Ryan Julison Response

As you are aware, we have recently been in contact with Ryan Julison, Media Consultant for the Trayvon Martin family and their Legal Representatives.  Mr. Julison  graciously agreed, very forthrightly, to answer all questions posed to him.

With that sentiment in mind, as a reminder here are the questions posed to Mr. Julison Tuesday via e-mail, and his response received today in its full content follows below:

Dear Mr. Julison, thank you in advance for your candor.

1.) Are you currently under the advice of any legal representation in regard to your capacity to speak bluntly, truthfully, and honestly about the circumstances surrounding the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and your subsequent involvement with regard to any aspect of media presentation?

In short: Are you lawyered up?

2.) It is reported you became the official media consultant of the Trayvon Martin family on March 5th of 2012. Is this correct? – Are you still working on their behalf in that capacity as of today?

3.) Who specifically contacted you and requested your services? On what date prior to Monday March 5th were you initially contacted?

Previously you had worked with Natalie Jackson on the Sherman Ware case. Had you any prior affiliation with any subsequent entity who became involved in the “case” against Trayvon Martin? In what capacity?

4.) During the March 8th press conference – which you coordinated – Tracy Martin stated he would not assist the Sanford Police Department in the recovery of telephone data from the telephone found at the scene. He would not provide the passcode to the account. Why?

5.) Where, and by whom did the term “White Hispanic” originate?

6.) From the outset, every media entity who engaged in coverage of the “initial story” used the race of Trayvon Martin and the race of George Zimmerman for the basis for their articles. Was race part of the media hook you established?

7.) Did you take any measures to stop, disuage or correct the media entities, of which you had specific contact, to correct their race-based reporting? Why or why not?

8.) Knowing now the FDLE and the FBI have fully investigated the “race angle” and found no justification for cause – do you still believe race played a factor in the events?

9.) On March 22nd at Mellon Park in Sanford FL you appeared on stage with various members of the New Black Panthers, the Martin Family, Benjamin Crump, Daryl Parks, and a host of interested parties. On March 26th Daryl Parks stated the Martin Family had no affiliation with the New Black Panther organization, yet they have appeared since 3/22 at numerous events together. How do you reconcile this contradiction?

10.) Did you at any time provide material information about the criminal investigation exclusively to the Media?

11.) What was/is you relationship with the following:

      • Matt Gutman (ABC)
      • Frances Robles (Miami Herald)
      • Joy-Ann Reid (Herald/NBC)
      • Russell Simmons (Global Grind)
      • Jeff Weiner (Orlando Sentinel)
      • Rene Stutzman (Orlando Sentinel)
      • Daralene Jones (Orlando Fox affiliate)

12.) Have you been financially compensated for any activity surrounding the Trayvon Martin case, including but not limited to your time an expenses?

13.) If so, in what amounts? (roughly)

14.) Were you part of, or impetus for, any decisionmaking to remove from public forums any information about Trayvon Martin including, but not limited to:

      • Social Media Accounts (any)
      • Public Records
      • Prior affiliations.

15.) Who provided the initial media package (early March) to the media including photographs?

16.) Why were only 5 year old photographs provided, and why was no more recent information provided?

17.) Have you ever looked at the social media history of Trayvon Martin?

18.) If so, how did it affect your decisionmaking moving forward?

19.) Why was the relationship between Brandy Green and Tracy Martin diminished?

20.) Who was the decisionmaker to remove Chad Green from any media exposure.

21.) Prior to taking on the job of Media Consultant did you do any independent investigative work on your own?

22.) Did you hire anyone to do anything as outlined in #21 above.

23.) Do you have direct knowledge of any specific acts of deception by any party involved in the case against George Zimmerman. Are you aware of any lies told by legal representatives of the Martin family?

24.) Who made the decision to change the last name of Javaris Fulton to “Martin”?

25.) Given the numerous parties physically, emotionally, and financially injured as a consequence to the racial narrative sold by a willing media – do you feel any:

      • - responsibility?
      • - remorse?
      • - regret?

26.) Have you seen any factual mistakes presented by myself? if so will you please outline and provide me the opportunity to review or correct?

27.) Are you going to pass your response (to these questions) through legal representation, in advance of submission, to parse any potential liability?

28.) Lastly, are you open to further contact and questioning either in writing, by phone, or in person?

Thanks again for your time, attention, honesty and candor.

Warmest regards,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Julison Response @2:12pm 11/29/12 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The owner of The Conservative Treehouse website emailed me a couple days back and asked if I would answer some questions about my role with the media in the Trayvon Martin story.

I felt this would be a good opportunity to provide information and explain how the media process actually works.

To begin, no, I haven’t ‘lawyered up,’ but I certainly will, if the need arises.

Natalie Jackson and I have worked on other stories in the past. We first worked together on the story of James Jones, the father who jumped on his disabled daughter’s school bus and confronted her bullies. We also worked on Sherman Ware’s story, among others.

For the record, I never encountered George Zimmerman or even heard his name until the Trayvon Martin situation. If he was involved in the Sherman Ware case, I knew nothing about it.

Natalie Jackson contacted me on March 5, 2012 and asked if I would consider volunteering my time to help a family in need reach out to the media. Shortly thereafter, I spoke with Ben Crump and Tracy Martin by phone and agreed to volunteer for a short time to assist with media outreach.

I ended my ongoing role as a volunteer for the family in early May. It was a pleasure assisting the Martin family and their representatives.

I have not been compensated for my work on this case. I did not bill the attorneys for any expenses. I do not work on contingency.

I have previously and subsequently volunteered my time and efforts for a number of people/causes, which can easily be documented with a simple Google search.

I thought it would be helpful to explain how the media process truly works in all PR settings. First, I don’t publish anything. I don’t operate a TV station, radio station, newspaper or blog.

In my capacity as a publicist, I serve as a facilitator between the media and my clients.

The process works like this:

PR person reaches out to media with a story idea. The media outlet then takes the idea and runs it through their process to decide whether or not to pursue the story. This process gets more complicated the larger the size and scope of the respective media outlet.

The media outlet then gets back to the PR person (or not, in many cases) and either asks for more information, agrees to move forward with the story or turns down the idea.

If the media outlet opts to move forward with a story, the PR person works to facilitate interviews and gather any other information requested.

The reporter then conducts the interviews and does their own independent reporting on the matter which would include contacting any other parties pertinent to the story and gathering additional facts.

Once the story is finished, it goes through a fact-checking and editing process. The reporter typically comes back with follow-up questions and requests for additional information.

The story is then reviewed again by higher-level editors before it runs. At the network TV level, stories are run through a Standards & Practices division.

There are many different processes and approvals that occur on the media side from the time a publicist pitches a story and a media outlet actually moves forward with the idea and runs the story.

In short, every media outlet conducts their own independent investigation of a potential story to verify information before it ever appears in print/broadcast. After all, they are ultimately responsible for the content they print/broadcast.

There seems to be many misconceptions on the role publicists have in shaping a story. While publicists provide information and certainly have a goal in mind for how they would like to see a story presented, we have no say in the final product.

We can make suggestions, we can direct media to interview subjects and provide detail, but the story that ends up on TV or in the paper/online is not reviewed or edited by anyone from outside the media outlet. We don’t have an opportunity to see the finished product before it runs.

I don’t sit with the broadcast editors and direct them on what shots to include in a story (or help with animation or editing 911 calls…).

Which leads to the question of the use of photography in this case.

When this process began, the Martin family was inundated for requests for photos of Trayvon.

I made a request of the family to receive as many photos as possible. The family sent me a ‘photo bucket’ with shots that were used in Trayvon’s funeral program. This included the Hollister shot and many other photos including baby pictures and family photos.

It should be noted that while it certainly benefits a family to cooperate with a photo request, they are under no obligation to provide any photos to media. It is done voluntarily to be helpful. Keeping in mind that Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton were grieving the loss of their son, they provided photos that were readily available to them at the time of the request.

Conversely, media outlets are under no obligation to use any of the photos the family provides. If for whatever reason the media is not happy with the selection of photos available, they are open to do their own reporting and fact-gathering in the search for additional photography. Any photo of Trayvon used in a media outlet was done at that media outlet’s sole discretion and choosing.

Regardless of which photos were used in a story (and many times baby photos were used), there was no deception intended and the media reports always included Trayvon’s age (17).

Regarding the use of race in the media reports, I didn’t include the race aspect in any pitch I presented to media (that can easily be verified with documented fact). As I have indicated previously and publicly, to me, the fact that an unarmed teenager was shot and killed by an armed captain of the Neighborhood Watch and wasn’t arrested was newsworthy enough without any element of race included. To be clear, I was only one part of the team working on behalf of the Martin family.

Random facts:

I never received any information from law enforcement about the ongoing criminal investigation.

Not sure which media outlet coined the term ‘white Hispanic.’ I had nothing to do with that designation.

I am disgusted by the NBPP bounty. That kind of activity has no place in this situation, on either side. Throughout this process, I’ve had no contact with anyone from the NBPP. Regarding the March 22 event, it was pure chaos with tens of thousands of people and hundreds of media outlets. If anyone from the NBPP was on-stage, I wasn’t aware of it.

I did not deal with Trayvon’s social media presence and didn’t take anything down.

My role in this situation was facilitating media relations for the Martin family and their representatives. I didn’t have involvement with ongoing family matters (Chad, Brandi Green, Jahvaris’ name change??, Tracy Martin not providing phone data, etc.).

As a publicist, particularly in a fast-moving situation like this, I don’t ‘investigate’ families I work with, but I do ask questions that I think may provide relevant and useful information. Unless there is something obvious in a Google search (and many times there isn’t), I rely on information provided by the families with whom I’m working.

Regarding various members of the media, I work with a wide variety of them on a regular basis, on a range of stories. I pitch stories and they either do the stories or they don’t. I am friendly with them, but not friends with them. We have a professional relationship.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~  End of letter ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unanswered questions:

4.)  During the March 8th press conference – which you coordinated – Tracy Martin stated he would not assist the Sanford Police Department in the recovery of telephone data from the telephone found at the scene. He would not provide the passcode to the account. Why?

7.)  Did you take any measures to stop, disuage or correct the media entities, of which you had specific contact, to correct their race-based reporting? Why or why not?

8.) Knowing now the FDLE and the FBI have fully investigated the “race angle” and found no justification for cause – do you still believe race played a factor in the events?

9.) On March 22nd at Mellon Park in Sanford FL you appeared on stage with various members of the New Black Panthers, the Martin Family, Benjamin Crump, Daryl Parks, and a host of interested parties. On March 26th Daryl Parks stated the Martin Family had no affiliation with the New Black Panther organization, yet they have appeared since 3/22 at numerous events together.  How do you reconcile this contradiction?

23.) Do you have direct knowledge of any specific acts of deception by any party involved in the case against George Zimmerman. Are you aware of any lies told by legal representatives of the Martin family?

25.) Given the numerous parties physically, emotionally, and financially injured as a consequence to the racial narrative sold by a willing media – do you feel any:

      • - responsibility?
      • - remorse?
      • - regret?

26.) Have you seen any factual mistakes presented by myself? if so will you please outline and provide me the opportunity to review or correct?

27.) Are you going to pass your response (to these questions) through legal representation, in advance of submission, to parse any potential liability?

28.)  Lastly, are you open to further contact and questioning either in writing, by phone, or in person?

[“I ended my ongoing role as a volunteer for the family in early May”.]

…”I have never scrubbed my Facebook page.  Go on my Julison Communications page and see for yourself.  Click on March, 2012 and you’ll see that every post you say was deleted is indeed right there and always has been”.

“Once you have reviewed both of these items, I would appreciate you correcting the this on your site”. – Ryan Julison

Liars Poker

[“I ended my ongoing role as a volunteer for the family in early May”.]

About these ads
This entry was posted in George Zimmerman Open Thread, Mark O'Mara, Ryan Julison, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

166 Responses to Ryan Julison Response

  1. clerkdante says:

    Such a shame. Exactly the “I didn’t do it” avoidance and double speak I think we all probably expected.

    Like

    • Angel says:

      “Such a shame. Exactly the “I didn’t do it” avoidance and double speak I think we all probably expected”

      The earth didn’t really move with those answers. yawn.

      Like

      • cosmocrash says:

        From the answers, sounds like Ryan Julison is a smooth talker (something he needs for his profession). I can see him not answering the question about why TrayDad won’t cooperate with the police about the PIN number – his “out” is to say, “I can’t speak for him.” The rest of the unanswered questions are mostly about his wronging George and on that, I’m sure he will not comment.

        Like

    • Sharon says:

      We are not in a position to demand that Mr. Julison say thus and so. He agreed to consider questions and provide answers. The nature of his responses provides further information and insights. As I said before, the process itself has value.

      Consider this: There are silences within every score and every performance of the greatest music ever written in the entire history of the world. Within every magnificent orchestra performance, there are silences. Bits of time in which no sound is made. That is an inherent part of music–even when I sit at my piano and play the simple music I enjoy, there are silences. So the silent areas within Mr. Julison’s answers are part of the music here.

      I don’t think I scoff at the silences–I want to try to see if I can understand the significance of the silences. Is it an 8th note? A whole measure? Setting up for a shift to another key? Where are the silences? How many are there? Where do they occur?

      I was surprised that he agreed to answer the questions and enter into a dialogue. Taking at face value his choice of a career in public relations, it seems a given that he wouldn’t have done it without believing there was something to gain that offset his perceived risk. Can’t imagine how he sees either the potential gain or possible risk.

      Like

    • myopiafree says:

      I think that Julison knew what Crump’s game was. How could he NOT KNOW. Take a case were a “black” was involved. CLAIM it was a “racial incident” (Boot-camp video). Then shake down 1) Insurance companies, 2) The State of Florida, and 3) Anyone else with “deep pockets”. Thus Julison “knew the game – and how to “play” it.” Whether his protestations of “innocence” will be believed, “… I did not know they were LYING to me about TM’s “younger brother” Chad, or that “….17 year-old TM BEGGED his father to, please, please let me go to 7-11 to get some candy for little-brother Chad..”, will be credible – remains for future review. What is amazing to me is how many lies were put into main-stream MEDIA, and NO ONE ASKED POINTED QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS FRAUD. It seems that Julison is blaming “Media gullibility”, as though he could lie as much as he wished, and it was up to the MEDIA (but not Julison) to check the false stories he told. This is like the Sargent in Stallag 13, who kept on saying, “… I know NOTHING, I know NOTHING”. Maybe that will work for Julison.

      Like

      • sundance says:

        ALWAYS remember Ryan Julison was the media tip of the spear for PIGFORD II (the reparations program). Greg Francis SE division lawyer for the CLASS Settlement and Ryan Julison his media person.

        If you know about the fraud that was/is Pigford – You know how to interpret his position.

        Like

        • jordan2222 says:

          Lots of us know about that crap. Stossel did a great expose’ and even had one of the shyster lawyers on the show.

          John Stossel to Al Pires, lead attorney in the Pigford settlement: “How do you know they’re farmers?”
          Answer: [long pause] “They fill out the forms… We HOPE they tell the truth.”

          More here:

          http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2011/03/25/Freeloaders—–John-Stossel-Reports-on-the-Pigford-Scandal

          Do you know how Julison was compensated? I do not.

          Like

          • arkansasmimi says:

            Hey Jordan2222, Lovemygirl, AlexandiaM > Just want to let yall know that your being accused of being one in the same and being a person named JESS. Blackbutterfly Xena and JB at JBMISSION who are now “putting together” something “big” (ROFLMBO) first they were gonna rent a big billboard, then it was gonna be take out a full page ad. Anywho, they been talking trash about yall and of this site, for a while now.

            Like

            • jordan2222 says:

              I have never been to the site. Are you saying they think that Lovemygirl and AlexandiaM and me are one and the same? Jello would say this an honor.

              So what are they saying we did or said that got their attention?

              Like

              • jello333 says:

                Just don’t tell them about the other half dozen names I go by here, and I won’t tell them about yours! (And if we’re not careful, O’Mara will quit sending those checks to us every week.)

                Like

                • jordan2222 says:

                  :D

                  Like

                  • arkansasmimi says:

                    LMBO I dunno, just supposedly, According to the Blackbutterfly Xena, yall “all have same IP as this person who supposedly stalks them” . They are 2 fruitloops short of a spoonful. Just letting yall know saw your names mentioned. HEY where’s my check? Mimi needs Christmas money too :)

                    Like

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    If you have any links, I am curious to see this crap. /

                    Like

                  • arkansasmimi says:

                    Xena
                    November 19, 2012 at 4:33 am
                    Hello everyone. I appreciate that tape by Levin. It was somewhat of a summary recap for me since I had not followed the Anthony case.

                    Oh yes JB! Jessica, aka Alexandra K, aka AlexandraP, aka Jordan2222, aka lovemygirl, aka Mungo and a few others. It amazes me that sundance would not check the IP addresses to see that is one and the same person who posts a comment and then posts a compliment to herself under another handle.

                    I hope that the Professor posts a blog on that petition as it requests the Obama Administration to violate constitutional separation of powers.

                    http://thejbmission.com/2012/11/04/something-stinks-in-sanford-florida/

                    Like

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    Maybe I am inept at figuring out that site but I did not see any of us mentioned.

                    Like

          • ytz4mee says:

            Nope, have no idea how Julison was compensated for Pigford. I’m sure it was “voluntary” charity work on behalf of long-suffering poor black farmers /sarc/

            Like

          • sundance says:

            I’ve got no idea how he was paid for that, but my gut tells me Greg Francis paid him, because if my memory serves right Francis was the one who hired him to work on behalf of the class.

            This was right when Francis became a full Partner with Morgan and Morgan law firm – prolly because of the Pigford scam and the massive “billable hours” worth untold fortune to the firm courtesy of the taxpayer.

            The link to the article where I found the relationship with Greg Francis is in those Julison discovery threads somewhere. It kinda describes what Julison’s job was…. If memory serves there were 3 or 4 lawyers (Francis being one) who were making the determinations as to eligibility for the claimants. Somewhere in that web of research was the article about him Getting a partnership with Morgan and Morgan and something like $1 Billion in fluid Pigford funds/assets he, Francis, retained direct control over in the process. His “stature” amplified by a magnitude of infinite value right quick.

            Like

  2. rumpole2 says:

    Just as well he “did it all for free”…..
    Apparently he did “NOTHING” :D

    Like

    • arkansasmimi says:

      Rumpole2 reading your comment after just taking a drink of Dr. Pepper… well just say had to clean off screen and luckily my keyboard is ok ;)

      Like

      • rumpole2 says:

        Sorry about that…. maybe as you scroll down… if my name hoves into view….. brace yourself :D

        Like

      • rumpole2 says:

        I posted the appropriate pic further down the thread… I’ll plonk it here too.

        Photobucket

        Like

        • arkansasmimi says:

          GIGGLE wouldnt you like to thump that lil hat and hope it viberated back and forth like in the cartoons! That crap eating smile he has ;)

          Like

        • nameofthepen says:

          Achtung, Private Julison! Ve know vhat yew did…
          ;)

          Like

        • myopiafree says:

          Subject: The power of propaganda.

          For a comparison in skill level, Julison is right “up there” with Hitler’s chief, Dr.Joseph Gobels – German Ministry of Propaganda. Hitler had control of the Media – and Julison does not. So I must give higher credit to Julison for his skill at publishing his false dogma – and convincing a wide swath of the American public that George Zimmerman is indeed a “Southern Man”.

          Like

        • myopiafree says:

          Hi Rumpole, A comparison of Julison’s equal:

          Paul Joseph Goebbels – 29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945 – was a German politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. As one of Adolf Hitler’s closest associates and most devout followers, he was known for his zealous orations and anti-Semitism.

          Goebbels earned a Ph.D. from Heidelberg University in 1921, writing his doctoral thesis on 19th century romantic drama; he then went on to work as a journalist and later a bank clerk and caller on the stock exchange.

          He also wrote novels and plays, which were rejected by publishers. Goebbels came into contact with the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) or Nazi Party in 1923 during the French occupation of the Ruhr and became a member in 1924. He was appointed Gauleiter (regional party leader) of Berlin. In this position, he put his propaganda skills to full use, combating the Social Democratic Party of Germany and Communist Party of Germany and seeking to gain their working class supporters. Goebbels hated capitalism, viewing it as having Jews at its core, and he stressed the need for the Nazis to emphasize both a proletarian and national character. By 1928, he had risen in the party ranks to become one of its most prominent members.

          Like

          • Sharon says:

            Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark. Not saying your thought is incorrect. In fact, I’m just now doing a reread on The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich , along with continued reading of Bonhoeffer–your parallel is proper. Just observing it might leave a mark. Of course, whoever it might leave a mark on would have to know Goebbels’ career in order for them to mark-vulnerable.

            Like

            • myopiafree says:

              Hi Sharon – I am certain that if Joseph Goebbels has survived the war, and was put on trial in Nurenburg, he would have just stated that he was in “Public Relations” for Hitler, and that he had NO IDEA that Hitler was not telling him the truth. If they wanted to prosecute anyone, they should prosecute Hitler for lying to Goebbels – and that he was innocent, and “knew nothing” of all the killing that was going on in Germany, or the false prosecution of certain people in Germany. Yes, Julison did not know that Crump was lying to him – so he must be totally without sin.

              Like

  3. diwataman says:

    “I ended my ongoing role as a volunteer for the family in early May.”
    That doesn’t seem right.

    “Once the story is finished, it goes through a fact-checking and editing process.”
    BWAHAHAHAAA!

    “As a publicist, particularly in a fast-moving situation like this, I don’t ‘investigate’ families I work with”
    Clearly, or the facts for that matter either.

    Like

  4. I don’t believe hardly any of those answers. I’d swear I read that Julison, Parks/Crump, Natalie Jackson & Martin/Fulton had burned the midnight oil to concoct the media campaign package that Julison sold them hook, line & sinker. The only way I can fathom Julison’s reply resembles the truth would be if Parks/Crump, N.Jackson & Martin/Fulton had planned from the beginning for Julison to play the part of the fall guy. Extremely Unlikely!!!

    Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        Trayvon Martin story FOUND the media. Hummm. Very telling that they are so damn proud of that in light of all the other UNTOLD stories with tragic ends.

        It is worth a few minutes to read this not only for what it says but also for what it does not say. To embellish Sharon’s comments, those moments of silence are “golden.” Do you hear what they are NOT saying? Our Wolverines can easily spot the sins of omission but I doubt many others would.

        My anger has subsided so I need to get this off my chest.

        While we view Julison as an unscrupulous villain, he did what he routinely does in his profession. That does not mean that I have any adoration for him, because I do NOT, but I acknowledge that he has mastered his techniques. As I have said before, this is normal behavior for most political strategists.

        I hope you will not beat me up too badly over my comments but I spent most of my life in the media and have a pretty good sense of how the game is played. I am only trying to be objective as a result of my career experiences.

        Serious question: If you had a story that you wanted told to the nation through the national media, would you contact Julison if you thought he might do it out of the goodness of his heart?

        Taking that a step further, suppose your choices were Ryan Julison or Karl Rove. Which one would you choose?

        Like

        • hooson1st says:

          Jordan:
          I thought that Julison gave reasonable answers to the questions he decided to answer. Can’t say that for what he chose not to address.

          Like

  5. realitycheck says:

    “every media outlet conducts their own independent investigation of a potential story to verify information before it ever appears in print/broadcast. After all, they are ultimately responsible for the content they print/broadcast.”

    Not My Fault … Not my responsibility

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      “There seems to be many misconceptions on the role publicists have in shaping a story. While publicists provide information and certainly have a goal in mind for how they would like to see a story presented, we have no say in the final product.”

      His previous website said that he helped attorneys in “crafting” the story.

      Like

      • James F says:

        It’s still there.

        Specialized Public Relations for Attorneys

        For attorneys working a case for which they would like to generate publicity, it is imperative to work with a PR practitioner who knows how to work with a legal team to craft the story and who can get that message quickly to the right people in the media, whether local or national.

        http://www.julisoncom.com/we_do.html

        Like

    • jordan2222 says:

      While it is true that they are ultimately responsible for the content they print/broadcast, entirely too many media outlets do NOT take the time to do the investigations they once did. When I was int the business, all stories had to pass the “stress” test. Managing editors reviewed almost all “big” articles before publication.

      On line newspapers partner today and publish much of the identical content. That has happened because they no longer make money like they once did. Many have skeleton crews on site.

      I would bet that many outlets that picked up the story and ran with it simply called the first couple of outlets that published it, got their input and used the same damn photos to keep the story consistent. Why would they complicate the narrative by showing different photos? It would also take a lot of time to review the “photo bucket.”

      You could easily call this conspiratorial collusion among the media outlets. The Orlando Sentinel and the Miami Herald (you know the writers) were all over this and rushed to print the latest updates whether true or not. Everyone else simply followed suit.

      Julison really did not have to do much after the core story got out there.

      Like

      • myopiafree says:

        Hi Jordan – Yes propaganda is a “crafted lie”. Julison, acting for Crump’s motives (racial extortion), was skilled at doing that. Once the LIE was made into a Video – everyone BELIEVED THE VIDEO-LIE – AND CBS NEVER CHECKED INTO ANY FACT.

        Like

      • thefirstab says:

        Jordan2222 – you are spot on — the slow painful downward slide of daily newspapers has contributed to this type of “viral” news, and accuracy is way down the list, it seems.
        I read your posts with great interest, as I have also been employed in print media for almost 20 yrs.
        IMO, the parent companies of these papers should be held accountable and put under a microscope for the damage done to GZ, his family, friends and supporters. These huge organizations are publicly traded and answer to stockholders who may or may not understand the importance of journalistic integrity. I find it deeply troubling that these companies not only own newspapers, but TV, radio, and online sites.
        McClatchey owns the Miami Herald, along with El Nuevo Herald, the Spanish-language version. No doubt that false/misleading info is then disseminated as is to all McClatchey entities. The OS is owned by The Tribune Co., which has been in Chapter 11 for some time. Here is a link showing their properties across the country:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Tribune_Company

        Snippet from tribune.com –
        “On Nov. 16th, the Federal Communication Commission announced that it has approved Tribune’s request for the assignment of its broadcast licenses and has granted the company waivers in the five markets where it owns both a television station and a newspaper. This decision by the FCC enables Tribune to continue moving forward toward emergence from Chapter 11,…”

        Am I the only one who has a problem with this? One more thought – looking at the markets serviced by both McClatchey and Tribune Co., it is very obvious to me how this “black child gunned down by big scary white vigilante” would play – bottom line of raising print circulation and spiking online viewership.
        I apologize for rant – I have worked for Scripps-Howard, Knight-Ridder and McClatchey.
        No matter what their mission statements are, they are identical in corporate doctrine – its about the bottom line.

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          This is a little off-topic, but it’s related to what you’re saying. Well over 90% of the MSM is owned and controlled by a grand total of only FIVE huge corporations. Viacom, AOL/Time Warner, NewsCorp, Clear Channel, and Disney. Check out this pic… it’s pretty disgusting. (I don’t know if it’ll show up here, or if it’ll just be the link)

          Like

        • nameofthepen says:

          thefirstab says: “IMO, the parent companies of these papers should be held accountable and put under a microscope for the damage done to GZ,…”

          First Stab – You would think, wouldn’t you? But, I have my doubts, which I haven’t expressed ’til now.

          Do you remember the “Monsanto Whistleblowers” – those FOX news reporters who were fired because they would not bow to pressure to spin a story to hide the fact of nasty Monsanto Frankenhormones hidden in the our milk supply?

          They took FOX to court. First they won. Then, FOX, bowing to pressure from corporate big money (Monsanto), appealed it. In Florida. They won. (After what we’ve seen done to George in Florida, are we surprised?)

          Anyway, in simple language, the court ruled that the media can legally lie.

          In February 2003, the Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

          http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

          Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            I think every Prog is required to know that case to justify their position about Fox never being credible. They also use a “study” that in essence revealed the stupidity and lower intelligence of people who watch Fox. It was outrageous.

            Like

            • nameofthepen says:

              Hey, Jordan – LOL. I’m not familiar with FOX, as vs. any of the others, since I gave away my beautiful Sony color TV back in 2006, and have been “TV-free” for six years now. :D

              But, the reason I posted that was to draw attention to the point that it appears to me (and I realize I could be wrong) that the court’s ruling gave the media “license to lie”.

              I put that in the same moral gray area as the fact that media use of subliminal messaging also is not specifically outlawed, despite most people’s assumption that it’s illegal.

              Like

              • jordan2222 says:

                I hear you and only hope it is still unlawful to maliciously libel/slander a private citizen in such a way as to require that person to hide from the public. If I recall the media made settlements with Jewel and the Duke Lacrosse players.

                Like

                • nameofthepen says:

                  jordan2222 says: “If I recall the media made settlements with Jewel and the Duke Lacrosse players.”

                  Hey, Jordan, if so, I sure can’t find anything on the net about it. Nothing. :(

                  Like

                  • sundance says:

                    Richard Jewell – Falsely identified as the Atlanta Park Bomber : Settlements with Atlanta Journal Constitution, NBC (biggest one), CNN ($300-500K), New York Post (half a mil I think), and many others.

                    Like

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    I think he died before he got into his pockets.

                    Like

                  • ctdar says:

                    Too bad Jewell died at 44 (less than 10 years after ’96 olympic bombing) before he was able to enjoy the balance of his life

                    Like

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    I see SD replied about Jewell. I do not know if the details of any the Duke lacrosse players settlements were ever accurately disclosed but one of them was reported to owe the IRS over 6 million.

                    Like

                • nameofthepen says:

                  jordan2222 says: (at 8:36 pm) “…the Duke lacrosse players…one of them was reported to owe the IRS over 6 million.”

                  Yes, I saw that as I was doing a bit of poking around. To tell the truth, I can’t figure out what was the final outcome. There’s so much conflicting data out there, depending upon what words I use in my search strings.

                  Anyway, in all the returns I get on that one, nothing about media liability is among them.

                  However, Sundance has also chimed in with the reminder that Richard Jewell received settlements from several MSM entities. So, I was wrong.

                  That made me happy! :)

                  Like

  6. cajunkelly says:

    OK, I had an immediate reply on my fingertips but I didn’t want to be the first. All of the above give voice to my sentiments.

    Creating degrees of separation, plausible deniability and damage control.

    See? I said it in nine words, whereas he blathered on ad nauseum.

    The legal counsel filter is so obvious a blind person could see it.

    Sundance, this person (I’ll be polite) wasted hours of your time, in addition to mere minutes of time that each of us spent posting questions we wanted answered.

    I have to admit, it’s what I expected. Remember the advice any lawyer will give ya;

    NEVER PUT IT IN WRITING

    He didn’t. He won’t….ever.

    Like

    • Arkindole says:

      “The legal counsel filter is so obvious a blind person could see it.”

      Uh-huh…

      Like

    • I couldn’t agree more and, I would add it is EXACTLY what I expected, nothing more and nothing less. He has ZERO to gain from being candid and honest and is, like the rest of the Scheme Team……………..ALL IN
      The word parsing is very similar to Robles concocted horseshit about the paid autographs. YAWN

      Like

  7. cajunkelly says:

    “If anyone from the NBPP was on-stage, I wasn’t aware of it.”

    THAT is an insult to the intelligence of every person on this forum who has the seen the picture of HIM STANDING MERE FEET FROM MEMBERS OF NBPP.

    But notice, he inserted deniability by saying “on-stage”.

    If this “person” is that “unaware”, he really *should* donate his services. A public relations person doesn’t even know what’s ten feet in front of him?

    He really shouldn’t *ever* try for a job as a body guard. (harrumph)

    Perhaps someone should email that picture to him. Yes, common sense dictates that he HAS seen it here, but until he is in absolute receipt of it he can tell us all not to believe our lying eyes.

    IMO his agreeing to be interviewed suddenly is suspicious. He’s slick, as evidenced by his “on-stage” remark. He’s up to something and I wouldn’t trust him.

    BTW, as is true with all my posts, the above two ARE MY OPINION.
    This will be posted with every post I make about this “person” going forward.

    Like

    • jordan2222 says:

      “This will be posted with every post I make about this “person” going forward.”:

      No need for you to do that. Has anyone here every spanked you for your opinions or comments?

      Like

      • cajunkelly says:

        In this letigious society, it is prudent to end posts about someone else with that disclaimer, especially someone so gifted at parsing words.

        Like

    • justfactsplz says:

      I agree. I think he is up to something. He would not do this if it did not benefit him in some way. He sure did not do it out of the goodness of his heart.

      Like

  8. cosmocrash says:

    Great posts, cajunkelly. His answers are basically useless, so what is he up to? Are they looking for “holes” in their stories so they may be better prepared going forward?

    Like

    • Sha says:

      cosmocrash: BINGO ! Where better to find out what might be thrown at you then a site full of intelligent people who dislike you and what you stand for. He is preparing himself for battle by studying his enemies. Keep your friends close but your enemies even closer. In his mind he has done no wrong, He chose sides that is it. (If you tell a half truth is it a lie ? )He thinks if he answers this site it makes him look like he has nothing to hide. ” Just my opinion.”

      Like

  9. nameofthepen says:

    Like

  10. jello333 says:

    “There seems to be many misconceptions on the role publicists have in shaping a story. While publicists provide information and certainly have a goal in mind for how they would like to see a story presented, we have no say in the final product. We can make suggestions, we can direct media to interview subjects and provide detail, but the story that ends up on TV or in the paper/online is not reviewed or edited by anyone from outside the media outlet. We don’t have an opportunity to see the finished product before it runs.”

    C’mon, Ryan. You’re kinda ignoring the point of the question, I think. I don’t think Sundance or anyone else claimed that after you hand over info to the media, that they simply turn around and broadcast/print it without making any revisions or additions of their own. But you’re making it seem like the media ends up putting their own spin on what you presented to them, and the “final product” might be totally different than what you envisioned. I think you know better than that. If you’re good at what you do, and I’m sure you are, then you hope that what the media presents is pretty close to whatever you gave to them in the first place. Right?

    I think you’re being honest when you say your job is to “provide information”, and that you “have a goal in mind” for how the story should be presented. I think you’re being honest when you say you “make suggestions” and “direct the media to interview subjects”. But I do NOT think you’re being straight-forward in your implications when you say you don’t personally review or edit the media’s story before it becomes a “finished product”. Oh, I believe that is literally true, but I don’t think it MATTERS much. Because if you did your job correctly, you won’t NEED to edit or review a thing… the finished product will be pretty much exactly what you intended it to be, based on the info YOU gave to the media.

    So what I’m saying is that yes, if the media broadcasts/prints untruths or distortions based on the info you gave them, it’s partly THEIR fault for doing so… they’re guilty of journalistic laziness for not digging deeper. But it’s really hard for me to believe that you would mind that. Same goes for any PR person… I’m not just picking on you. I think your hope, your sincere desire, is that the media will take the info you give them and then pass it on to the public word-for-word. Am I wrong?

    Like

    • Sharon says:

      Yeah, I like this, jello. My brain doesn’t have the patience to peel this onion this way…I think your comment digs down and deals with unspoken “professional courtesies” that are based on historical boundaries in his dealings with media…..dishonest and unprofessional boundaries that both the media and the PR folks have become accustomed to.

      Your answer gets at some of what I didn’t know how to get to in my longer comment above. There are things to be gained by even evasive answers. The evasive answers and/or the silences provided the context for this analysis that you’ve done. Those kinds of opportunities do come when a process is moving, even though we know we can’t dictate the pace and direction of the action.

      You could not have made this argument yesterday without putting words in Mr. Julison’s mouth and making assumptions about what he might or might not say.

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        Thanks, Sharon. And yeah, I think you’re right about silences sometimes speaking just as loudly as words. Sometimes a question NOT answered says a whole lot. (I also like your analogy to silences in music, and how important they can be… not sure I had thought about that before.)

        Like

    • pbunyan says:

      “I don’t think Sundance or anyone else claimed that after you hand over info to the media, that they simply turn around and broadcast/print it without making any revisions or additions of their own”

      Yeah, isn’t it a bit arrogant to think that we’d think he has the power of the Obama administration.

      Like

  11. diwataman says:

    “There seems to be many misconceptions on the role publicists have in shaping a story.”

    No, sorry Ryan, there’s really not. You directly helped shape the story;

    “If the 911 protocol across the country held to form here, they told him not to get involved. He disobeyed that order,” said Ryan Julison, a spokesman for the family.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/08/us-crime-florida-neighborhoodwatch-idUSBRE82709M20120308

    Like

  12. cajunkelly says:

    I’m done with this….person. I’ll repeat; he’s up to something…I don’t trust him and I have no wish to end up a pawn in the game.

    Y’all have at it, I’ll just enjoy the reading. :)

    Like

  13. boutis says:

    So “Saint” Ryan is just a conduit, pipeline, gopher if you will, for the family and their attorneys to the media. He has no responsibility for the dissemination of possible libel, slander, character assassination, mob violence,death threats, malicious prosecution, financial ruin, and other forms of damage to individuals and society. He is just a human fax, voice recording, wind up automaton performing what he is told. He isn’t paid because he does it out of the goodness of his heart thus he has no responsibility. Good luck with that during discovery Mr Julison.

    Like

  14. pbunyan says:

    Kinda sounds to me like he’s a sociopath like Obama.

    Like

  15. libtardh8r says:

    “I did not deal with Trayvon’s social media presence and didn’t take anything down.”

    But he might know who did.

    “Regarding the use of race in the media reports, I didn’t include the race aspect in any pitch I presented to media”

    So he did “pitch” a story to the media

    Julison’s answers are about what I expected. Slick (no NBPP “on stage”) and full of plausible deniability. He was simply a conduit of information between Crump and the Martin family and the media, not responsible for the content of that information

    Like

  16. yankeeintx says:

    “PR person reaches out to media with a story idea. The media outlet then takes the idea and runs it through their process to decide whether or not to pursue the story.”

    Thanks for that Mr. Julison, because none of us here had any idea. You assume that we have never hired, worked for or worked with a PR firm, how arrogant of you.

    ” I ended my ongoing role as a volunteer for the family in early May.” Is this when you went to work directly for Crump?

    “As a publicist, particularly in a fast-moving situation like this, I don’t ‘investigate’ families I work with, but I do ask questions that I think may provide relevant and useful information. Unless there is something obvious in a Google search (and many times there isn’t), I rely on information provided by the families with whom I’m working.” So what you have just said is that you will sell any story without vetting it for yourself. Nice to know. Do you really think it is okay to sell a lie, as long as the lie didn’t originate with you?

    I do thank you for taking the time to answer a few questions. It is enlightening, but maybe not in the way you intended. I would like to think that you have learned a valuable lesson, but your continued association with Parks & Crump proves otherwise. Just one last question Mr. Julison, Was it all worth it to you?

    Like

  17. akathesob says:

    PR = Pushing a “story” idea. I never heard one word about pushing the truth from any of the few lose answers. just saying…

    Like

  18. 22tula says:

    Gasoline
    March 5, 2012 – Natalie Jackson contacted Ryan Julison and asked if he would consider volunteering his time to help a family in need reach out to the media.
    Who reached out to Natalie Jackson?

    Fire
    March 4, 2012 – History Now: Sharpton Recreates Selma To Montgomery March

    http://newsone.com/1912355/al-sharpton-selma-montgomery-march/

    Get Out The Vote

    http://rainbowpush.org/video

    Why we need neighborhood watch. – February 14, 2012

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101015/Gary-L-Holmes-caught-young-mother-secretly-dials-911-attack.html

    Like

  19. justfactsplz says:

    You know he may have done this knowing it would prompt us to show all the documentation we have against him so he can tell just how deep he is in, how much proof has been discovered about his involvement. I’ll bet Crump and Jackson are in on this. There is an ulterior motive somewhere here and it goes beyond merely wanting Sundance to make those two “corrections”.

    Like

    • jordan2222 says:

      You must have submitted this while I was writing my post below. Almost all we know about him has now been posted in 3 threads so if he wants to know what we know, it is now easy to find but I suspect SD might know more.

      His response is wordy but it’s well calculated to admit nothing.

      I still wonder if he has limited liability if he really was not compensated.

      Like

      • justfactsplz says:

        He really worked hard to try and distance himself from certain question. As far as him being libel, maybe one of our fine attorneys on here could answer that. This guy was oh so important to himself anyway.

        Like

        • jordan2222 says:

          I have posed the legal question before but no one has chimed in except for that newbie who was cleaning his gun and stuff or something.

          I have not seen kathyca or is it cathyca…. I must be losing gray matter.

          Like

          • kathyca says:

            Hi jordan, I haven’t researched the issue, but I can think of no reason why lack of compensation would shield him from liability. Imo, his focus is on other liability issues like publication and knowledge/intent.

            Like

            • jordan2222 says:

              Thanks, kathyca. I have also read a lot of stuff about how George is a public figure and will not be able to sue anyone. I find that difficult to accept because the publicity itself is what made him a public figure that had to go into hiding.

              I have not see you lately but hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

              Like

              • kathyca says:

                Here’s the test and a case talking about “involuntary public figure” defamation. Not sure if it’s exactly the same as Florida law but, conceptually, the idea is the “involuntary public figures” are “exceedingly rare.” An example typically used is a person who commits a high profile crime. Here, though, while George’s actions have taken on a high profile, he has not been found to have committed a crime as yet (and, imo, never will be); if he did commit a crime, it arguably was not a high profile crime (think assasination attempt). Personally, I think there’s a good argument to be made that he is NOT an involuntary public figure under the applicable legal standard and that that body of law was not intended to apply to people in the circumstance George finds himself in.

                But, regardless, even if he is an involuntary public figure, the “actual malice” standard includes reckless disregard. There are plenty of deep pockets who acted with actual malice AND reckless disregard in this case, imo. Not sure I’d want to be ABC News, for example, making an argument against George’s claim in court. There’s enough of a gray area in the law, imo, and enough extremely bad behavior that wrecked the life of a, thus far, innocent private citizen.

                Here’s the test:
                “Involuntary public figure “In a defamation action, to prove that a plaintiff is an involuntary
                public figure, the defendant must demonstrate by clear evidence that (1) the plaintiff has become a central figure in a significant public controversy, (2) that the allegedly defamatory statement has arisen in the course of discourse regarding the public matter, and (3) the plaintiff has taken some action, or failed to act when action was required, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would understand that publicity would likely inhere.”

                And a case applying it:

                http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/186/505/569298/

                Like

                • jordan2222 says:

                  Thank you. Sounds like there is no definitive answer. Did you post this on a previous thread? I have read that case before and wondered how long it took for one judge to write it.

                  Like

                  • kathyca says:

                    There rarely is a definitive answer in civil law. That’s the stuff ginormous confidential settlements are made of. I don’t think I posted that case before, but chances are that a clerk, not a Judge, wrote it. The Judge likely reviewed the final draft. My guess is it took the better part of a week to research and write, and a couple more days to finalize. Not straight time, though. Lots of stuff going on with other cases at the same time.

                    Like

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    ginormous?

                    My Dad would call that a fancy seventy-five cent word.

                    Like

    • Sha says:

      justfactsplz : Dang ! I made my post above before I read you and Jordan’s. :D

      Like

  20. jordan2222 says:

    Julison contacted Sundance for ONE and only one stated request, which was denied.

    So exactly why would he subject himself to our numerous, sometimes vicious attacks and agree to answer any questions at all?

    Exactly why would he agree to an interview with Sundance, knowing the world will know the content?

    Surely he has considered risk versus reward.

    I have a few possible answers rambling though gray matter.. but I would love to hear what others have to say.

    Like

    • Sharon says:

      Oh, shoot–now I look at the clock and see you just now posted this….so how long we gonna have to wait for your gray matter to give with the possible answers??? Because that’s the question I’ve been asking myself since yesterday….why? And I can’t come up with a single possible answer that I can satisfactorily defend even to myself.

      Like

    • Hugh Stone says:

      He probably thinks he is smarter than everyone.

      Like

      • sundance says:

        He is. He’s the smartest PR guy in every room. Just ask him.

        Like

        • recoverydotgod says:

          He seems very media-expert-y.

          How Trayvon story went viral: old school new media sparked each other

          April 13, 2012

          By Dara Kam

          http://m.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional/how-trayvon-story-went-viral-old-school-new-media-/nN28Z/

          [snip]

          And although the cries for help and the gray hoodie went viral thanks to the digital age, it wouldn’t have happened without plain, old-fashioned news reporting, media experts say. Old school and new school pushed each other in getting the story out.

          “There’s a lot of social media people and bloggers taking credit for this story. They certainly have a lot to do with the explosive growth of the story. But this story really and truly was a product of the mainstream media,” Ryan Julison, owner of Orlando-based Julison Communications, said.

          [snip]

          Like

      • myopiafree says:

        Hi Hugh – Developing a “Crafted Lie” – he was skilled in recognizing that he could play on “White Guilt” of an image of a “White Southern Man” BEATING and innocent young black child. Here is the core that make Julison’s propaganda so effective.

        Like

        • Hugh Stone says:

          Hi myopia, I never paid attention to the lyrics before. SMH. Now I understand the Skynard verse.
          I don’t understand why SOME (not all) black people think they are owed something. Just change the name from “welfare check ” to “reparations check” and I think the squeaky wheels will be oiled.

          Like

  21. Lee says:

    Just a “volunteer”? Why the presence at the public rallies and press conferences? Why didn’t he correct the misinformation in the media? He was there in person at many of the Zimmerman character assassinations. Like the Judge told Zimmerman – he can’t be a potted plant. Sharpton saying the police let Zimmerman leave with his gun, Hostin stating Zimmerman was allowed to keep his clothes, all the many lies that were told and he can wash his hands of any responsibility – shameful!

    Like

  22. ytz4mee says:

    Interesting that he is willing to share the docs and Press Releases but claims it never mentions “race” as a hook.

    What he doesn’t address is the off-the-record telephone conversations with his friends in the media to pitch the story and set the hook. Without the race angle, there was no hook, and even he admits he was frustrated in his early attempts to get traction for this story.

    Like

  23. metrometeor says:

    First of all I just can’t believe he worked for free. This tells me I can’t trust any of this at all.

    I agree with others, there must have been a point in answering this… Sundance if you were considering asking more questions I think it would be smart to just drop it… As we can see we get nothing out of it but we don’t know what they could be gaining.

    Like

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi Meteor – Julison is working on “Plausable Denial”. Thus his postings on TreeHouse to prove that he was just a “Human Fax” and had NO OBLIGATION to check any false statement made to him by Crump-Team. Thus, it his mind it is OK to lie, to publish pictures of this cute 11 year-old black CHILD, and picture of 28 year-old George who GUNNED DOWN, this sweet un-armed black CHILD. After all, it was up to CBS to check to see if this sweet 11 year-old was in fact a though 17 year-old had been kicked out of school three times in six months – for “swinging” on a bus driver, and possessing drug material. By Juilson’s accounting, CBS is guilty of slander and libel – NEVER JULISON.

      Like

      • hooson1st says:

        myopiafree:

        Julison is working in the liberal side of the street and has connections to Crump via prior cases. It is only normal that Crump/Jackson would have contacted him w/reference to the GZ/TM tragedy.

        Julison is a media facilitator. The more cases he is involved in, the more reporters and
        editors he interacts with, the bigger his “contact book” is.

        When a major story breaks, there is mad scramble by the media to capitalize on it, to beat their competition to it, and to milk the publicity off of it. The 24 hours news cycle on cable TV is a ravenous monster that will consume whatever is thrown its way.

        GZ/TM case was one that did not break into “major” news story right away, not until the Crump initiative played the race card. This ignited matters and the whole race-focused coalition swung in behind Crump et al because it fit the narrative that they are always looking for.

        When these stories break, everyone in the media; ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, NY Times, local papers and TV, all the talk shows – they all want to land the interviews, all at the same time, all clamoring for an exclusive.

        For a guy in Julison’s position, this is a gold mine. He is not getting paid anything according to his own account. But he is picking up contacts galore, and he doesn’t have to go them. They are coming to him. He becomes an off the record source, answering questions on leads,

        His job was to represent what the Martin family wanted to portray.

        The ethical questions remain unanswered. Did he knowingly provide “information” that he knew to be untrue?

        Like

        • myopiafree says:

          Hi Hoosen – The “Great Skill” of a person in propaganda – as Juilson is – is to recognize what we would call “White Guilt”. This is the presumed “need” of the “White community”: to BLAME “Southern Whites” of “wanting to murder” cute little black children. (i.e., a KKK loving, White wanna-be semi-police, person.).
          [ Of course NONE OF THIS IS TRUE – but Julison does not care about that issue. ]
          To do this, Julison “crafted” and artful lie, knowing that most “Whites” would react on an EMOTIONAL LEVEL – and would never actually check ANY FACT OR TRUTH, that was in conflict with this “cute 11 year-old black child, GUNNED DOWN BY THIS WHITE SEMI-POLICE MAN”.
          If he provided ACCURATE FACTS AND INFORMATION – his “propaganda” would HAVE NEVER, EVER GOTTEN OFF THE GROUND. So Julison had to “lie a lot” – maybe even to himself – that he did an “honerable thing” by creating this total lie.

          Like

        • John Galt says:

          “Did he knowingly provide “information” that he knew to be untrue?”

          Actual malice = publication with actual knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.

          Like

          • hooson1st says:

            John:
            This is where it get tricky in the law. Public figure v. Private Figure.

            We care about the ultimate discernable truth, regardless of the technicalities of legal definition.

            If Julison knowingly provided false information, and if that was subsequently published by a third party, and if GZ would be ruled to have been a private figure; then maybe there would be a cause for action.

            I don’t believe that Julison knowingly provided false information. And given that he was twice removed from the actors in this tragedy; i.e., GZ and TM, what constitutes reckless disregard is hard to define.

            The fact is, that the only live person who knows exactly what truly happened that fateful evening is GZ. We don’t know, we can’t know. We can define, with some accuracy, what is most likely to have happened.

            Like

            • myopiafree says:

              Hi Hoosen – I have no problem with “Trial in Court”. I have a major problem with “Trial in Media” by Juilson’s propaganda MACHINE. The effect of that “machine” is to drive George into hiding. Put a “Death Threat” on him by The Black Panther’s. The “hijacking” of the Grand Jury process, by threat of “Thug Riots”. This is “Media Lynching” of George, by the lies and propaganda produced by Julison. If anything, Treepers are attempting to “Balance” the false reporting done by CBS and other Media giants. It is CBS’s “mindless’ leap into their lies – that make a “Court defense” of George so very, very difficult. Does anyone think otherwise??

              Like

              • ytz4mee says:

                If Tracy Martin was as interested in “Justice” as he claims, he would have insisted that the empaneled Grand Jury proceed, and would have provided the PIN for his cell phone account to the authorities so they could retrieve the info on the phone. After all, Trayvon was completely innocent, right? Pursued and hunted like a dog and shot in cold blood?
                But that’s not what happened. He lawyered up and extreme political pressure was applied to have the Grand Jury process subverted. Actions speak louder than words.

                Like

              • hooson1st says:

                myopiafree:

                You are absolutely correct as to the “trial by media” aspect and its contribution to the rush to judgement against GZ, and against the known factors of this case.

                Therein lies a dilemma. How does one protect someone like GZ from the howling mobs and still maintain the constitutional protections for press freedom and our individual freedom of speech.

                The Martin family is in grief, understandably embittered, and has every right to express their opinion, whether correct or incorrect, about the tragedy and responsibilities for it.

                When the media oversteps its bounds we have the libel laws in place to deal with it.

                I can see that Julison advanced the Martin family narrative throughout the media. I don’t quite see where he propagated lies or asserted facts he knew to be false.

                And I do wish Julison would reply to the other questions raised by sundancecracker.

                The weakness of the Grand Jury system is what it is. It existed before the GZ/TM tragedy, and will exist long afterwards.

                Like

                • jordan2222 says:

                  The review board considered requiring grand juries in self defense/SYG cases but I guess it did not make it as a final recommendation. However, hat does not mean the legislature cannot do it.

                  Like

      • jello333 says:

        Actually, that’s not all bad. If Julison decides to testify against the MSM on the one side, and Crump and his buddies on the other, that’s fine. Let them all eat each other and throw the blame back and forth. In the end, what’ll be 100% obvious is that there is PLENTY of blame to go around. Sue them all, and let God sort it out. ;)

        Like

        • ytz4mee says:

          Julison’s not going to testify against the MSM or the Scheme Team and their extended circle. They’re his bread and butter.
          Instead, he thinks he’s so masterful he’ll just wordsmith and parse his way out of this hole. Good luck with that.

          Like

  24. gretchenone says:

    You know those candies that are hard on the outside but filled with creme on the inside? Once you suck out the middle the outside kinda collapses in lots of easily chewed shards. That’s Julison.

    His reply revealed two things to me: False bravado is not a good defense, and if, as he avers, he is not lawyered up, he surely ought to be.

    Like

  25. myopiafree says:

    Hi Hoosen,

    This is the most “troubling” aspect of this case for me. I believe in freedom-of-speech, and freedom-of-press. So this is part of the issue:

    Hoosen> Therein lies a dilemma. How does one protect someone like George Zimmerman from the howling mobs and still maintain the constitutional protections for press freedom and our individual freedom of speech?

    I will still chose Freedom-of-Speech, even though it lets a person with no moral scruple, like Julison, loose on the MEDIA.

    I truly don’t know how Julison lives with himself. If his “cause” was “Black Causes” and presumed “Justice” for Trayvon, then I guess for him it is OK to lie endlessly to achieve this “higher” purpose. Does anyone believe that Julison is working for some “higher” ethical purpose?

    Like

    • hooson1st says:

      myopiafree:

      I don’t believe it is OK for Julison, or myself or anyone, to “lie endlessly” to achieve a higher purpose. However, in this discussion over Julison’s role, I don’t see an outright lie.

      I acknowledge that I might be wrong. I only keep up with this case through the discussion on CTH, and don’t have the time to go back and research all the earlier details that are contained on CTH. However, I know that if I am wrong on some of the facts, one or more Treepers will straighten me out.

      Like

  26. metrometeor says:

    Woah, I just noticed there’s an smiley in the very botton of the page.

    Like

  27. hoffstyle71 says:

    I am actually shocked that you would give this piece of pond scum 5 any kind of opportunity to respond to anything knowing full well he would let loose the same lies and excrement out of his sewer hole he has been trying to sell for months now. He is unworthy of courtesy, and will garner zero respect for trying to sell his snake oil here on the treehouse. I mean are you really surprised he would lie here as well?

    Like

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi Hoff Style – I tend to agree with you about your “gut judgment” of Julison. But equally, I believe in his right to express himself on TreeHouse. I am pleased that SunDance gave him an opportunity to speak on TreeHouse. I am just aghast about his lack of ethical and moral judgment – to suggest that he can publish lies (about Trayvon as an 11 years-old), and HOPE that the HONEST PRESS (Media) will catch him in that lie.

      Like

      • boricuafudd says:

        There lies the problem, do we know that he was lying at the beginning? I know at some point he must have realized that what he was selling was not kosher, but what if he did believe the story he was told. As some of you have mentioned, he moves in very liberal circles, where “white guilt” is a palpable thing, so he would be susceptible to the narrative, as it was portrayed.

        My opinion is that this is a shot across the bow from Julison, he is trying to find out how far liable he is, while at the same time, without admitting to anything, he is trying to distance himself, and admit his culpability. Very Obamanesque, in that he is placing the blame on the media, while admitting his involvement, and his lack of follow thru on the players involved.

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          You know what I think is the most important thing to come out of this Q&A session? That Julison is more or less admitting that he knows that a good chunk of this story IS based on lies. Of course he’s denying that it’s HIS fault, but it seems to me that he is, indeed, admitting that he knows — that he at least NOW knows — a lot of this story is false. From his comments about how the MSM should have done their own research, to his statement that he didn’t dig into Tracy and Sybrina (didn’t “research the family”) before putting their “facts” out there.

          In other words, I think if we read what Ryan wrote, and more importantly if we read between the lines, I’d say this guy has NO intention of going down with the ship. If he thinks he needs to do it in order to defend himself, he WILL be throwing some people under the bus. So if nothing else, this Q&A session should start to cause some real fissures within the Scheme Team.

          Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            Crump is in over his head. Those who he thought were on his team will be looking for cover just like Julison is.

            For him to defy Nelson’s order tells me he has a direct link to Bernie who acted like he has no authority to get the damn recording device from Crump

            Like

            • jello333 says:

              I was happy to see West not only slam Crump, but also (to a lesser degree) Bernie. “I can’t just ask Crump to hand over the recording device. That’s his own personal property, after all.” Oh my god… that is an experienced lawyer, an experienced PROSECUTOR saying that. This is all so surreal. It’s not just that they lie 24/7, it’s that they seem to think everyone they’re lying to is STUPID… I mean, up to and including judges. This is just amazing stuff.

              Like

            • ytz4mee says:

              You have no idea. There are people very close to the Scheme Team that are looking for lifeboats to abandon ship …… people talk, as if that will exonerate them.

              Like

          • boricuafudd says:

            I got the same sense, the question is did he know it from the get go or did he figure it out later. Did he allow a mostly false story to be spread, or was he the constructor (director) of the story.

            Like

    • Sharon says:

      Putting questions before him and giving him the opportunity to respond was not “giving him” anything. The net result is that further information about his present state of mind is available. Of course we’re not surprised that he would lie here, to the extent that he may have. The invitation for him to answer questions was never predicated on the assumption that he would not. The invitation was for the purpose of finding out what he would say, if given the opportunity. The only to learn what he would say was to give him the opportunity to speak.

      The invitation was not given out of some sense of prior trust or presumed credibility. Good grief, we learned first hand way last spring about the limits of those. Being lied to, whether we anticipated it or not, is no reflection on the CTH: it’s a reflection on the one doing the lying, to the extent that there is lying.

      Like

  28. aliashubbatch says:

    Reading his responses, the scent of sulfur caught my nostrils…

    Like

  29. ytz4mee says:

    Sorta OT – regarding the Dunn Case being discussed on the Zimmerman OT.

    “With Trayvon it took 17 or 18 days before it took off as a big national story,” he added. “This one became a story within two or three days and that just spontaneously interrupts the family’s grieving and mourning when you have to be worried about a press conference.”

    http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/30/attorney-for-jordan-davis-family-says-its-about-hate-not-race/

    Immediate Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

    “became a story within two or three days?” “spontaneously interrupts” ??
    There is nothing “spontaneous” about this story whatsoever. NOTHING.

    With multiple murders in Duval County in the month of November alone, no “one” story “spontaneously interrupts” without some assistance from the Julisons of the world.

    The media don’t report “the news” …. they report on what they think the “news” should be.

    Big difference.

    It’s awfully convenient that the Jordan Davis shooting death is following the Julison Template to a Tee, except they’ve “learned from their mistakes” and now it’s not a “race” crime, it’s a “hate” crime.

    (Davis family attorney)said it’s about love, hate, and hard lessons learned from another high profile and racially charged killing…They gave us a dry run of what could happen here

    I guess all those other murders in Jacksonville, FL with innocent people being shot in their cars weren’t “hate” crimes. Just this one.

    *Media paints picture immediately of “academic scholar” – not factually accurate
    *Media suppresses key information that would change the readers initial perception of the story – such as, the driver/owner of the vehicle is a convicted felon who was in violation of his parole and should not have even been at the gas station at 7:40 pm,
    *Media lets slip crime scene “unusual” but doesn’t report what they mean by “unusual” or that alleged “victims” left the scene.
    *Media begins creating profile of shooter as a “white vigilante”, reports on “extreme” posts on Facebook – such as quote from Judge Andrew Napolitano’s book
    *Media doesn’t report in initial filed stories that underage alleged “victims” were remanded into custody for questioning.
    *Media creates “interest”, highly coordinated with national media outlets, family lawyers up, immediately sets up “Foundation”, “Justice” Facebook page, prints T-shirts for distribution, etc etc etc …… ad nauseum.

    But what! there’s more ….
    Crump said he has also been in contact with the Davis family and that he is open to helping in any way that he can

    Ergo… the revised and politically “updated” Template.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s