriate to protect a witness from harassment, unnecessary inconvenience, or invasion of privacy, including prohibiting the taking of a deposition. All material and information to which a party is entitled, however, must be disclosed in time to permit the party to make beneficial use of it.

      • tara says:

        I’m not an attorney, but it’s my understanding that until the formal arraignment hearing GZ is not yet officially charged with a crime. He’s been indicted (accused) because of Corey, but he has not yet been arraigned. That’s why O’Mara is stating that the 15 day clock hasn’t started yet, and will start on the day of the arraignment which is May 29.

        • John Galt says:

          Yeah, I don’t understand that because it appears to me that Zimmerman has already been charged, waived arraignment, pleaded not guilty and demanded discovery within 15 days of April 12. The clock for demanding discovery starts from filing of the charging document (information).

          3.220. Discovery
          (a) Notice of Discovery. After the filing of the charging document, a defendant may elect to participate in the discovery process provided by these rules, including the taking of discovery depositions, by filing with the court and serving on the prosecuting attorney a “Notice of Discovery” which shall bind both the prosecution and defendant to all discovery procedures contained in these rules.

          Corey says she filed the information (charging document) on April 11:

          ”Today we filed an information charging George Zimmerman with murder in the second degree,” said State Attorney Angela Corey said at a news conference in Jacksonville, referring to a formal charging document.”

          http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/George-Zimmerman-Not-a-Flight-Risk-Former-Attorney-146966625.html

          http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/11/zimmerman.charges.pdf

          Here is the demand for discovery and waiver of arraignment filed April 12:
          http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/4-24-12a.pdf

          • tara says:

            Oh, I see. The “information” is the charging document. And O’Mara did file the Notice of Discovery dated April 12, though it’s interesting to note the filed stamp has a date of April 16. So I wonder what’s going on there?

            One of the big news stories here in Chicago is the case for the murder of Jennifer Hudson’s family members. The media wants the 911 calls, and they can now have them because they were presented in court. So apparently here in Illinois, the media has access to evidence only after it has been presented in court, or some similar criteria. I think that’s fair.

  18. tara says:

    Maybe you all know this, I didn’t …… Sanford police took photos of the defendant that night. They should be in the evidence soon to be released. This should settle the matter for all of the nutcases who think that one photo was a fake.

    • That’s right Tara. What this site said about cognitive co-dependency (a symptom of cognitive distortion) applies to when this case first came to light.

      The Trayvonites wanted to believe that the police did not conduct an investigation and that the police were in cahoots with Zimmerman’s dad, a former Judge with GREAT power, and the State Attorney (Wolfinger) to quietly let the matter fade away from the public consciousness.

      Those beliefs included what we all know is common sense: of course the police would take pictures. Of course there’s an autopsy report (that includes the trajectory of the bullet from the angle of entry, path through the body and exit if the bullet did in fact exit Trayvon’s body. The trajectory would prove or disprove Zimmerman’s account of who was where when the gun was fired).

      In any event, despite the police revelations of what they did in terms of investigation, etc., many, many people on the Net nevertheless have posted that this is all a police cover-up, with Zimmerman’s father orchestrating it.

      I have consoled myself by knowing that what the Trayvonites think does not matter. There’s no convincing them, so why bother. Unless they see Zimmerman driven to prison, they are going to riot and loot no matter a lesser outcome.

      Convincing the Al Sharptons of the media also does not matter. What is a concern is not currying their favor, but defeating George Zimmerman criminal jeopardy. (Indeed, that is why I am focusing my efforts on winning the SYG motion. I will work on the other stuff later.)

  19. Here’s what I posted on GZ’s Case Facebook page, in response to Mark O’Mara’s concern about witness safety. I know it will have the media in a tizzy, but since they have acted so irresponsibly, to heck with them.
    ____________________

    I completely agree with Mr. O’Mara’s concerns. In any hearing or trial witness cooperation is extremely difficult to secure, so much so that in my cases we operate under the assumption that we will NOT be able to get the witness to appear and testify. With that assumption made we set about proving our case with other evidence, such as documents, depositions, or other “hard evidence.”

    Now add to the component that this case has divided America along racial lines, that you can go anywhere on the Net (e.g., Huffington Post) and find death wishes against George Zimmerman or anyone who speaks on his behalf. See this screen capture I made about two weeks ago: http://www.litigationuniverse.com/HuffPostZimmernanScornDeathWish.jpg

    And remember when Spike Lee tweeted what he thought was the home address of Zimmerman (IMO there’s only one reason to tweet someone’s home address, and that is to invite harm and worse); or the New Black Panther’s $10,000 bounty on GZ’s head.

    It does not take much imagination to foresee at the minimum a zoo-like atmosphere wherever a witness lives and works. Remember the carnival-like atmosphere of the the 1990s OJ Simpson murder trial. I can see this being a repeat of that ridiculousness, albeit many Judges have learned from what Judge Lance Ito did wrong on that case and refuse to let their courtrooms become a circus act (e.g., recall the Nevada OJ Simpson robbery trial. That Judge did not allow even the attorneys to “ham it up” for the cameras.)

    Anyway, witness safety and intimidation is a huge concern. At the end of the day what really bothers me is that the State Prosecutor benefits from defense witness non-cooperation. That is tragic and denies George Zimmerman due process.

    I would suggest the following solution to all this:

    - Since the Judge is the decider of fact on a Stand Your Ground motion (actually a motion to dismiss), the Judge does NOT need to have the witnesses testify on the stand. Why not have the witnesses deposed (in a lawyer’s conference room or Judge Lester’s chambers.)

    - To protect against leaks and assure witness safety, the Martin family lawyers would NOT be allowed to attend. Besides, they don’t have any standing whatsoever in the criminal proceedings, except maybe to accompany their clients the day they are deposed or “testify.”

    - The Judge can be present at the depositions to ask questions, and also to determine the credibility, competence and veracity of the witnesses testifying.

    - The identity of the witnesses will remain sealed, subject to a motion by any attorneys that the protective order should be lifted that allows the witness’ name(s) to be revealed.

    While my solution may sound extreme, this is an unusual case. There has been a lot of media that has incited people to acting out on their rage, or taking the law into their own hands, if you will.

    Also, the SYG motion is unique, the burden of proof being on George Zimmerman, but the level of proof being a low “preponderance” or 51% weight proving the elements of a SYG defense. It is also unique in that the Judge, not a jury is the decider of fact on the SYG hearing.

    All these factors arguably take the proceeding out of the public arena, or at least taking extreme measure on THIS case to assure witness safety, e.g., going by first names only, letting them testify/appear via confidential deposition, etc.

    Of course the State is going to argue against any of this (as indicated by their strenuous objection to George Zimmerman wearing a suit to all court proceedings). But the State’s arguments should fail because, as I said supra, they know they benefit from witness intimidation, a “failure to appear,” or them becoming hostile witnesses.

    OK, I’m done, for now. :)

    • howie says:

      I do not like that idea. Trials are public matters. They should never be held behind closed doors. As citizens we have the duty to testify in public. The State is responsible for keeping Law and Order, and protecting citizens. To bend to the Mob is not the answer. The correct answer is to quell the Mob. The Mob, hassa haf a beatin.

      • tara says:

        I think Michael’s just referring to the immunity hearing. The judge alone will decide, and his decision will be stated and explained to the public

        • howie says:

          If we are at the point that a citizen fears for his life in testimony in court we need to address it. Are we going to have witness protection programs for all trials? This is like a Mafia Trial. The witnesses are afraid the Mob is going to put out a hit on them. We are in deep trouble in Gotham. It is surreal. Appeasement will only worsen the situation.

  20. Well it is almost dark, aka the sun went down about 30 min ago. Heading out on my bike ride, that was supposed to be at 7:00 to 8:00 am. No rest for the weary. I feel like…..

    I should send George a bill. :)

    • tara says:

      I have a pile of unwashed laundry and a dirty stove, thanks to this web site! :)

      • Ad rem says:

        Heh…..you don’t even want to get ME started! :lol:

        • And we appreciate every bit of neglected housework and every ignored family member sacrificed for your good work, Puddy! Do you think it would help if we sent your DH a case of scotch or something? Or would that just be offensive, since alcohol is a poor substitute for your attentions? I mean, it’s not like he’s Irish. :)

          • Ad rem says:

            At Casa de Rem, we are currently running a controlled experiment to test the following hypothesis:
            “There is no need to do any housework at all. After the first four years the dirt doesn’t get any worse. ~Quentin Crisp, 1968

            As regards the offer of fine alcohol….DH is of Luxembourgian descent. Translated… he is too proud to be French, however, too kind to be German….ergo, a non-allied citizen of the world….free to drink anywhere and everywhere. (That part about the Irish…..waaaaaay too funny! :lol: )

            • What do you mean? I was being serious. We Irish guys have a long and proud history of making do with whiskey when we cannot enjoy the affections of our beautiful wives. And that’s most of the time, since we’re, by nature, a bit obnoxious, so the lasses are pissed at us a lot! Like right now, when I’m supposed to be upstairs watching TV with her and I’m blogging. So I getter scram! But the Luxembourgian DH is very cool! It’s still (mostly) a constitutional monarchy, and one of the most successful nations in the world. Plus, they have good beer, and the only 2 Luxembourgians I’ve ever known were fine folks. Well done!

              • Ad rem says:

                Oooooo……that part about blogging in lieu of wifey time could prove troublesome. (Better bring TWO glasses upstairs with you!) ;-)

    • M Simon says:

      I have some circuit boards that need wires and testing.

  21. tara says:

    Good night George and your family (if you read this site). I hope you can get some sleep.

  22. James Crawford says:

    The Geraldo interview is interesting in that O’Mara states that crump is in possession of information that has not yet been revealed to him as part of the discovery process. The published discovery request combined with O’Mara’s explanation of the need to protect witnesses suggests that team skittles has been engaging in witness tamperring and intimidation. I suspect that these unsavory tactics will eventually benefit Zimerman.

  23. Just how much of a double standard and level of hypocrisy resides in the souls of Trayvonites?

    Take a look at this. Trayvonites sure are a depraved lot.

    http://litigationuniverse.com/FacebookCloseDownFBPageComment.jpg

    • tara says:

      I’ll bet Angelene never once complained when Team Skittles engaged in their two month long brainwashing tour. But as soon as the other side speaks, it’s outrageous?

      When GZ’s donation site is up, I’m going to add an extra $10 on behalf of the lovely Angelene. :)

    • labrat says:

      Crump knew Martin had a well-documented history of attacking people.

      From the above article. Does anyone know what Cook is referring to here? Only thing I know is the sketchy claim that he may have punched a bus driver. I’ve yet to see any definitive evidence for that.

  24. Ted says:

    The only thing Crump did well in the interview was lie. He betrayed himself as a liar who is attempting to orchestrate the conviction of Zimmerman by intimidation. He is the stereotypical product of his culture that believes it is acceptable and normal to lie as long as the end justifies the means, to repeat the lie often and loudly to pass it off as the truth, when caught in a lie keep on lying while expressing indignation, and if all else fails play the race card.

  25. scubachick75 says:

    It seems like an insult towards the judge for Crump to suggest that George only apologized so he could get bail. As if an apology (that was more of a condolence than an apology) would determine if the judge released George on bail or not. I also found it interesting how Crump kept saying that the Martin family said it wasn’t the right time for the apology and George did it anyway and the family was so hurt and devastated by it. He left out the part that they never communicated that to Zimmerman or his lawyer. A lie of omission is still a lie….that seems to be what Crump is best at. After O’mara corrected him he didn’t say it again. They like to play with words. George said a little bit younger than Trayvon in court and a teenager to 911. They act as he will get convicted on those words alone. But when Sybrina Fulton goes on the Today Show and slips up and says the whole thing was accident, they excuse it by saying she’s tired and under stress.

Comments are closed.