George Zimmerman Hearing 1:30pm Discussion Thread – This one is a big deal…

Today the Defense and Prosecution will be back in court to discuss the various motions filed by both the Defense and the Prosecution:

While there are many aspects to be determined, the key question before the court is will Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump, be deposed and held to account?

Judge Nelson

Here are some *possible* Links to the Hearing:

Hat Tip Rumpole for the list.

Here are some considerations in advance.

Crump Presser

Judge Nelson is going to have to decide if she will allow/instruct Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, to be deposed.   This is a defining moment in more ways than most can imagine.

Benjamin Crump manufactured and manipulated the evidence that led to George Zimmerman’s arrest.   This is not disputed.    The entire construct of his Witness #8 narrative was a fraud, a ruse, a guise.    Dee Dee, as he called her, was not the same person on 3/19 that she was on 4/2.  Again, this is NOT disputed.

Even the most vocal of opponents to George Zimmerman would have to concede in intellectual honesty, that Ben Crump lied about the persona he identified.   It is physically impossible to be 16 years old on March 19th 2012, during his phone conversation, and to be 18 years old two weeks later on April 2nd when she gave her affidavit to the State of Florida.

The question becomes “why” did he lie?   What motivation was there to fabricate a story around a persona?   And why has both his team, Parks, Jackson and himself, worked feverishly to hide her identity and subsequently convinced the State of Florida to do the same.

What risk is inside the truth?

Pam Bondi - Benjamin Crump - Martin Lee Anderson caseUltimately if Judge Nelson rules against the defense, despite the law and legal precedent, being on the side of the defendant, then something far bigger is at stake.    She will be denying the defendant the opportunity to question the man who created the witness against him.   She will, in essence, be setting the stage for non-immunity because she would be establishing the framework of a trial by denying the defendant a right to confront his accuser and the person who constructed the only evidence that contradicts his claim of self-defense.

We know with specific detail who has been pre-briefing this consideration.

Mark+O+Mara+Trayvon+Martin+Shooter+George+o7h9YCzuwnMlSimultaneously, if Nelson rules against the defense, then attention will IMMEDIATELY turn to how does O’Mara and West approach it AT THAT MOMENT.    Because if they accept such a ruling they are, in essence, conceding that the justice of truth can be dispatched from the case.

Hopefully Nelson will rule that Ben Crump will be deposed, and if she has reservations, and if she is a solid legal mind, she will dissuade any concern by conducting the deposition in her courtroom during a closed session of the court so that she can rule on any objections immediately and listen to the questions and answers for fair application of discovery inquiry.


But that is a very large dose of hope.

Angry Wolverine

About these ads
This entry was posted in BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Conspiracy ?, Death Threats, Mark O'Mara, media bias, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Racism, Ryan Julison, Trayvon Martin, Treehouse Tips, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

836 Responses to George Zimmerman Hearing 1:30pm Discussion Thread – This one is a big deal…

    • arkansasmimi says:

      THANK YOU SD!!!!! I was hoping you would put this here today!!! It is so inspiring, and George and Shellie truly need as well as the rest of us Treepers! I am praying for the right thing to be done today. GOD IS GOOD!!! WOLVERINES!!!

  1. rumpole2 says:

    George will not be at the hearing


    • tara says:

      I hope he’s OK. I was just thinking last night, it struck me, that this mess is way bigger than him. He is not just a defendant in a high profile case, he is an icon. He now symbolizes, represents even, all victims of the BGI. If he’s forced to acquire justice through the appeals process, it will be a very grim sign of the state of this country. The BGI is dead set on making us all pay, pay in CASH, for their perceived insults.

      Chicago has a budget issues, as do most large cities. The head of the school system along with just about everyone else who has control or input have stated that a certain number of schools need to be closed because there are too few students in those schools. After airing their complaints, the affected parents have now played the race card. They are claiming a “civil rights violation”. Just like “profiling”, we all know what “civil rights” means. Forget that it makes no sense to staff and maintain schools few students attend. Forget that the parents of the students are taxpayer money sinks, taking out well more than they pay in. These entitled BGI devotees are going to demand to be given whatever it is that they want, because this is what they do. When they can’t pay for something, when they can’t afford something, they insist that someone else pay for it and give it to them, and when anyone balks they then play the race card. I’m waiting for Jackson and Sharpton and the other BGI clowns to descend upon Chicago like locusts.

      • Sarah Lynnid says:

        If Sharpton, Jackson, Crump, Holder and even Obama would put their bs agendas aside and pay a bit of attn to Chicago we could save hundreds of black youth deaths per year. Why dont they start in Chicago saving lives? Cause there is no money in it.

  2. waltherppk says:

    If ALL of the phone forensic data has not been disclosed to the Defense then O’Mara and West should sing a duet and turn somersaults demanding a Richardson Hearing and openly accusing the State of BAD FAITH and malicious prosecution which would be exposed by the suppressed Brady material. Bring this travesty of justice and unconstitutional business of suppressed exculpatory evidence to a reckoning. Put an end to this dog and pony show which has been a scandal perpetuated by the corrupt state of Florida. Next stop federal court.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      O’Mara and West should sing a duet and turn somersaults demanding a Richardson Hearing and openly accusing the State of BAD FAITH and malicious prosecution which would be exposed by the suppressed Brady material.

      Yep. Time to throw down the gauntlet.

      If Nelson is hell-bent on an immunity hearing in April, then the defense needs all discovery, today. And even then, there is already not enough time to vet discovery disclosed as late as this month.

      And given the way that the defense has been lining up its appeal ducks nicely in a row, I’m more certain that the next logical duck is to present, in court, information that precedent demands Nelson immediately schedule a Richardson hearing. (She won’t, of course. Clearly, the Constitution, state statutes, discovery rules, and prior court decisions mean absolutely nothing to her decision-making in this trial.)

    • recoverydotgod says:


    • canadacan says:

      Yes absolutely now is the time.

  3. waltherppk says:

    This I posted earlier at the end of yesterday’s thread but it is worth saying here today too.
    In my opinion what “cheapens the narrative” the most is the absence of the complete forensics report on all the phones involved in the case, and the lack of a Richardson hearing to address how defense preparation has been hindered and procedurally prejudiced particularly with regard to the scheduling of an Immunity Hearing or a later trial …..when those dates have not been set as contingent upon completion of discovery a reasonable time in advance of those proceedings.
    It also seems entirely presumptuous and prejudicial to set a trial date at all until an Immunity Hearing has already been held and there was a ruling that Immunity is denied, since in the event Immunity is granted there will be no trial. Setting a trial date before an Immunity hearing has produced a disposition for trial is like saying it is a foregone conclusion that Immunity will be denied but as a mere formality an Immunity hearing will be held and immunity denied as is planned to make a trial necessary. The judicial prejudice exposed there is so substantial it could be quarried like blocks of stone.

    • dmoseylou says:

      I hold the prosecution, Scheme Team, and GZ’s defense team responsible for this fiasco called “Justice” in the state of FL. This case and the subsequent chaos generated sits squarely on their Scheming Scammers collective shoulders.
      Power-hungry politics and money-monger whores.
      I no longer review past videos relevant to GZ & TM; angry and tears every time. I simply will no longer subject myself to those viewings.
      4 days until the 1st year mark since the shooting.>>>4 D.A.Y.S.>>>The State and Defense STILL are playing footsies with discovery. I hoped this game-playing was finished when West came on board. {{{SIGH}}}

    • John Galt says:

      “In my opinion what “cheapens the narrative” the most is the absence of the complete forensics report on all the phones involved in the case”

      Yes, contrast and compare with the Casey Anthony case, in which the State obtained cell phone records, text messages, historical location data for Casey’s entire family, a bunch of her friends and even had wiretaps in place. Moreover, the State redacted and released the phone information in discovery, including cell site maps.

      • waltherppk says:

        Yeah but in the Casey Anthony case things were different because the State of Florida wasn’t in bed with a Black Grievance Industry looking for settlement money. It would have destroyed the State’s ability to strong arm a plea bargain from an innocent man and would be counter to the interest of the BGI partnership with the State, if the State published the FACT that the state had forensic evidence showing there is no case, and exposing a malicious prosecution. Honesty about the forensic evidence showing the PC affidavit was a FRAUD would expose BOTH the State and It’s BGI “corporate partner” in the crime cartel we laughingly call a “government” to liability which even corrupt courts don’t have the kind of whitewash to cover up. So yeah this isn’t any ordinary case where “only a white child” is dead. This case is a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. Everybody needs to remember that the “child victim” in this case could look like the illegal alien presidents son, and therefore has “special status” as a posthumously recognized CRIME CARTEL “godfathered in the grave” adoptee. So this isn’t just an ordinary criminal case but an assassination of one of the emperor’s “royal family”. Let’s all be clear on the facts.

  4. sunnydaze77 says:

    I am actually nervous about this hearing, i cant imagine how George feels……SD is right this is Huge, Gigantic, Enormous……i have wanted so much throughout this whole debacle for Crump to be exposed for all of his bs…..
    April 2, 2012 State Attorney Norm Wolfinger issues statement
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE–April 2, 2011<<<(date is wrong)

    I am outraged by the outright lies contained in the letter by Benjamin Crump to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roy Austin dated April 2, 2012. I encourage the Justice Department to investigate and document that no such meeting or communication occurred. I have been encouraging those spreading the irresponsible rhetoric to stop and allow State Attorney Angela Corey to complete her work. Another falsehood distributed to the media does nothing to forward that process.

    • Lou says:

      WOW! never read that statement. that means a lot and should be brought up. the Attorney General was outraged by Benjamin Crump’s lies. thanks sunnydaze

      • myopiafree says:

        Hi Lou – Crump is a lying-Sociopath! He lies, and he gets other people to lie for him. I suspect he convinced DeeDee to lie to Bernie in a “Star Chamber” type of setting. This prevented any serious review of DeeDee’s false statements about “talking” to Trayvon – when the Cell Phone had a dead battery. Futher, there is no verified phone log that shows that any such conversation took place – in the last 30 minutes of this incident. It is time that the STATE produces DeeDee for a complete review and VERIFICATION of DeeDee’s statements – as well as the missing “Ping-log” records.

        • cassandra says:

          Lying sociopath works! Pathological liar, he just can’t stop himself.

          • myopiafree says:

            Given Nelson’s ruling today is is PROTECTING this lying Sociopath – because she want to “tamp down” his threat of a “Thug Riot”. You wonder if Omara or West have anything else to do? Request for “Ping-Longs”… DENIED!! Request to interview DeeDee…DENIED! Request to get information on that Heart Cell phone (missing data)… DENIED. Request to get DeeDee’s phone number, and listing with the DEAD cell phone….DENIED? Perhaps Nelson should just email West the trial result … GUILTY. (We have tamp-down the threat of a “Thug Riot” – even if he must convict an innocent George Zimmerman.

            • ottawa925 says:

              wow !!! that says it all … RIGHT THERE !!!

              • JC says:

                OK so a nobody mestizo drills a black gangsta trainee in his condo complex. If the Sanford police had just dumped this on the grand jury it would have ended there like dozens of other FL SYG killings. There never would have been time or financial incentive for the Scheme Team to make up the Deedee story before the grand jury closes their window of opportunity. Instead the shit hits the fan over a couple nobodies playing cop and gangsta in the dark.

                Now Scott has to circle the wagons:
                #1 He can’t have Sharpton throw up a picket line in front of Disney World and terrorize people pouring hundreds a day per capita into the struggling central FL economy.

                #2 He wants to protect the politically popular, buckets of blood, SYG law…

                and he can accomplish all of this by setting up a kangaroo court system starting with short-circuiting the grand jury system which could delve into the deedee story without judicial blocking. So Scott/Biondi set in place prosecutors and judges charged with protecting Disney and SYG with the objective of convicting GZ and letting him seek redress probably with federal appeals if he can find the lawyer or the money. And every court ruling and BDLR deposition brings this scheme into clearer focus. “We don’t need no stinking civil rights for this defendant”!

                The icing on the cake will be the judge interfering in the voir dire to get a “fair” jury to see Trayvon gets justice and maybe a mysterious revelation of the jurors IDs – just to make sure they do the right thing.

      • tara says:

        I had never seen that either! Wow! Where is Wolfinger now? Why is he silent? Why are all of the high profile clear thinkers silent now? What happened to Dershowitz? He knows that the game playing by the Persecution is just as egregious as Corey’s absurd Affidavit of Probable Cause, and yet he’s silent.

        • Floridianne says:

          Agreed. I thought he was a decent person, however, the more I look at it….he was bullied, bailed and then retired. For all intents and purposes throwing justice to the wolves. Coward.

      • John Galt says:

        Yes, Wolfinger gave Scott, Bondi, Corey and BDLR the heads up: Crump is an outrageous liar. I think that might be an important point to remember.

        • myopiafree says:

          Hi John –

          Wolfinger was DOING ALL THE “RIGHT” THINGS. 1) He wished to prevent a “thug riot” here. 2) Wofinger made it up to a “Jury” to decide. 3) Wolfinger put together a GRAND JURY, and called DeeDee to testify before it.

          This would have revealed DeeDee to be a “fibber”, a “Liar” and a FALSE WITNESS.
          The Grand Jury would have turned in a “No Bill” – and that would have ended Crimp’s farce.

          When Corey yanked everything away from Worlinger – he just thought, the hell with this – I don’t “need” it – and I will retire.

          Can you blame him?

      • justchill says:

        what do you mean, that statement means alot? norm wolfinger no longer has a job. now THAT statement means alot.

    • Sharon says:

      Since Benjamin Crump felt comfortable putting outright lies in writing–in a letter to a Deputy Assistant Attorney–apparently he felt safe in doing so. And to date, it doesn’t appear that he has much to worry about. Look at the continuum: what has continued to play out in October and November and December and January is what was playing out in April and May and June and July. Since those who making the decisions to keep the continuum performing like a continuum are still in their same roles, I am not seeing any reason for thinking it will suddenly change today.

      If it does suddenly change today, it seems to me that Judge Nelson would suddenly have a whole lapful of new problems.

    • Floridianne says:

      Has anyone ever seen the letter he is referring to in this statement? Can we say FOIA?

  5. diwataman says:

    So, when the judge said “the courts going to make him[Crump] a witness for the purpose of taking the deposition regrading this issue[circumstances involving the RECORDING of W8] and West replied “Thank you judge, we’ll schedule that as soon as we’re able.” I have to ask. Did West not hear anything after “deposition”? Why no protest or elaboration on Wests part to say the deposition should include more than just the circumstances regarding the recording? Here’s an even more important question; why did it take so long to schedule it? She made Crump a witness on Oct 19, 2012, they scheduled for Feb 5, 2013 and here we are Feb 22, 2013 arguing the issue. And please, don’t give the ducks in a row line, four months is ridiculous.

    • waltherppk says:

      The phone forensics is THE priority and everything else is a distraction, a bait and switch, a “watch the birdie” sleight of hand to misdirect attention away from where attention ought to be focused with a steely and resolute gaze. What the State has been hiding is precisely what must be gotten in its entirety. Because that is the evidence which will collapse the whole house of cards……including Benjamin Crump.

      • diwataman says:

        The phone forensics isn’t being discussed at this hearing;

        What I posture above is really all just rhetorical. It can’t be explained.

        However, it does make one wonder why, given O’Mara has knowledge of a map of where Trayvon’s phone was that the State has had since March 2012, why he isn’t asking for that in this hearing. Oh and the reports from Miami on Trayvon the state also had since March. And just how did the State get those maps anyway?

        • Lou says:

          I know the question will come up why it is necessary to depose Sybrina and Tracy. well, asking them what kind of behavioors their son had is very relevant. they can’t lie, and that’s why the prosecution doesn’t like it.

          • tara says:

            Once again I’m shocked that it’s the defense continually pushing for the truth to be revealed. I have never before witnessed a wrongful conviction in the works. I pray that it doesn’t get that far.

      • recoverydotgod says:


        I agree with your sentiments on the priority and the misdirection.

        If the identification of a witness can’t be verified, what use is the recording of the interview in moving the facts of the case forward? [I commented more fully below]

        Today’s the day to move discovery forward. The defense better be prepared to act.

        • recoverydotgod says:

          “Simultaneously, if Nelson rules against the defense, then attention will IMMEDIATELY turn to how does O’Mara and West approach it AT THAT MOMENT. Because if they accept such a ruling they are, in essence, conceding that the justice of truth can be dispatched from the case.”


        • recoverydotgod says:

          To be clear, though, it was not a misdirection to bring a motion to depose Ben Crump…even at this late date. [Should have been done earlier].

    • Chip Bennett says:

      I have to ask. Did West not hear anything after “deposition”?

      And I have to ask: can Judge Nelson not read? Does she not understand the plain meaning of without leave of the court?

    • John Galt says:

      “Why no protest or elaboration on Wests part to say the deposition should include more than just the circumstances regarding the recording?”

      West must have been operating under the delusion that proceedings were being conducted under the rule of law. Pursuant to 3.220, West can depose Crump on any topic reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, without leave of court.

      “Here’s an even more important question; why did it take so long to schedule it?”

      I think they were trying to get social media, phone info, address info on W8 so they could investigate and would have a good basis for knowing when Crump was lying. Yeah, I know, “when his lips are moving” is a good indicator, but I think they wanted to have impeachment materials in hand. Also, I think Crump and later Blackwell mislead MOM by indicating that Crump was going to cooperate with his deposition. But yes, not sure why MOM didn’t have the discovery pedal to the metal following his April 12 demand for discovery. Maybe months of stonewalling is SOP down there. Or maybe MOM was cooperating with the “tamping things down” policy, not realizing he was getting setup for the rocket docket squeeze play.

  6. Unicron says:

    I will unfortunately not be able to watch this hearing, I hope someone will post it later. I go into today FULLY expecting Judge Nelson to let Crump off the hook and prevent his deposition. We haven’t seen Angela Corey much lately and I’m starting to wonder if when Lester was removed from the case she took out the real Debra Nelson and took over as judge! hehe.

    Seriously though, I am extremely pessimistic about this judge at this point, but I hope I’ll be proven wrong today.

    • tara says:

      That might explain why the Nelson in court looks nothing like the Nelson in her official judicial photos. I’d wonder if it were actually Crump in drag, but Nelson knows how to pronounse “evidence”…..

  7. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    The outcome of this hearing will dictate how I view the criminal justice system and the police forces that enforce the dictates of the criminal justice system. If Judge Nelson refuses to grant GZ’s attorneys the opportunity to depose a fraudster like Crump, then we no longer have the rule of law in this country. If we no longer have the rule of law, then the police officers that enforce the capricious will of the fraudulent courts become nothing more than armed, criminal gangs.

    Some of us remember our history. The 20th century saw more people systematically exterminated by their own police forces than were killed by foreign. Invaders. If Judge Nelson rules against GZ, then we will now that the police have crossed the line to become genocidal maniacs and should be dealt with accordingly.

    • Sharon says:

      We haven’t had rule of law for some time in this country.

      It is now over 36 months since obamacare was deemed passed (instead of actually being voted on) on Christmas Eve, 2009.

      Many months back, obama decided that Congress was in recess, when it wasn’t, so that he could appointment his favs to the NLRB. That was ok with Congress, too.

      There has not been a current, voted-on, approved, signed Federal budget submitted since obama began to rule. That’s ok with Congress, too. They’re all about current services and continuing resolutions.

      We are no longer a republic functioning under the rule of law and have not been for many, many, many months.

      Reality these days is not very nice. Not very nice at all.

  8. diwataman says:

    MSNBC streams the hearings as well but I don’t know where a link would be to find it. Maybe just Google search “MSNBC live stream Zimmerman” before the hearing starts and you should find the link. The link to the live stream on those other ones listed is difficult to find sometimes as well.

    • diwataman says:

      They might link it here, I don’t know though.

      • waltherppk says:

        Young Turks will likely be providing in depth commentary and insightful legal analysis after the hearing so maybe folks should just not even bother to watch and just rely upon the CRIME CARTEL propaganda report which comes out later. I mean who needs eyes to see when the propaganda ministries speaking for the BGI / government CRIME CARTEL explain so well how it is nobody can believe their lying eyes but should see whatever the propaganda ministries tell them is politically correct to see.

        • jello333 says:

          That used to be what was good about Cenk… he had an open mind, and didn’t follow the leader, no matter where they were on the political spectrum. But that was then, this is now. Over the past year or so, Cenk has become a total freak. Kool-aid drinker, just like the rest of them.

          (By the way, I haven’t yet commented on anything going on at the hearing, because I’m trying to catch up on this thread. I’m not watching live. Holding my breath.)

    • brutalhonesty says:

      yeah supposedly no one was streaming the hearing on the 5th then I saw afterwords nbc was streaming it….not a single person knew…no one here…no one on in session….on on on gz vs tm debate center…

  9. ed greene says:

    If by any chance Judge Nelson does not let “All about the Benjamin”¨Crump be depositioned. It is time for MOM to ask for a special Prosecutor to see who is pulling strings if this is Justice or 2012 get out the Black vote in Presidental election both from Scott and Obama and appease some people for past injustices.

  10. JW says:

    I don’t know just how important today’s ruling is. To me, if Judge Nelson rules to let Crump off the hook it just shows her bias. If it is ruled Crump can be deposed I don’t know how much will be gained from the deposition. Crump has made many false statements and I really don’t look for him to start being honest anytime soon.

    • rumpole2 says:

      The difference and IMPORTANCE will be the Crump will be dishonest UNDER OATH and on the record.
      Whatever version(s) Crump comes up with cane be explored during other depositions too.

      • JW says:

        I hope he does get deposed but I don’t think the defense will get many answers that will be helpful. It will be more proof that Crump has been deceptive but that is already known. IMHO, the ruling today is more significant. Not giving the defense more time and not making the State cooperate with the defense has already revealed that Judge Nelson is biased. If she doesn’t rule in favor of the defense today I will be convinced beyond any doubt that George will not get a fair trial.

      • libby says:

        Crump should be where Shellie is (she didnt lie and he hasnt told the truth)

      • John Galt says:

        + 1 under oath is very important. Also important is establishing Crump’s knowledge of falsity at the time he made false statements to the media, for purposes of potential criminal, civil and disciplinary proceedings.

        Music Theme for Crump: Rolling Stones: Gimme Shelter

        Oh, a storm is threat’ning
        My very life today
        If I don’t get some shelter
        Oh yeah, I’m gonna fade away

        Ooh, see the fire is sweepin’
        My very street today
        Burns like a red coal carpet
        Mad bull lost its way

      • art tart says:

        rumpole2 – I think you are exactly right, even Crump had to do the depo, he isn’t above lying ABOUT anything. We have seen the lies over and over, I think the problem may be if ordered to give a deposition, is the lies that compounds for DD, Sybrina, and Tracy. They’ll never untangle that mess for thier own depos.

        BUT……..Judge N doesn’t have a fair track record for the pursuit of Justice, or even the interprepatation of the law, I have no expectations that she will today.

    • Lou says:

      easy question. how did DD suddenly become 18, after you repeatedly said she was 16 and a minor chile?

      • maggiemoowho says:

        I wish MOM or West would mention that verbally to Judge Nelson. She assumes all Officers of the court are being truthful. If MOM/West don’t state the reasons for wanting certain things verbally, I don’t think the Judge will ever pick up on them. JMO.

        • mung says:

          How about this, when she denies everything, they should say, OK fine, but can you help me with something? How old is W8? See I can’t figure it out and you won’t let me depose anyone to find out, maybe you can figure it out. See we have conflicting documents and stories and I am not sure if I need to treat her like a minor child as was stated by Mr. Crump or as an adult as was stated by well Mr. Crump again as well ad Bernie. So which is it? Does she need a guardian at this deposition? You honor, I just want to make sure I am following the proper protocol as this is such an important witness. You want us to do that right?

      • waltherppk says:

        “easy question. how did DD suddenly become 18, after you repeatedly said she was 16 and a minor chile?” Easy answer ….the parents were difficult to find and uncertain of the chile’s birthday …’s a cultural norm ya see. And the chile couldn’t reasonably be expected to keep up with this kind of highly technical information, the government should have done that for her. We did ask her how old she was …..but she just became puzzled and answered “you want that too?”

      • John Galt says:

        Possible answers:

        1. W8’s parent(s) or Tracy or Sybrina told me she was a minor.
        2. W8 told me she was a minor.
        3. I assumed she was 16 because of her grade level and announced my assumption as fact.
        4. I made it up to try and protect her identity.
        5. We started out with a 16 year old and then had to switch to a different, older girl when the 16 year old refused to testify under oath.

        Problems: 1 and 2 are subject to potential contradiction by others. 2 undermines the credibility of W8. 3, 4 and 5 expose Crump to potential civil, criminal and/or disciplinary problems.

        The fact that Crump’s affidavit omits any explanation of the age disparity indicates there may be a problem. Crump’s affidavit is also very vague regarding when, where, why, how and by whom W8 was discovered. In view of the different versions reported in the media, this also appears to be a problem.

  11. libby says:

    While crump has lied repeatedly, his criminal butt is not in trouble, but shellie who told the truth has been persecuted by the state for perjury she didnt commit

  12. myopiafree says:

    Informal Survey on “TreeHouse”: 1) Does ANYONE think that Crump is telling the truth about DeeDee? 2) Does anyone think that DeeDee is telling the truth about talking to TM on that dead “Heart” cell phone?
    You silence indicates you believe both of them are lying.

    • Unicron says:

      I’m uncertain of whether she talked to him, and if she did what she heard… I think it’s likely that either 1) The conversation never took place (at least at the time the confrontation began) or 2) It took place but involved Trayvon indicating his intent to “beat dat fool’s azz” for disrespectin’ and possibly even Deedee egging him on, encouraging him, and making him feel like he’d be a punk if he didn’t. This would help explain her “guilt” she had and her failure to notify anyone.

      If it can be reliably shown that the phone Trayvon had on him was in fact connected to a phone which really does match up with a particular young lady, at the same time the confrontation happened… then I’d obviously be prepared to believe she heard something. If she heard “get off” I believe it was George saying it.

      In the end, I’m confident of at least this much: Whatever the truth is, we aren’t getting all of it. At the very least, Deedee is weaving some lies into the truth, and I believe Benjamin Crump is doing so also. I’m guessing he did his lie-weaving in a somewhat careful fashion to protect himself… maybe tried to keep it to influencing her in vague ways with what he said… I don’t know.

      But I believe Deedee is lying to at least some degree. For sure.

      And I don’t rule out that she’s an entirely invented witness who had no such phone conversation at all. I’d like to see it proven with phone records that a conversation took place between his phone and hers at the right time.

    • tara says:

      I think that there is a real girl Trademark was talking to that day, including right up to before Trademark punched George. Not a girlfriend though, not even “getting there”, but just a girl. I think the people on the internet correctly identified that girl. I think she is the girl who Crump interviewed. I think she and her family freaked out when Crump made a public spectacle of her, playing parts of the interview during the press conference and allowing Matt Gutman to play parts of it and talk about her in his nationally-broadcast reports. I think her family pulled her out of the debacle and Crump and Trademark’s parents were forced to come up with a ringer.

      Was Crump present at Trademark’s funeral? DeeDee #1 was there. Ronquavis Fulton knows what she looks like. He should be called to the stand to state whether or not the current W8 is the same girl he met at the funeral. Likewise Sybrina and Tracy.

      • John Galt says:

        “I think that there is a real girl Trademark was talking to that day, including right up to before Trademark punched George. Not a girlfriend though, not even “getting there”, but just a girl.”

        I have doubts about anybody talking to the mumbler known as DD for 400 minutes in one day.

        • tara says:

          I never spent much time calculating the number of minutes so I’ll take your side on that doubt. But I don’t think the phone billing info was fabricated. Trademark was a teen, he was on the phone all day long, he might as well have been on the phone for much of the day with this girl. We all know it doesn’t even mean anything anyway, far from the bombshell witness she merely corroborates George’s account with the single exception of who threw the first punch. At this point she’s only a big deal because Crump and the Martin family have apparently substituted another girl to be interviewed by investigators. I’m sure you’ve all discussed this in great detail, if I read any of it I can’t recall it right now. Wouldn’t it be against some kind of law to knowingly supply a witness who really isn’t that witness?

          • jello333 says:

            “Wouldn’t it be against some kind of law to knowingly supply a witness who really isn’t that witness?”

            Umm… just the kind of law that could see Crump and others sitting in prison for 10 years or so. ;)

    • John Galt says:

      I think the ancient Roman legal principle falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus applies here. Or as Crump would say “credabilty, credabilty, credabilty.”

    • Serpentor says:

      without some sort of evidence to suggest otherwise, I think it’s highly probable the whole testimony was fabricated

      • boricuafudd says:

        Right now we don’t even know for sure the phone found at the scene was indeed TM’s. Or that the phone records for the number was one assigned to TM out of the 4-5 other numbers in the Tracy’s account. The phone was not fingerprinted, no swab for DNA were done. Nothing conclusively, that I have seen, link the phone at the scene to TM. Or did I miss something?

  13. Unicron says:

    I hadn’t looked at that awful Trayvonite site DothProtestTooMuch in a while, but someone linked to this and I was blown away by just how disconnected from reality they’ve gotten over there:

    I couldn’t stomach reading the entire thing, but this guy goes on, and on, and on, and on about various mental disorders he thinks maybe GZ kinda has! And tries to explain why GZ killed Trayvon (as though the injuries and screams don’t explain that, as though you have to be mentally ill to not want to be beaten endlessly and to want to defend your life.)

    Some of the wording early on in this article reaffirmed something for me, that I’d thought many months ago initially about another very prominent Trayvonite… I think there is a certain segment of the really die-hard Trayvonites, who are people (including some males) who have a thing for thuggish black men (like a fetish) and this is the source of a lot of their passion for this case. The reason you’ll never get them to concede there’s anything wrong with Trayvon’s behavior, even if it’s exactly as GZ describes, is because that sort of hotheaded, violent, ignorant, criminalistic, thugged out behavior is exactly what their entire fetish is built on. They view that as manly.

    Personally I view it as disgusting and completely incompatible with civilization. Whether I’m barking up the wrong tree on that idea or not, if you read any portion of that diatribe I linked to you’ll see that these Trayvonites are only getting crazier. I guess that makes sense, because as the evidence in GZ’s favor mounts, how do you remain a Trayvonite OTHER THAN getting crazier?

    • tara says:

      I skimmed a few sentences. It’s laughable that the nut comes up with some off-the-wall pseudo-scientific theory with absolutely no foundation in fact, and then spend 20 hours writing a 5 page dissertation on it. If this is how the nuts want to spend their time, it’s their loss.

    • mung says:

      I am blown away by how many of them believe that George went out that night looking for Trayvon in some kind of posse with Osterman, Taffee, and a cockatoo. Since they can’t come to terms with their messiah beating George and they have realized that there wasn’t enough time to fake the injuries after the shooting, the only conclusion is that he injured himself BEFORE he left his house that night so that he could claim self defense when he found Trayvon. So now not only is George Superman for being able to catch Trayvon, he is a clairvoyant for knowing that he was going to find Trayvon that night.

      Because of how insane these Trayvonites have become and because they cherry pick tiny details and attempt to create a story around them that fits their needs, I have started pushing them for a cohesive end to end version of the events of that night which would prove murder 2. Not a single one of them has met that challenge. Why? Because they don’t have a single cohesive version, all they have is crazy ideas that often conflict with each other. The best thing about that is, every one of these crazy ideas is another reasonable doubt. The state can’t present a case with 20 different versions and say, well it could have been this, or could have been that, or maybe this, or that, but we know is wasn’t what the defendant said. To prove a case they have to have evidence to show what happened in one cohesive story.

      • Alexandra M. says:

        The VAST MAJORITY of idiot Trayvonites spend most of their waking hours concentrating on remembering to breathe in and out. I’m not kidding. Their very basic life functions are a chore worthy of difficult concentration. There is no lower form of life.

    • boricuafudd says:

      Unicron, this is also why for the most part they have conceded that it was GZ that was crying out for help “like a bi**h asking for help,” It goes against the street tough, strong man, putting a” bangah to the crackah” for disrespecting him.

    • metrometeor says:

      I do believe some Trayvon supporters are sexually attracted to Trayvon.

  14. mung says:

    While I know that the media sometimes has an agenda, much of the time, they just can’t read or comprehend what they are reading before they republish it. This is from WKMG/Click Orlando about today’s hearing.

    “Zimmerman’s lead attorney, former Local 6 legal analyst Mark O’Mara, will present a motion to the judge on Friday asking to question the woman known as Witness 8. Zimmerman is not expected to attend the hearing, which is scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m.”

  15. arkansasmimi says:

    This was funny to me, just the thought of CHUMP watching a show called SCANDAL!!!!
    Benjamin Crump, Esq.‏@attorneycrump 13 hrs ago
    About to leave the office! I pray Im able to stay up for Scandal.

  16. Tammy Jones says:

    Does anyone know if Jim Carter has ever given a deposition?? Wolfinger assigned Carter early on and I can’t find much of anything about his statements or findings. Carter had planned on a grand jury which in my opinion is what should have happened. New to posting here and if this has been discussed before I’m sorry, but would love any links. Let’s hope MOM gets to depose Crump fingers crossed.

  17. recoverydotgod says:

    “She will be denying the defendant the opportunity to question the man who created the witness against him.”


    …and not allowing sunlight to come to the woman [Florida State Attorney General] who phoned in on the last million hoodie march two days after Ben Crump interviewed his witness and one day after Ben Crump revealed his interview of his witness.

    Even though the witness apparently talked to ABC News Matt Guttman in the days following Ben Crump’s interview, it was not reported then that the witnesses age was 18. It was reported again that she was 16 on March 28 by ABC News Matt Guttman. Ben Crump’s witness had a chance to correct the media record of her age before sitting down on 4/2 to be interviewed by the State of Florida.

    There is no way but Ben Crump under oath just to BEGIN to straighten out what needs to be straightened out regarding the truth of the witness identity. If the identification of a witness can’t be verified, what use is the recording?

    March 28 @0:57 Gutman: Tonight ABC spoke exclusively with Martin’s sixteen year old girlfriend DeeDee.

    The Defense must be prepared to act.

  18. Tammy Jones says:

    I think Carter believes George acted in self defense and shouldn’t have been arrested. If MOM put Carter on the stand I believe he would state such. Carter’s testimony would be powerful for the defense that this man who within hours of Trayvon’s death was on the case and believes it to be self defense.

  19. Rand says:

    My apologies first. I have been reading posts here for almost a year. I missed postings about a cockatoo somehow.I’m asking someome to post a brief explanation about the cockatoo reference.

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi Rand – I am not certain. But in one of the storys put out by the Trayvon “true believers” – a “Cockatoo” was required to explain some aspect of the case.

      • eastern2western says:

        there is a dude by the name of trent sawyer and he claims that he saw about 5 people were hunting down trayvon martin because he spent hours watching the cctv tapes. In order to honor his good work, we made a decision to add our own imaginative spin into the accomplice theory. personally, I believe zimmerman was riding on his hover board.

        • waltherppk says:

          There is some vague and somewhat abstract surreal memory? that I have about teleporting cats and anti-gravity devices being also involved ….but it could be all just a bad dream from too much late night pizza.

    • rumpole2 says:

      The cockatoo was something I picked up on to illustrate the lunacy and delusion in the posting at JQ.
      A poster initially claimed to hear an accomplice in the car with GZ in the background of GZ’s NEN call.
      Discussion on this matter continued with several JQ members… with more and more being “heard” in the background noise… including a cockatoo.
      The “theory” was even given a dedicated thread over there. Yes they are THAT delusional.

      I did feature some of this in a “Daily Daft Posts From Justarse Quest”

  20. Angel says:

    I remember way back when during the Bond Revocation hearings for GZ, that Crump said “you just can’t lie to the court.” I knew those words would come back to haunt him but he is savvy enough to avoid being caught in a lie..

  21. I am still bewildered that this is happening. I’ve read books and watched movies about things like this, but I am still having trouble believing that so many, many people can be evil and uncaring about what they are doing to one man. And, for this man, his wife, and his whole family to be such good caring people makes it even worse. I pray that something good comes out of this hearing today.

    • waltherppk says:

      So ….in about another half hour the sopping wet soap opera continues, more theater of the absurd…..still a little bit drippin’

  22. akathesob says:

    “We” must all stand firm for G.Z. and not allow this man to be Obama’s punching bag IE: Example…

  23. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    BREAKING NEWS: Gov. Scott’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ task force releases final report.

    • waltherppk says:

      “proportionate force” is a use of walk-back terminology straight from the liberal play book

      Justifiable use of DEADLY FORCE has not one damn thing to do with “proportionate force” but is in fact a “conditional duty to retreat language” kind of code speak of the earlier iterations of more restrictive self defense law.

      GRAND JURY review of ALL claimed self-defense scenarios was the early preliminary finding ……but clearly that nuts and bolts common sense recommendation was upon further examination eliminated from the more “politically correct” (corrupt prosecution enabling) “final” recommendation. Huge surprise there huh. Can’t trust THE PEOPLE to do what is right. Only bureaucrat aristocrats of a higher “class” are entitled to decide such weighty matters ……ignoring the Constitution being just a trivial compromise as the cost of seeing “quality work” done at running a railroad the way only government can manage.

  24. LittleLaughter says:

    My family has been dealing with the costs of being thrust into the judicial system for the last 9 months. I posted the details of our plight in the Prayer Request thread for anyone interested in knowing the background. Yesterday, we sat in court for 8 long hours, expecting a final resolution. But we were dealt another blow in the form of a loophole the State was allowed. After many trips to the attorney/client room in the back of the courtroom with our attorney, we believed the case would be heard by the judge (bench trial). The DA talked with the family of the deceased for a total of no less than 2 hours throughout that 8 hr long day; apparently trying to get them on board with a plea agreement, as the State does not have the evidence it needs to uphold the charge levied against my son (Criminal Death by Motor Vehicle). He was not speeding, using a cell in any way, or under the influence of anything. A car, driven by an unlicensed 16 yr old, pulled out in front of him and stopped on a dime. She was not charged.
    After all of the back and forth with the family, the DA offered a plea deal, which my son refused, instead asking for the judge to hear the case. This DA did not want to present this case in front of the judge. He tried to get the family to understand that he has no evidence to convict, but they are out for a blood and he does not have the guts to lay it on the line with them. He believes he is at the mercy of small town politics and local newspaper rantings. The DA had already used up their supposed number of continuances. When the DA learned he refused the plea, he asked the judge for a continuance. Our attorney objected, stating the DA’s office had many months to get their ducks in a row, and his client wanted the case to be heard. The judge denied the motion fo a continuance. Then…And this is where it blew us away… The DA then dismissed the charge, but used a loophole that allows him to RE-FILE the charge, which he did immediately. Now we are back at square one, with a new court date in April.
    My point being that even if the State of FL dismisses the charges against GZ, clearly, they can re-file new charges. How can any person who is wrongfully charged, expect the courts to do what is right and dismiss those charges? If you are being prosecuted by a DA who is spineless and at the mercy of political forces, YOU ARE SCREWED. Period.

    • selfdefenseadvocate says:

      So very sorry, LL. Thoughts and prayers are with you and your family. ♥

    • Angel says:

      “My point being that even if the State of FL dismisses the charges against GZ, clearly, they can re-file new charges. How can any person who is wrongfully charged, expect the courts to do what is right and dismiss those charges?”

      Yeah, double jeopardy only applies if someone has already been tried for the crime, not just charged. I have seen on Law &Order where the Judge will dismiss a charge and but charges are refiled for various reasons including more evidence.

      Hang in there! I know that is easier said than done.

    • Sha says:

      LL : You will win ! He is trying to break you down and make your son give up….. Most regular people dont have the money or the will to fight most battles like you are up against. Stand strong even if you have to hold each other up ! I will keep you in my prayers…..

      • LittleLaughter says:

        Thank you for the encouragement! We are all fighters, with our hopes firmly planted in our faith in Christ. We did not expect this. The attorney was angry, as he did not expect this either. I understand double jeopardy well, but did not expect them to have to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence and immediately refile, giving them ample opportunity to prepare for a case they have had for 9 months and didn’t bother to prepare for. I think 1). That the DA was super angry that he had worked so hard to get the family to agree to his plea deal, only to have my son reject it in favor of a trial, and…
        2). He doesn’t have the guts to tell the family that he doesn’t have a case. That their belief that my son was doing something illegal at the time of the accident (texting or speeding) was wrong. He was doing neither. In fact, the driver of the other car was driving illegally and our attorney will be using that in front of a judge. Our state is a “Contributory Negligence” state.
        In other words…DA is a spineless coward. Just like BDLR.

        • boricuafudd says:

          I am curious why your attorney did not ask for an immediate dismissal of the charges without prejudice. The DA could still have filed at a later date but would have to new present evidence to overcome the dissmissal. Right now he gaming the system and the Judge should not allow that.
          My prayers go out to you, best wished God Bless.

    • ctdar says:

      ?dismissed the charge yet was able to refile? When case was dismissed do judge say with/without prejudice?
      Often a court will enter a judgment with prejudice if the plaintiff has shown bad faith, misled the court, or persisted in filing frivolous lawsuits.
      Im so sorry your son and you have to go through this. Is it time your son goes after the family & their insurance for pain, suffering, damages?…girl was unlicensed and behind wheel of (im assuming) parents car illegally. Was any toxicology tests done on her or check of her cell phone usage at moment of impact?
      Any way to get investigative reporter in on this DA, is this a habitual pattern? Is the girls family well off and greasing the justice wheels to go their way via DA.
      If not already, get your side to the story out in public forums, stay away from small time papers, go to the closest large city paper and see if they will listen. Sounds like the DA realizes there is no substance to the case so push him even harder, get every person you know to call him and complain about the case. If any perceived injustice is being piled on you for any personal/background characteristics, use that as well…time to pull out the stops; squeaky wheels. :)

    • jello333 says:

      What you want is for the judge to have the courage to dismiss the charges “with prejudice”. That means they can NOT be refiled.

  25. BertDilbert says:

    Quick Question.

    Can a minor hire a lawyer since you have to be an adult to have an enforceable contract? Was it not said that Dee Dee was represented by a lawyer during the phone conversation? Any thoughts on this angle?

    • mung says:

      Her parents sure could. I have heard of lawyers representing children in emancipation hearings though.

    • Patriot Dreamer says:

      Minors can hire lawyers. Or their parents/guardians can hire a lawyer on their behalf. The problems come in when a minor breaches a contract (doesn’t pay on a car loan, for example). But a minor would be able to go to court and enforce a contract against an adult (the court assumes that the adult knew what they were doing and what they were getting into).

    • In his interview, Crump asked is Dee Dee had legal representation and she said “no.”

  26. mung says:

    Today on Click Orlando the Pro George side is out in force and not a peep out of a Trayvonite.

  27. arkansasmimi says:

    This is best place for me, to get good live stream. Omara and crew just walked in.

  28. froggielegs says:

    Hmm no Chump how ironic.

  29. mung says:

    Can’t get into the Fox feed yet and that is the only one that wasn’t blocked for me last time.

  30. Chip Bennett says:


    West just said that Witness 8 is now 19 years old?!?

  31. mung says:

    Hold the phone was that a typo in the Wesh updates or is DeeDee really 19 now?

  32. froggielegs says:

    She’s going to deny.

  33. Angel says:

    uh oh! There she go. Interupting West during his argument is not a good sign.

  34. ottawa925 says:

    omg .. this is lunacy. I want to choke her like Jack nicholson choked nurse RATchit.

  35. Chip Bennett says:

    Nelson is quoting precedent case law about “deposing opposing counsel”.

  36. libtardh8r says:

    If West knew what information he was seeking from Crump, he wouldn’t need to depose him!

  37. Lynn says:

    She is something else! My blood pressure is rising! West just gave a good argument and she asked the same question. Was she even listening?

  38. Chip Bennett says:

    West: “Your honor, Mr. Crump is not opposing counsel.”

    Nelson: “well, he’s counsel of some sort…”

  39. disgustedwithjulison says:

    wow,,,,case law begin quoted by the judge is regarding “opposing counsel”. Crump is not opposing counsel. what a friggin joke…..Crump walks. You know she is going to let the jerk off. wow…..gotta love justice in Florida!

  40. Angel says:

    This is B.S. Crump is not opposing counsel in the criminal case. Ugh!!! Just make your ruling, your honor, we kind of know what it is going to be already. I wish I was wroing :-(

  41. froggielegs says:

    I understand your examples but tough crap I’m denying you…. bet she denies

  42. libtardh8r says:

    I always interrupt counsel with case law that is irrelevant to the argument being made

  43. Chip Bennett says:

    West is absolutely hitting this out of the park. Let’s see how Nelson ultimately responds.

    • disgustedwithjulison says:

      Chip, I agree that West is playing a great game of mind chess with the judge and winning….but you know the judge is going to protect an attorney. It’s how the club works. Crump will not be deposed.

  44. diwataman says:

    Oh my, West is frustrated.

  45. She had made her mind up already

  46. Holder is talking to her in her ear

  47. mooney1el says:

    Wow. I thought for a minute that West was going to ask the judge “Should I continue or have you already made up your mind?”

  48. mung says:

    Wish I could see this.

  49. diwataman says:

    West wants to know why Crump lied about Wolfinger meeting with Lee the night of the 26th. And wants the information Crump “has” that shows corruption and conspiracy in the SPD and between Wolfingers office.

  50. Bongo says:

    I’m betting in the remote possibility Judge Nelson does allow the deposition of Crump, he will “leave the country” for an “extended vacation” and avoid service of the subpoena. I’m sure he has the means to stay hidden until a June trial is over.

  51. Chip Bennett says:

    West: “let me explain this important information that Crump injected himself into regarding the 911 recording…”

    Nelson: “I’m sorry, only the State gets to wax philosophical in this courtroom. Back on topic, please.”

  52. Rich Branson says:

    This is incredible. Is she a judge or counsel for Crump? Because it almost sounds like she’s arguing for the state, and Crump in particular. What a farce.

  53. Chip Bennett says:

    Total number of SPD officers who witnessed Tracy Martin state that the screaming voice was not Trayvon Martin’s: three.

  54. mung says:

    The way it is sounding, SD is going to be making a tough choice today.

  55. gannasview says:

    Nelson should just hang a sign around her neck that says she is BIASED!!! This is a mockery to the judicial system!

  56. Anybody else experiencing sound issues with the hearing?

  57. mooney1el says:

    Yes and it is not just ClickOrlando

  58. Chip Bennett says:

    Blackwell again claims “opposing counsel” protection on the basis of inevitable, future wrongful death lawsuits.

    (Commence JQ caterwauling in three, two, one…)

  59. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    Blackwell sounds like a screaming old time fire & brimstone preacher- A way to intimidate people. She hasn’t interrupted his ranting one time. Her mind was made up before they even entered the courtroom. Stick to the LAW Judge…

  60. disgustedwithjulison says:

    kabuki theater….ho hum….alright Blackwell, you can sit down now. The judge isn’t interrupting or siting case law in your face because she is covering for the club. Just cut it short and save the county some money.

  61. mung says:

    Tony Pipitone tweeted this Blackwell: had Crump chosen to intvw Witness 8 and keep it to himself “we wouldn’t be here.”
    Gee no kidding, none of this would have happened and the case would have gone to a grand jury which would have said there was no case.

  62. Chip Bennett says:

    Blackwell thinks he has the right to tell the defense the order in which the defense takes depositions.

    Also: Blackwell is a loud-mouthed blowhard, using a plethora of words to say absolutely nothing relevant to the matter at hand.

  63. Darrell Cabey, who was awarded $43 million by a jury for his injuries from being shot by subway vilgilante Bernard H. Goetz in a Manhattan subway train in 1984, has not received any money from Mr. Goetz.

  64. HughStone says:

    The cases Nelson cited were given to her by Blackwell. SMH

  65. Chip Bennett says:

    And now it’s time for the BDLR show…

  66. Chip Bennett says:

    West: “shall I put Mr. Crump’s statements into the record? I’ve got them here on my computer, written up as exhibits.”

  67. Chip Bennett says:

    …and I just lost the feed, as Nelson appeared to be gearing up for some Blackwell apologetics.

  68. Nelson: Circle the wagons.

  69. diwataman says:

    Give it up West. She ain’t going for it.

  70. Cherpa1 says:

    OMG, Bernie and Blackwell look like clones of each other. The only difference is the color of the tie.

  71. Angel says:

    Move along West, there is nothing you are going to get here regarding this motion :-(

  72. Omar says:

    This is the most blatantly ignorant and crooked judge I’ve ever had the displeasure of listening to. What is she not getting about Crump NOT being opposing counsel??

  73. disgustedwithjulison says:

    Hickman vs Taylor = “opposing counsel” in a litigation. Crump is not opposing counsel in this litigation.

    Doesn’t apply here AT ALL…..but the judge is using it.

  74. Chip Bennett says:

    Nelson, stating that she is ready to rule, cites Hickman v Taylor, which is (yet again) an opposing counsel decision protecting work product.

  75. On to the DCA…………

  76. Bongo says:

    Oh yeah, she had her mind made up well before this hearing. Motion Denied.

    Hope she doesn’t do the same thing at the Immunity Hearing.

    • froggielegs says:

      I have no faith in her. She will also deny the Immunity Hearing. She is making that very clear.

    • jello333 says:

      DCA will slap her down well before any hearing/trial. Assuming they allow her to remain on the case at all.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        DCA will slap her down well before any hearing/trial. Assuming they allow her to remain on the case at all.

        The defense either needs an appeal that is ripe before trial, or else some factual basis – other than “the judge rules against the defendant on every important motion” – for a writ of prohibition.

        I don’t think they yet have either one. I’m fairly certain they’re not going to get either one. The DCA will not see this case again until after a jury verdict.

        • John Galt says:

          “The DCA will not see this case again until after a jury verdict.”

          I think maybe they’re going up. It would be good for the movie. Uma Thurman, Patrick Stewart and Pierce Brosnan save the day with the appeal.

  77. Rich Branson says:

    Nelson is a fraud. This a clear railroad.

  78. disgustedwithjulison says:

    Judge has declared Crump “opposing counsel” in her statement. Wow. Corrupt.

  79. Chip Bennett says:

    Nelson is in on the fix.

    Sundance: bring about the 55mm barrels.

  80. thehoff71 says:

    It is now time for the legal team to drop the hammer. Demand a Richardson hearing and take this Judge to the Court of Appeals. She is incompetent and needs to be checked.

    • Cherpa1 says:

      Indeed yes. She certainly appear incompetent. And it is on to Ayla.

      • LandauMurphyFan says:

        “Incompetent”? Far from it. She has very competently protected the BGI’s proxy, Crump, by awarding him a status which, I believe, neatly removes the defense’s right UNDER THE LAW to depose him without permission of the court. What’s incompetent about that? Admittedly, she didn’t come up with the plan herself (that would have required her to think), but she competently regurgitated Blackwell’s spiel.

        Oh, wait. You were thinking a judge’s job is to administer the LAW competently? Not in this country at this time, I’m afraid.

        • Angel says:

          “Oh, wait. You were thinking a judge’s job is to administer the LAW competently? Not in this country at this time, I’m afraid.”

          LandauMurphyFan: You and Sharon seemed to be on the same page on that. The rest of us hold on to the vestiges of hope that there is rule of law. I guess once upon a time maybe.

        • jello333 says:

          She’s biased, incompetent, and lazy. She should not only be removed from this case, she should be removed from the bench altogether. Is there a recall law in Florida that applies to judges? If so, somebody needs to start a petition to get her removal on the ballot. I am deadly serious. I don’t live if Florida, or I’d do it myself!

  81. ottawa925 says:

    They need to appeal her decision on this motion. Crump IS NOT opposing counsel.

  82. Omar says:

    There IS no attorney client privilege between Crump and the multiple DD’s!!! OMG. Where did this bimbo go to law school????

  83. froggielegs says:

    *&)(*@~!!!! and besides that—*(#*SKEK. *@&#)(*&!&@…..NEOAHGS.
    FIFY. Admin

    • froggielegs says:

      Yeah my post is empty LOL I said

      Insert every swear word here!
      Maybe you meant it to be empty…oh, well. ;) That last one is just a ref to the anatomy of a southbound horse. Admin

  84. mooney1el says:

    Did Blackwell write this? Is that what she meant at the outset that she had read his book?

    • John Galt says:

      She should have just gone ahead and read from Blackwell’s book. I found it strange that she was reciting case law regarding blocking production of attorney work product notes and memorandum when the issue at hand was whether to block deposing an attorney with respect to non attorney work product factual matters.

  85. Chip Bennett says:

    And now O’Mara takes the stage.

  86. Nelson…………”which motion would you like to hear next”. She should say instead, “which motion would you like denied next”

  87. diwataman says:

    Granted for recordings of audio from Tracy, et al.

    See, I got that one wrong.

  88. HughStone says:

    Crump doesn’t have to sit for depo, but the family does. They need to watch out for the bus coming.

    • Angel says:

      “Crump doesn’t have to sit for depo, but the family does. They need to watch out for the bus coming.”

      coming at full speed too. Crump will be protected. The rest, well, they may be on their own.

  89. Angel says:

    Well, your honor did throw the defense some crumbs by granting the subpoena duces tecum. and way she talks to the attorneys for the defense is not professional at all.

  90. treewig says:

    So with Crump being granted “opposing counsel” status, what does it mean if he has any exculpatory information that hasn’t been turned over to the defense?

    • mung says:

      Not only that, but the statements made earlier that BDLR was not responsible for the statements he was making because he was not part of the prosecution team needs to be looked at. He is clearly speaking for the prosecution since he is opposing council.

      • TandCrumpettes says:

        I specifically came here right now to say that very thing. Exactly how, then, is “opposing counsel” different than a “state’s surrogate?” After all, Bernie vehemently denied such an accusation!

  91. diwataman says:

    Though the judge didn’t rule separately on the motion of W8 recordings of Trayvon, she mentioned no one was in the court room to challenge it so I suppose that was one included as granted as well.

    See? I got that one wrong as well.

  92. Chip Bennett says:

    O’Mara: “it is ridiculous that the defense does not have pertinent identifying information, such as address, of witnesses listed by the State.”

    BDLR: “Family members are scared. Oh, and the State doesn’t know the address of all of these other people not listed as witnesses.”

  93. ottawa925 says:

    oh this is BS. If ppl want to get to Tracy or Sabrina all they have to do is attending or go to any of the 5 bazillion fundraisers … dinners … etc. that these two have been dragged around to since this case started. So who is this guy bullchittin !!

    • ottawa925 says:

      these ppl are second to none on public appearances … so don’t give me this crap you can’t give address to defense … officers of the court … not public.

  94. John Galt says:

    BDLR has outdone himself: The State has no knowledge where the defendant (currently on GPS monitoring) lives.

  95. BertDilbert says:

    A target of a dead thug does not threaten a live person

  96. ottawa925 says:

    oh oh CTH was mentioned

  97. BLDR: “The conservative tree house…”

  98. Chip Bennett says:

    BDLR just name-dropped The Conservative Treehouse.


  99. diwataman says:

    Bernie mentions Conservativetreehouse directly in court.

  100. Omar says:

    Honorable mention….CTH.

  101. froggielegs says:

    Ohh Bernie doesn’t like the Tree House LOL Butt head

  102. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    Bernie just mentioned the Treehouse :)

  103. Omg, HAT TIP TO CTH by Bernie

  104. HughStone says:

    Bernie said “Conservative Treehouse”

  105. Angel says:

    BLDR, can you turn it down just a notch or two?

  106. brutalhonesty says:

    lmfao bdlr said the treehouse

  107. Omar says:

    If Bernie is reading here…..we better start using smaller words.

  108. Rich Branson says:

    Guess Bernie doesn’t remember Spike Lee and others who encouraged violence against George and his family.

  109. The conservative tree house: living rent free in the minds of the scheme team.

  110. mooney1el says:

    But he accused TCH of doxing

  111. Angel says:

    BDLR – safety should be a concern for all including GZ and his family.

  112. Chip Bennett says:

    BDLR: “why would the defense want the addresses of listed witnesses?”

    Right. Because no witnesses in any trial in the history of the criminal justice system have been asked to disclose their identity and address.

    (Oh, what’s that? You mean every witness has to provide that information?)

    • jello333 says:

      Someone here just the other day posted actual rules and case law that explicitly states that a defendant’s lawyers have a RIGHT to addresses. Bernie and Nelson just pretend rules, laws, case law, the Constitution do NOT EVEN EXIST. It’s DCA time.

      • MJW says:

        You can read West’s motion. It cites the case law chapter and verse. I hope I’m wrong but I don’t see anything that can be appealed at this time.

        • John Galt says:

          I think they will take it up.

          Common law certiorari may be granted if there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law in such a way as to cause a material injury throughout the proceedings that cannot be adequately remedied by appeal. Frantz v. Golebiewski,407 So.2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Hill,388 So.2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Allstate Insurance Company v. Shupack,335 So.2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The order entered by the trial court precludes the taking of any deposition of Robert A. Geiss, defendant’s attorney. Such an order, under these circumstances, is overly broad and departs from the essential requirements of law. Frantz, Travelers, Allstate, supra.

          Finding as we do that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying the appointment of a commissioner to take the testimony of a witness in Ohio, the writ of certiorari is granted and the order appealed from is quashed, with directions to enter an order appointing a commissioner to take the testimony of Shelva Hill in Ohio, and to allow petitioner a reasonable time to take this testimony prior to the time of trial.

          • JB from SoCal says:

            Thanks for your work here, JG. Speaking for myself, I always look forward to reading your posts, most always well researched with sources. Excellent!

          • thefirstab says:

            I will second JB’s praise. Even though you can be an absolute hoot with your dry wit, I also appreciate your posts dealing with the law. Thank you!!

          • MJW says:

            The problem is, the 5th DCA seems to reject that view in Bill Kasper Const. Co., Inc. v. Morrison, 93 So. 3d 1061 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). It specifically mentions Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hill, 388 So.2d 648, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

            • jello333 says:

              I’ve only skimmed that, but it looks like a civil case. And isn’t the presumption and concern about irreversible error much stronger in criminal cases than civil? Just using common sense, you would sure think so.

              • John Galt says:

                There are a zillion criminal cases where the appeal court, in a post conviction appeal, puts the burden on the State to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that error(s) of the trial court were “harmless” meaning that they didn’t affect the conviction. Then they readily find that the State has met that burden.

                • jello333 says:

                  I know, but not in Cuminotto. The appeals court there specifically ruled it was NOT “harmless”, and should have been dealt with BEFORE trial. On VERY similar issues as George’s. Oh well… I guess our wavelengths are not quite in sync tonight. ;)

              • MJW says:

                In United States Fidelity & Guaranty v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), the court certified a conflict with the 5th DCA on this very issue. The 5th DCA now agrees with the 4th DCA, so there is no longer a conflict. The 2d DCA still seems to be in conflict. See Nucci v. Simmons, 20 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

                I hate to say it, but if the SCOFLA resolves the conflict, I think they’ll side with the 4th and 5th DCAs against allowing the interlocutory appeal.

                • jello333 says:

                  Umm… Cuminotto is from the 4th (plus it’s criminal, not civil, if that matters), and that was decided just a couple months ago. So…..?

                  • MJW says:

                    Cuminotto was a post-conviction appeal, so it’s not really relevant.

                  • jello333 says:

                    I’m not concerned with WHEN this appeal was taken. I’m concerned with what the appeal (and ruling) was concerned with. Yeah, I know it was post-conviction. The vast majority of ALL appeals are post-conviction, post-trial/decision. But many, many rulings by appeals courts declare that the trial court erred in some way. Not only does that affect the case in question, but it sets a precedent for OTHER, FUTURE similar cases. The appeals court is, in effect, telling trial courts in its jurisdiction that they should NOT make the same mistake the current trial court in question made. Am I not right about that? Isn’t that basically how it works? So if that’s true, then look at what they said in Cuminotto. They said the trial court was WRONG in not holding a Richardson hearing BEFORE the trial, and they were WRONG in not granting a continuance. Seems to me that the appeals court is not only telling that specific trial court that they messed up, but that OTHER TRIAL COURTS should take note. If that’s not true, then what’s the point of precedent? What’s to keep a hundred other trial courts from doing exactly the same thing, and then the appeals courts having to fix THEIR mistakes?

                    I hope I’m making sense here. It’s possible I’m just confused, but if so please explain where I’m wrong.

                  • MJW says:

                    The problem with post-conviction appeals is well-stated in John Galt’s 1:19 am comment just above. The appellate court says the judge erred, but it was harmless. The defendant can post that on his prison cell wall.

                  • jello333 says:

                    Huh? What case are we talking about now? Cuminotto did NOT say it was harmless… quite the opposite.

                    “Without these findings and with the refusal to continue the trial given the late disclosure of these reports, we cannot say the error was harmless. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). The defendant was procedurally prejudiced because there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant’s trial preparation would have been materially different had the reports and witnesses’ names been disclosed sooner. We therefore reverse and remand the case for a new trial.”

                    Here was my other comment (asking about the whole point of precedence), not sure if you’ve seen this yet.


                  • boricuafudd says:

                    Jello, MOM an West also have to prove irreparable harm has been done to GZ, right now the Judge does not see insurmountable problems for the Defense. Unless MOM has prove that for instance DD is a fabrication by Crump, and that GZ will be convicted because of it, then there might be a recourse. As it stands GZ could still win the Immunity Hearing and or the trial. Again why most appeals are post-conviction.

                • MJW says:

                  Jello333, yes Cuminotto did not find the error to be harmless, but in many, many appeals, the errors are found to be harmless. The errors in Cuminotto were about as egregious as imaginable.

                  • jello333 says:

                    OK, that makes sense. One more question and I’ll drop it. ;)

                    In the Cuminotto case, the Court explicitly ruled that the trial court should have held a Richardson hearing before the trial. So do you think they were only saying that in THAT specific case, that should have been done? Because I read it as much broader. To me, I thought they were saying that in ANY criminal case where discovery is a serious problem, a Richardson hearing should be held. Do not wait, do not force the defense to appeal or anything… just hold the hearing. And if so, if that’s their intent with their ruling, is that not precedent? Are lower courts not then bound by it? Oh, I know that a lower court may just IGNORE that ruling, and refuse to hold a Richardson hearing anyway. But I would think that any pre-trial appeal regarding such an action would be looked kindly upon by the appeals court, considering how such an action by the trial court is precisely what the previous ruling was meant to prevent.

                  • MJW says:

                    In the Cuminotto case, the Court explicitly ruled that the trial court should have held a Richardson hearing before the trial. So do you think they were only saying that in THAT specific case…?

                    No, but the problem is, if a judge like Nelson doesn’t obey (as she didn’t obey the witness address requirement), the error won’t be considered until after a conviction, and it may be deemed to be harmless.

          • jello333 says:

            Ah, thank you John! Add those to the Cuminotto case. Not that it’s on exactly the same issue, but they ALL involve a “You gotta do this BEFORE trial” ruling.

    • doodahdaze says:

      CTH to BDLR….Let us see the evidence. After the start of this I have been looking. So far….none.

  113. BertDilbert says:

    Hey bernie, you do not need to know the address of the father and brother of GZ you idiot. Irrelevent.

  114. Chip Bennett says:

    Amazingly, the audio streaming cleared up almost entirely once BDLR took the stage.

  115. yankeeintx says:

    We’re famous….according to Bernie! LOL!!

    • waltherppk says:

      They should all keep reading here ….it could be educational opposition research that might even bring about transformative change of the sort enabling a finding of one’s own fanny with both hands without a GPS map and ping logs for guidance.

    • doodahdaze says:

      Lil ole us? Amazing. I think the Conservative part throws them off,

      • yankeeintx says:

        A mind is a terrible thing to waste. I think it is too late to attempt to educate most of them. That would require them to want to know things like the truth, facts, liberty, and freedom. They need to be told what they are supposed to think and what opinions they are allowed to share.

  116. Chip Bennett says:

    Magnanimous Bernie didn’t object to O’Mara asking Witness 8 for her MySpace username, even though MySpace wasn’t listed in the motion to compel for Facebook and Twitter profiles.

  117. diwataman says:

    W8 was asked by O’Mara what her address was from a 25 minute mini depo, regarding the twitter handle name stuff, she said she’d rather not give it.

  118. arkansasmimi says:

    WOW they fixing to pull up the TH!!!!

  119. diwataman says:

    Treehouse mentioned again

  120. froggielegs says:

    Woot LOL

  121. Lee says:

    Used O’Mara’s (GZ Legal) own words against him – regarding sympathy with the family….that’s why he needs to stay solely behind Zimmerman – and stop with the niceties for everybody else. It’s not being mean- just good lawyering-stay focused on the issue Zimmerman’s persecution and Martin’s actions.

  122. froggielegs says:

    Hope the judge looks up the site and sees we think she’s an a$$

  123. brutalhonesty says:

    lmfao so bdlrs argument is the treehouse posted public info per harris v state “social media is like yelling out of an open window”

  124. diwataman says:

    Treehouse admitted into evidence regarding W9 George’s cousin.

  125. brutalhonesty says:

    bdlr wanst to name us………omara and west need to go after dothprotest too much, trent, and eric.

  126. Witness 9. The kissing cousin outed by CTH.

  127. Bongo says:

    Hey, Bernie, if you’re reading this……………………….take a big dump and fall back in it, you crazy mofo.

  128. truth says:

    Hey Bernie, DeeDee info was deduced from Crump’s lies, not from the defense. Too bad O’Mara doesn’t know that.

  129. Lee says:

    Nobody offered a bounty on the Martins – they walked down the street with 1000s behind them – and travelled globally preaching their cause – they are not hiding for their lives.

  130. froggielegs says:

    Bernie didn’t seem to have a problem when they released George’s school records. We hear nothing about Tweets listing false address to George’s parents house. Just all about poor Martin family boohoo

  131. Chip Bennett says:

    O’Mara: “the precedent case law requires an actual, expressed threat by the defendant in order to protect witness identities”

  132. Angel says:

    CTH doxed somebody and released her work address? This isn’t W8 is it? But the point is that GZ, the defendant did not. He should not be penalized for acts that others committed.

  133. HughStone says:

    Nat Jackson in the backround?

  134. Omar says:

    I like this new snarky MOM. It’s about time he showed some spunk!!

  135. froggielegs says:

    She won’t she is a prosecutor’s judge

  136. arkansasmimi says:


  137. BertDilbert says:

    Omara tired of being treated like a child. Reminded that the CTH is watching… Needs to make a good show.

  138. Omar says:

    What’s this judge Deb? When MOM throws an amendment to the Constitution into the mix, you start stuttering?? Foiled again by the Constitution!!

  139. griz1234 says:

    I don’t see this judge doing anything that would delay getting the hot potato of this case off her lap. Jury, appeals court, plea deal, Zimmerman being mauled by a crazed and rabid squirrel… Doesn’t matter. Everyone in Trayvon Martin’s life that could have made a difference was content to allow him to be someone else’s problem… and now, even the legal phantasm of his death is being pawned off.

    Our system of law, as well as your system of politics, and indeed our society in general depends upon having persons of integrity and honor in positions of authority. There have always been liars and scoundrels in public life, but as long as the vast majority of those in power had integrity and honor, those systems worked.

    They work no longer.

    Frankly, I saw no one in that courtroom I’d feel comfortable with allowing to park my car, let alone handling matters of life and death.

    • waltherppk says:

      There is no mention of the forensic report on the phones to include GPS data and ping logs. The elephant in the room has now taken a dump and nobody notices the smell.

    • waltherppk says:

      This meeting of the collegiate fraternal order of shysters is now concluded. We don’t need any stinking GPS data for the phones or any stupid ping logs ….we got phone bills and a mystery witness who is now a 19 year old chile needing protection, not a closer look. Her blood pressure might go up from stress and cause her to go back to the hospital. Wait a minute …..was she ever at the hospital ??? Well golly gee …who knows ??? Crump can’t answer questions and no checking up on a mystery witness “ghost” can be done either …… convenient.

    • jello333 says:

      This woman is CLEARLY trying to protect the Scheme Team. She’s not even trying to hide that fact. How is this person a judge? But forget about her. What’s important is what MOM and West now do. If they sit on their hands and do nothing, I’m coming over to the dark side with you. But that ain’t gonna happen….

      • diwataman says:

        Clearly? I didn’t hear her cite anything to that effect. Not even trying to hide the fact? Really? I didn’t see or hear anything in the hearing that made this aspect so obvious as you state. She gave her reasons, cited the case law, made her decision and now the defense will move on. What do you want the defense to do?

        • jello333 says:

          I can’t tell if you’re joking or not. But yeah, Nelson cited case law… and none of it was correct as far as the the relevance to this case is concerned. And she thoroughly ignored the rules which say the defense MUST be given addresses, etc before depositions. So either she’s so incompetent that she really thinks her rulings are sound, or she just doesn’t care… in which case yeah, it’s obviously WHY she’d be doing that. As to what the defense should do now? Two things, and I don’t know if they can both go to the DCA. The first being to appeal all the faulty rulings of Nelson (DCA). And the other, which might have to go through Nelson first (?), is demand a Richardson hearing.

  140. Chip Bennett says:

    Shorter Nelson: “stop accusing me of fast-tracking this trial. The State doesn’t have to disclose those addresses. You can get them in your scheduled depositions.”

    • mung says:

      If they agree to give their addresses.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        If they agree to give their addresses.

        Good point. Witness 8 already objected to divulging her address.

        Will West’s motion to compel be submitted today, or tomorrow?

        • John Galt says:

          “Witness 8 already objected to divulging her address.”


          1. Inconsistent with cell phone historical location data ?
          2. Evidences close affiliation with Team Trayvon ?
          3. Bad Light (halfway house, mental institution, home for the developmentally disabled) ?
          4. Fears background investigation (don’t talk to the neighbors, etc.) ?
          5. Fears service of subpoena ?
          6. Other ?

          • kathyca says:

            She’s a crack ‘ho? Crump’s wife deleted her cellie from his phone and no one knows it off the top of their heads now? lol Wow…holy schneicke. The TRAVESTY continues. Mind boggling…she’ll be reversed, I have no doubt.

            • Floridianne says:

              We’ve missed you. Someone else asked where you’d been. Glad to see you’re back.

            • waltherppk says:

              DeeDee is an on the job trainee with the slip and fall actors guild.
              Klaatu beamed out a message into space ……
              and look what the cat dragged in from planet vegan :D
              welcome back

        • jello333 says:

          I would hope that they already have all their appeals motions halfway written out, in anticipation of Nelson being Nelson today. Probably no motions filed today, but Monday would be my guess.

  141. Angel says:

    Figured she would deny the motion to release the address of W8. All the defense got were crumbs today.

  142. diwataman says:

    Well, 2 out of 4 aint bad. Too bad they were the weaker of the four.

    • LandauMurphyFan says:

      “Too bad they were the weaker of the four.” And does anyone believe that THAT is just coincidental? All 2 out of 4 means is that she’s convinced herself (or someone has convinced her) that as long as she gives the defense the odd crumb, she’s hiding her bias. Which works about as well as hiding a decomposing elephant by sitting on it.

      • Angel says:

        ““Too bad they were the weaker of the four.” And does anyone believe that THAT is just coincidental?”

        I don’t. That is why I said the defense got crumbs today.

  143. Omar says:

    What’s that, Mr. Defense attorney?? You want STAFF in the courtroom?? DENIED!!!

  144. MJW says:

    I can’t believe what an idiot that judge is.

  145. Nelsons constant interruptions of only the DEFENSE speaks VOLUMES

  146. Omar says:

    Yes genius!! Our staff can certainly take notes on the trial from a witness room outside of the courtroom. Is she daft? Brain injury? Drunk?

  147. Lee says:

    Judge doesn’t understand – there is a need for foundational investigations prior to the depositions – but, O’Mara and West should have been doing more – hopefully they have and we just don’t know – but, it is looking pretty amateurish and not good for Zimmerman.

    • LandauMurphyFan says:

      “Judge doesn’t understand – there is a need for foundational investigations prior to the depositions…”

      Oh, I think this judge understands that all too well. And I think she demonstrates that understanding by denying the request.

    • LetJusticePrevail says:

      The judge *understands* perfectly why the defense wants her address, and also that there is a *need* for a pre-deposition investigation of Witness 8. The point is, that she doesn’t *care* if the defendant’s constitutional rights are violated. It is not her *concern* now, nor has it ever been her *concern* (that justice be served). Her agenda is something quite different.

  148. mung says:

    So at what point is the defense allowed to address the massive constitutional violations in this case?

    • John Galt says:

      Typically after conviction, although I thought that MOM might have something immediate in mind when he asked for a copy of Nelson’s notes.

      • jello333 says:

        The Cuminatto case (and maybe others) says a Richardson hearing must take place as soon as the defense alleges wrongdoing. But of course Nelson’s definition of “must” is quite unusual. DCA… NOW!

      • MJW says:

        I thought that MOM might have something immediate in mind when he asked for a copy of Nelson’s notes.

        That was interesting. I hope O’Mara knows something I don’t know about how this could be appealed prior to a conviction.

        • Nettles18 says:

          I think he was making it a point that her decision was written out and she read it. Before hearing the verbal arguments in court today.

        • jello333 says:

          I’m sure MOM and West already knew about this case, but just in the slight change they didn’t I sent it to them a couple days ago. A recent Florida DCA case very similar to George’s as far as actions of the prosecution goes. And the Court ruled that if there are discovery violations, a Richardson hearing MUST be held before anything else. Not only that, but a continuance that is necessary because of those violations can NOT be denied. It’s Cuminotta vs State


          • John Galt says:

            “Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 requires the State to disclose the names and addresses of persons known to have information relevant to the offense or any defense. Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.220(b)(1)(A)”

            except for Zimmerman

      • jello333 says:

        “copy of Nelson’s notes” ??? What exactly is that referring to? Just from the sound of it, yeah, it seems almost like MOM is saying, “We think you’re in cahoots with the prosecution”. But I really don’t know what you’re meaning by “copy of Nelson’s notes”.

        • doodahdaze says:

          Who knows? But as trial approaches it will start to be does the state have to good on Zimmerman for Murder 2? So far I don’t think so. I have learned a lot in the last year. Amazing.

        • John Galt says:

          “copy of Nelson’s notes” ??? What exactly is that referring to?

          I think it means that the defense wanted to get started on an immediate appeal.

          • jello333 says:

            If so, that’s great. But I guess I just don’t see what her notes would have to do with that. Or maybe I just don’t know the definition of “notes” as they relate to a judge? Sorry… I’m a bit slooooow today. ;)

  149. ottawa925 says:

    I think the Judge is wasting time with these questions about court room accommodations. That could be done by correspondence when attorneys are back at the office to sit down and figure out EXACTLY who will be doing what and who actually needs to be in the courtroom, and who does not and can be in an off courtroom site. ridiculous.

  150. BertDilbert says:

    LOL. “let me interrupt you because that is what I like to do.”

    • maggiemoowho says:

      Now what? Even Nejame just said he thinks the Judge made her mind up about Crump before she entered the court room.

      • John Galt says:

        Yeah, I kinda picked up on that from the previous hearing where she started to grant Blackwell’s no prior notice oral motion to block Crump’s depo before Blackwell even finished making it.

        • ARW says:

          So, do you suspect she knew Blackwell’s “opposing counsel” argument prior to the hearing?

          • John Galt says:

            As a former prosecutor, she certainly would have been aware of case law which generally shields prosecutors from being deposed. I do not know whether there was advance planning to shelter Crump or whether Nelson’s eagerness to block Crump’s deposition resulted from her knowledge of the prosecutor shield case law in combination with a knee-jerk response to Blackwell’s absurd assertion that Crump was protected by status as a private attorney general.

            • JC says:

              this is a kangaroo court, they want to jail GZ to keep the gates to Disney free of busloads of Sharptons protesters knowing it will take GZ years to get freed when a US court rules on his civil rights violations (after Holder and Scott, Biondi,Corey, Nelson have moved on). It’s brazen and transparent.
              PS Its entertaining listening to Scott backtrack on his positions about medicaid and Obamacare

            • libby says:

              private attorney general, but not a surrogate for the prosecution

      • cassandra says:

        obvious from her notes. they really do think we are all stupid. makes me want to take it to the streets the way the Martins did.

      • Of course. It’s all part of the politics.

    • Chip Bennett says:


      In more ways than one.

      How would you like your cake?

      • rumpole2 says:

        I do think Dman should get cake….
        Pessimism IS the best policy. I have no doubt that Nelson will deny immunity now, but……

        There is still the HOPE of the DCA…. immunity before trial?

  151. diwataman says:

    Defense and prosecution chumin it up in a little 4 man huddle, looks like they’re going out for beers.

    • cassandra says:

      No, if you can hear they are trying to get scheduling done and BDLR puts it off saying he wants to miss traffic and will phone later.

  152. Chip Bennett says:

    Hearing summary:

    Judge Nelson has marching orders, and she’s sticking to them.

    Any more questions?

  153. brutalhonesty says:

    if anyone has a link showing an after court press conference when they leave the building please post

  154. Is there a reason the judge continued to call Crump “opposing counsel”, even going as far as using case law about opposing counsel to deny George’s motion? Is there a broader definition of “opposing counsel” than just a member of the prosecution team?

  155. eastern2western says:

    appellate court next.

    • MJW says:

      I wish, but I don’t see anything that’s subject to an interlocutory appeal.

      • ottawa925 says:

        MJW, why? The Judge was defining Crump as “opposing counsel” he is not. She cannot make up her own definitions. Her sited case law was all on cases siting “opposing counsel”.

        • MJW says:

          Because, in the view of Florida case law, this is a matter that doesn’t cause irreparable harm to Zimmerman because it could be cured by a post-conviction appeal.

      • jello333 says:

        Disagree. There is PLENTY to set up a Richardson hearing (which has to take place BEFORE trial). And out of that hearing will come evidence that will bring about further appeals if Nelson still acts like the scum she is.

        • MJW says:

          But as far as I’m aware, the absence of a Richardson hearing is something that can only be challenged in an appeal following conviction.

          • diwataman says:

            Has there ever been a Richardson Hearing before a trial and/or “SYG” hearing?

          • jello333 says:

            I’m trying to catch up in this thread, so if you’ve already seen my other comments regarding this I apologize. Anyway, there’s a case that says just the opposite, that the Richardson hearing should take place BEFORE. Cuminotto v. State of Florida. (from 4th DCA, not 5th) It’s long, but here’s a taste of the ruling:

            “He timely moved to compel production of the records and to continue the trial for a short period of time….. Having considered the facts based on these seven criteria, we find an abuse of discretion in denying the motion for continuance. That error was compounded by the failure to conduct a Richardson hearing.”

        • diwataman says:

          I’m not sure exactly how you think they can file for a Richardson Hearing. I’m looking at the below link and I don’t see from that how you think the defense will go about it.

          Any lawyers up in here?

          • MJW says:

            The judge is supposed to hold one on her own if the defense alleges a discovery violation. The defense could explicitly file a motion demanding one..

            • diwataman says:

              So are you agreeing with Jello or not?

              • MJW says:

                I don’t think the absence of a Richardson hearing can appealed prior to a conviction. So on that, I disagree. Also, for some reason, the defense seems to have gone out of their way to say they weren’t alleging that the state was violating the discovery rules.

                • diwataman says:

                  I thought Jellow was merely saying they ought to have a Richardson Hearing before trial. Is he not?

                  • MJW says:

                    Jello333 was disagreeing with my opinion that there’s probably nothing that could be immediately appealed.

                  • diwataman says:

                    Ah, okay, I misread jellow then. So do you think they can and/or will file for a Richardson hearing before trial?

                    And secondly do you think, as jellow proposes, that out of that Richardson hearing will come something to appeal before trial?

                  • jello333 says:

                    I think we’re all at least in agreement that something needs to be done NOW, even if it isn’t taken up by the DCA until later. But unless I’m reading this all wrong, one thing that’s clear is that a Richardson hearing DOES have to be taken up as soon as it’s demanded, rather than wait till later. Also seems to me that a denial for continuance is appealable now, rather than later. Other matters?…. I don’t know.

                  • jello333 says:

                    Yeah, that’s what I was saying. And that’s what the Cumanotto decision says. That a Richardson hearing has to take place as soon as the issue of problems with discovery comes up…. NOT wait till after the trial, on appeal. And that being a Florida DCA ruling makes it binding precedent on trial courts… unless there is another DCA ruling that conflicts. If there is, I haven’t heard about it.

      • boricuafudd says:

        Does awarding Crump the role of “opposing counsel” and the guards against deposing him, presupposes the outcome of an Inmmunity Hearing that could in effect null any future lawsuits he might file against GZ.

        • boricuafudd says:

          Judge Nelson is giving a clear indication that she will not grant Inmmunity to GZ, prior to the Hearing commencing. It is the only way that she can justify giving “opposing counsel” to Crump.

        • MJW says:

          I think it merely means Judge Dimbulb was trying to find a justification for not allowing Crump’s deposition. But I don’t think Nelson has any intention of granting immunity, and like most of her decisions, I think she’s already made it, and won’t let the facts or the law change it.

    • ottawa925 says:

      Maybe MOM should arrange for a team of treepers to be in that off site room to REMIND him of stuff like this. I agree with you, defense should have responded to that with pointing out it was mainstream media that put her out there. Good Lord. Mom/West should bring attorney with some FIRE to combat the theatrics of BDLR and the Jimmy Swaggart Blackwell.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        I agree with you, defense should have responded to that with pointing out it was mainstream media that put her out there.

        In fairness, it is not the responsibility to defend CTH against specious allegations. Their client is George Zimmerman. As O’Mara (rightly) pointed out: regardless of who “outed” Witness 9, it wasn’t the Zimmerman defense.

        • ottawa925 says:

          point taken Chip. I’m just disgusted with the lies and the sleazy machinations plus this Judge … this case just stinks so bad holding your nose doesn’t even help.

        • maggiemoowho says:

          Your right Chip and I wouldn’t expect MOM to do that and should have worded my post differently. There is just something about the way BDLR argues in court. He has this irritating, childish way of arguing in court that dives me nuts. It would have been great to hear that the State has the problem keeping info private while making these “accidental” leaks.

  156. boutis says:

    I’m staying the heck out of Florida. A private prosecutor can threaten a riot and have me arrested. Who needs LE or a state attorney in Florida?

  157. mung says:

    Why can’t I have a check box on my ballot that says “Should judge Deborah Nelson be retained”?

    • West did most of the talking, and I don’t think George could have had a better attorney to represent him in court today. O’Mara seemed good as well.

      • Sharon says:

        All righty then. That sure is good news.

        • justfactsplz says:

          Well, it just solidifies that the outcome of this case is predetermined.

          • waltherppk says:

            The setting of a trail date before seeing what is the result of an Immunity Hearing which would affect the disposition of a case regarding trial was a billboard announcement that Immunity was already decided IN ADVANCE to be denied by the Judge. If process is clearly a rigged railroad evidenced by a judges obvious predetermination of what will assuredly be a denial of Immunity, then why should there be any confidence at all in the impartiality of the same Judge who will be also presiding over both Discovery and Trial ? The BIAS of the Judge is evident by virtue of the calendar date for TRIAL being announced PREMATURELY, and not made a contingency date to follow by some reasonable time COMPLETION of Discovery which is a prerequisite. Likewise the setting of a date for the Immunity Hearing should have been made contingent upon Completion of Discovery, and the setting of a date for Trial deferred until after disposition of the case was made at the Immunity Hearing. Simply the way in which scheduling has been done is clearly presumptuous of the outcome of interposed events like the Immunity Hearing and shows a judge telling everyone the State is running a railroad.

            • jello333 says:

              You got that right! We now know exactly where Nelson stands, so the goal now is to find some way to make her irrelevant…. or at least neutered.

            • justfactsplz says:

              Yes, the long black train.

            • Tammy Jones says:

              Most realize immunity for Zimmerman before trial would never happen. The media, threats of riots, politics have ran this case from day 1. Months earlier I was more positive that Zimmerman would walk and be granted immunity, now days I’m not so sure. Come trial there will probably be a few hundred trayvon supporters at the court house everyday, singing, signs, holding hands etc. Zimmerman has supporters but we don’t take to the streets.

              Question could Zimmerman have an immunity hearing after the trial if he was found not quilty??

              • waltherppk says:

                “Question could Zimmerman have an immunity hearing after the trial if he was found not quilty??”

                Do flying pigs have golden wings or would those be angels?

                • Tammy Jones says:

                  If George is found not quilty at trial he still could be sued by the Martins. All I was thinking is with not quilty could he ask for an immunity hearing after the trial. I don’t think it a good idea to combine the trial and immunity hearing.

                  • waltherppk says:

                    Think about it. Sure he could ask, but look at who is the judge and the message is already there what she is going to do WRT immunity.

            • woohoowee says:

              “… the State is running a railroad.”

              Johnny Cash:

              “I hear the train a comin’
              It’s rollin’ ’round the bend,
              And I ain’t seen the sunshine,
              Since, I don’t know when,”

        • jello333 says:

          ;) But I think we all know that even a Kunstler or Dershowitz wouldn’t have had an effect on Idiot Nelson inside that courtroom. So what I’m waiting for is to see what MOM and West do NOW. If they don’t hit the DCA up with a bunch of paperwork, THEN I’ll get worried.

    • John Galt says:

      Ramond Burr just rolled over.

  158. mung says:

    So when is SD going to unleash the fury. I have a gig tonight so I want to know when to sneak a look at the site.

  159. Springstreet says:

    So in conclusion: DD is one person with a known address and one cell phone and one Facebook account and one Twitter account and MOM has known this for weeks AND Crump could lie about anything because … he’s a lawyer. And MOM doesn’t have any questions about GPS or Tox Reports or Ping Logs. OK! So now, (finally) get to the depositions and ask how TrayDad knew TM entered the “back gate” … if no security camera shows Trayvon WALKING to or from from the 7/11.

  160. Lou says:

    so, who was on the phone with Trayvon? Witness 8 or 9? it’s not a simple answer if you think about it.

    • MJW says:

      Huh?!? The more i think about it, the less sense it makes. Why would Zimmerman’s cousin be on the phone with Martin?

    • John Galt says:

      Somebody who was 7 in kindergarten?

      BDLR: OK, so you’ve known him for how long about? Approximately…

      Dee Dee: Kindergarten…

      • waltherppk says:

        Maybe DeeDee failed and had to repeat kindergarten twice. Dick, Jane, and Spot was two more things than is her limit of ability to process …not exactly being a multi-tasker there.

  161. arkansasmimi says:

    Rene Stutzman‏@renestutzman 32 MIN AGO
    New #Zimmerman court paperwork: O’Mara asks judge for subpoena of wit8’s med records. Wants to know if she really in hospital during funeral

    • diwataman says:

      I’m sick of getting info through Rene. What, is she like O’Mara’s personal gate keeper or some crap? Why does he insist on letting her have all the glory, what little there is of it these days.

    • John Galt says:

      Medical records would include her address as of early March, which might conflict with ping logs. Denied.

      • boricuafudd says:

        JG, that and it also may preclude a switch. DD number 2 would have also have to attend the hospital the day in question.

        • John Galt says:

          Consistent with Judge Lester’s prior order against public disclosure of W8 information, and my confirming order consistent therewith, BDLR shall obtain the records and redact any and all information identifying the age, address, social security number or identity of the patient. This shall include redaction of height, weight, race and eye color. BDLR shall thereafter provide a blurry black and white photocopy of the redacted records to defense counsel. Court adjourned.

          • boricuafudd says:

            Of course your are right, boy, am I glad I had an activity at school for my daughter.
            I will ask you what I ask MJW, does granting Crump “opposing counsel” status presupposes the outcome of the Inmunity Hearing which has not been conducted, yet. The outcome of which would null could null any lawsuit that Crump might file against GZ. Woud that not be considered a clear case of bias?

        • waltherppk says:

          Maybe DeeDee 1 and DeeDee 2 are Siamese twins. If they were the Smothers Brothers which one would be the dumb one ?

  162. brutalhonesty says:

    omara was smirking as she ruled against…….i think he knew she would, and only entered the motions so she would……just adding to the appeals list. its like when you watch a sports game and know the guy will drop the ball and he does.

    • Tammy Jones says:

      It seems clear someone has given Nelson an agenda and she’s sticking to it.

    • John Galt says:

      Yeah he knew, told GZ to stay home.

    • Sharon says:

      He could also have been smiling over a joke they shared at dinner the other evening. And no, I don’t know that they had dinner together. Neither do I have any reason to believe he is planning to file an appeal. Such a move in the face of lawless opposition, based on legal precedent, would not be consistent with his performance and his judgments made in the case over the past many months.

      Don’t know nuttin’. Just looking at what I’m seeing.

      Your perception would require an assumption of legal aggressiveness on his part, and an ability to anticipate his opponent’s move, and being so very confident and sure about the “sure thing” he’s going to do next. That’s never been part of his schtick as far as I’ve noticed.

  163. Tammy Jones says:

    Nelson kept repeating several times how long the defense have known about witness yet haven’t deposed them. Doesn’t she think it necessary to review all the evidence and do research before you start depositions. I don’t think MOM should have ever agreed to this trickling out of the evidence a little at a time.

  164. partyof0 says:

    I wonder what the hell information Judge Nelson wanted West to tell her that he was looking for if the only way to get that info is the ability to ask the question from the person she denied them from getting that information from??? Did I make sense on that??…well I tried to……maybe someone else can say it better….

    • The judge was still referring to the case law, which required three elements in order to depose opposing counsel, and one of them was that West had to know exactly what information Crump had in order to compel him to disclose it at an interview.

      • partyof0 says:

        From what this says…to me…is what reason is there for any cross examination in a trial…the witness said what they wanted to say and that’s the end of it….

      • partyof0 says:

        Plus…when she asked West that…she had not referred to any case law…she was fishing so she could shut him up….”were not going in to this now”…

        • partyof0 says:

          I believe West knew this was a “setup question”…he knew he had to be as vague as possible in order to get his point made before the/a big interruption…”we’re not going there now”

    • partyof0 says:

      As probably stated before…which I havn’t gotten to read yet…she had her ruling already ready to read, copied and pasted ver-batum from the Blackwell/Crump affidavit….

    • LetJusticePrevail says:

      I truly believe that Judge Nelson is FULLY aware of the defense’s suspicions surrounding the manner in which witness 8 was discovered, interviewed by Crump, and then questioned by BDLR. She is also aware that the defense team risks personal liability if they make accusations about the ethics of another member of the FL Bar.

      • MOM needs to subpoena Crump and take it from there.

        Can Crump be a Private Attorney General and opposing counsel at the same time????

      • John Galt says:

        “She is also aware that the defense team risks personal liability if they make accusations about the ethics of another member of the FL Bar.”

        Not for what the say in court and in court pleadings.

        Traditionally, defamatory statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged, no matter how false or malicious the statements may be, so long as the statements are relevant to the subject of inquiry. Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65 (Fla.1992). Consequently, the torts of perjury, libel, slander, defamation, and similar proceedings that are based on statements made in connection with a judicial proceeding are not actionable. Wright v. Yurko, 446 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The immunity afforded to statements made during the course of a judicial proceeding extends not only to the parties in a proceeding but to judges, witnesses, and counsel as well. Fridovich; Cox v. Klein, 546 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Wright.

  165. myopiafree says:

    And in summary, the judge agrees to protect the “White Rabit”, and Nelson says, “Off With His Head”. Nelson’s “rulings” fall into this category.

    Judge Nelson – no longer makes any moral, ethical ot legal “sense” to me. So it is “Alice Through the Looking Glass” for me. That story has more reality as each day goes by.

  166. ottawa925 says:

    Now watch for Crump to drag Blackwell along with him to the deps of Tracy/Sabrina, etc. I would not allow it.

  167. partyof0 says:

    2 Messages here….

    1.) “What we have here is a failure to communicate” Cool Hand Luke…..
    2.) We cannot profile men of color as “liars”…

  168. ottawa925 says:

    When defense takes W8’s dep, I would drag that thing out for as long as I could. This person is not a minor, and was not a minor at the time of the incident. I would drill drill drill. Time will wear her down … same with TM’s parents.

    Like another treeper I am awaiting word from SD who said “Much to write about and share”.

    • JC says:

      At the very least they should ask her what she meant by her pidgin English replies, just because BDLR doesn’t care what her incomprensible comments meant there’s no reason everybody needs to smirk and nod their heads. After a few attempts to translate her comments into English she’ll get tired and pissed and start saying “I dunno” and after a while she’ll be saying she doesn’t know nuttin about nuttin. And then she won’t show up for the trial.

    • justfactsplz says:

      I too anxiously await this information. Bernie referring to the CTH was meant tio intimidate. I am sure Sundance is going over everything with a fine tooth comb before releasing this information to the public.

  169. sundance says:

    Ugh…. Ugh…. Ugh….. Much to contemplate.

    Please drop links to video of hearing and post-hearing interviews please…..

    CRS participants and advisors in court today, again. As expected.

    Much to think about before posting more info.

    • dmoseylou says:

      My family has you and yours in our thoughts and prayers. HE will guide you where HE wants you to go.

      • sundance says:


        Note to everyone. Don’t focus on the judge. That aspect was well anticipated.

        Instead, focus your mind, your inquiry, your keen instincts, into the response, language and behavior, from Mark O’Mara….. The actual law, if that means anything any more, is well established on the side of George Zimmerman…. Please watch Mark O’Mara.

        Thank you.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Instead, focus your mind, your inquiry, your keen instincts, into the response, language and behavior, from Mark O’Mara….. The actual law, if that means anything any more, is well established on the side of George Zimmerman…. Please watch Mark O’Mara.

          I’m sure your meaning is different, but my reaction to today’s proceeding was always to see how the defense responds. Both West and O’Mara were (to my perception) visibly more aggressive and frustrated today.

          I still say that, at this point, the defense needs to start demanding immediate disclosure of any missing discovery, and in so doing, to demand a hearing to assess the slow-roll, and, in some obvious cases, outright obfuscation of discovery.

          Granted, Nelson will find some bovine-excrement excuse to deny that demand; even so, that demand needs to be in the record, immediately.

          I know you said not to focus on Nelson. At this point, I’m not focusing on Nelson – but I have made up my mind about her.

          The only real question is: are the DCA and SCOFLA under the same marching orders?

          • John Galt says:

            “The only real question is: are the DCA and SCOFLA under the same marching orders?”

            Scoff Law? LOL, I never noticed that before.

        • jello333 says:

          Yes. I haven’t often agreed with the views of some on MOM, but over the past week or so I’ve been agreeing with this: His reaction to the anticipated (and now actual) bad rulings from Nelson are gonna be HUGE. I still think he’ll do the right thing, but the time is short. If, in the next few days, it becomes clear that MOM is gonna just let all this stuff the judge did today slide, then I will change my views of him. So yeah… I’m keeping my eyes on him.

          • doodahdaze says:

            Crump is not in court. His lawyer is in court. That is a Sea Change in my opinion. But I ain’t no genius. Just old and wondering WTF?

    • diwataman says:

      This is a raw recording. There are audio and video issues with the live feed. It will be very quite at times and sometimes be very loud so be prepared. The audio will at some point become out of sync with the video as my CamStudio settings were incorrect, I could never set them good anyhow. I will make a somewhat better version eventually unless someone beats me to.

      • John Galt says:


        BDLR: “The State has no knowledge of the defendant, where he lives now.”

        I think these little gems should be collected into a compilation video: Bernie’s greatest hits

        • boricuafudd says:

          BDLR before at motion to allow GZ to leave the county
          “The defense is overblowing the threat and danger to GZ”

          BDLR today
          “There are lives at stake here, we must protect the witnesses”

          • diwataman says:

            Duplicitous little snake isn’t he. They’ve turned the whole narrative around to make it seem like the scheme team are being threatened in some way. If Bernie would like I can show him some real death threats that are made to not only George but to everyone associated with him. I like how he also makes George out to be going out in the media everywhere because he did a whole interview on FOX yet the Schemers have hit every media outlet for the past year but yet they are the ones under threat. What a farce. Whitey won’t be rioting in the streets of Sanford Bernie, hate to tell ya.

      • John Galt says:

        @ 52:18 Nelson is clearly hung up on the prosecutor shield law.

      • John Galt says:

        WTF ?

        @ 1:09:40

        Nelson relied on the following to deny defense counsel access to the address of W8:

        “Judge Lester makes the following findings with regard to the disclosure of witness identities:

        (1) Restricting PUBLIC ACCESS to discovery material, specifically the names and addresses of the eyewitnesses, is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice. [snip]”

        Lester’s Order: (see page 3)

        • woohoowee says:

          Second verse same as the first.

          She is still using Lester’s order to deny the defense that which they have a right to. Same thing she did the first time the defense asked for specific addresses.

        • JB from SoCal says:

          Hi John Galt~

          When you put emphasis on “PUBLIC ACCESS,” are you saying that you are of the same mind as that of many of us here? I remember when she quoted that paragraph, and I believe O’Mara jumped on it immediately that we are not talking about “PUBLIC” access here at all. But Nelson already had her decision typed up to read aloud, and was not about to revise it when confronted with the facts!
          “Public access” — I would assume through the media — has not a damn thing to do with defense counsel’s request. “Do you trust me or not?” said O’Mara. Apparently her answer is “not.”
          Got a big chuckle out of her stumbling over reading the 6th Amendment [no first-hand knowledge of it on her part perhaps?], and that Defense can ascertain the address as W8 is being deposed. DeeDee doesn’t want to get “involved” so she’ll probably plead the 5th. What a mess.

          • John Galt says:

            “I believe O’Mara jumped on it immediately that we are not talking about “PUBLIC” access here at all.”

            Yes, O’Mara was very diplomatic. Lester’s Order clearly restricted public access, and clearly did not restrict access to counsel of record.

            • doodahdaze says:

              I think that the defense will prevail in the end. The law is on their side. The judge seemed to be acting like she was hearing an appeal rather than a motion. Now that is just what it seemed. This case I am learning a lot in the last year….yes a year. And now. The rules and law will take hold. I hope.

      • Unicron says:

        Thank you Diwataman!

    • doodahdaze says:

      In the end the defense will get what it wants. Just my opinion. More wrangling. Remember Lester.

    • rumpole2 says:

      Think long and hard. :D

      As much as I would like to see the “disinfectant”

      I can see reasons why it might be better to not reveal all your cards… to the public and especially to to the Scheme Team et al

      “Forewarned is forearmed”… and we dont want to “arm” the opposition.

      • justfactsplz says:

        I totally agree, we don’t want to give them anything. Omara comes across as too accepting of all of this. At this point you better be the tougher dog in the fight and he isn’t .

        • sundance says:

          Why would O’Mara be accepting?

          • justfactsplz says:

            Because he KNOWS. He knows the outcome has been predetermined. He knows about the DOJ and the CRS. He is part of it. See how he tries to down play the racial aspects of this case, the tamping down. He accepts it all instead of fighting back for his client,.

            • sundance says:

              What would stop O’Mara from “fighting” on behalf of his client?

              • justfactsplz says:

                His social and political position among his peers is very very important to him. He wants to leave that intact. Legal and moral considerations aren’t in the equation for him. He is in over his head here and I think he knows it. George is just a client that he took the case of for notoriety. Regareless of the outcome he will get that. George’s innocence verses “work product”.

                • doodahdaze says:

                  Or, the law and rules will take control?

                • sundance says:

                  Go back to the time last year when many Treepers bailed out over the O’Mara feud.

                  What was at the root of that O’Mara concern that created the split?

                  What was the “there” there?

                  How would that align with O’Mara’s willful acceptance of current events?

                  • Okay, now you are making me feel really stupid.

                  • justfactsplz says:

                    I will have to do some research on this. I may not have been here at the Treehouse back then. I came in here in August, 2012. I will see what I can find.

                  • justfactsplz says:

                    Beware of Wolves in Sheeps clothing. I believe the answer is in the July 11th open thread. It is who Omara associated with then and now. Mark Nejam, Julison, meeting before he took the case. Am I warm?

                  • ctdar says:

                    SD posed the question whether OMara was representing the best interests of George or self serving for himself and his career.
                    SD was right about OMara from the start.

                  • justfactsplz says:

                    I wanted to add that it is all about prog behavior and thinking. They see the good, they see the bad, but they don’t always see the truth.

                  • ottawa925 says:

                    I agree with justfactsplz. Sundance I think many could not see through this like you did back then. Unfortunately, what justfactsplz is saying is pretty obvious NOW. Sometimes you just have to see it for yourself to get it. You got it a long time ago.

              • justfactsplz says:

                I have been thinking more about this. If Omara’s career were on the line or if he were hiding something unethical he had done, it would stop him from “fighting” on behalf of his client. Money, it is about money, the defense fund.

      • HughStone says:

        I think it doesn’t matter what’s revealed anymore. Everyone with the power to do something will ignore it.

    • John Galt says:

      Not sure exactly what you are contemplating, but it appears to me that there is the possibility of an immediate people of Nelson’s order shielding Crump from deposition. When MOM asked Nelson for a copy of her notes, my first thought was that he wanted to start working on the appeal. Case Law:

      Common law certiorari may be granted if there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law in such a way as to cause a material injury throughout the proceedings that cannot be adequately remedied by appeal. Frantz v. Golebiewski,407 So.2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Hill,388 So.2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Allstate Insurance Company v. Shupack,335 So.2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The order entered by the trial court precludes the taking of any deposition of Robert A. Geiss, defendant’s attorney. Such an order, under these circumstances, is overly broad and departs from the essential requirements of law. Frantz, Travelers, Allstate, supra.

      Finding as we do that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying the appointment of a commissioner to take the testimony of a witness in Ohio, the writ of certiorari is granted and the order appealed from is quashed, with directions to enter an order appointing a commissioner to take the testimony of Shelva Hill in Ohio, and to allow petitioner a reasonable time to take this testimony prior to the time of trial.

      • doodahdaze says:

        Pro Bono.

        • sundance says:

          Why would O’Mara seemingly accept the ruling…… and coincidentally delay (real word *avoid*) filing for indigent status….. They appear disconnected. *appear*


          Keep asking the “why” questions.

          • recoverydotgod says:

            Does filing for indigent trigger some sort of accounting of prior revenues and expenses?

            • sundance says:

              Great Question: But why would that matter?

              • Flaladybug says:

                I TRULY hope I’m wrong on this guess SD…..but I’m thinking either

                A) He has been warned in no uncertain terms that “SOMEONE” has proof as to his illegal use of clients funds, maybe escrow account fraud, etc and that they will use any and all information linking him to ethics violations to have him disbarred (or worse) if he doesn’t “GET WITH THE PROGRAM”

                B) He knows this case will probably wind up in the DCA or even possibly FSC and he could gain MUCH from being the Attorney on record in regards to publicity and notoriety within the judicial rankings…..maybe even a quid pro quo from Govenor Scott just as Corey and BDLR are enjoying.

                Then again….I may be COMPLETELY CLUELESS and totally off the mark!! For George’s sake…..I REALLY HOPE MOM IS ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS!!!!

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  Who provided counsel to Zimmerman regarding non-disclosure of the PayPal account in his bond affidavit?

                  • woohoowee says:

                    IIRC that is when I found TCTH. It was as plain as the nose on your face what had happened. George and Shellie took the fall for it :-(. No confidence in MOM, from your’s truly, from that time to this.

                  • Flaladybug says:

                    Hi Chip! Let me first say i greatly enjoy reading your posts. Your words are definitely provocative and your logical approach to questions and explanations are well respected by many readers including myself.
                    I just went through past threads and, unfortunately, things are becoming clear and dots are FINALLY connecting for me. I remembered the past “mistakes” made by MOM in the beginning and tried to retain a positive outlook by chalking them up to miscommunication, being overwhelmed, etc. Taking a step back, however, and looking at things from a now broader view (from the stands instead of the playing field) there seems to be more manipulation and corruption than I could have imagined. There are times when I FINALLY SEE things for what they really are and think……REALLY WISH I WOULD’VE LEFT THE BLINDERS ON!!!! Guess I’m having a hard time accepting how bad things around us in this world have TRULY become and what a horrible future my sons may have to endure.

                • jello333 says:

                  But just remember. If something like that is true, then what about Don West? Since he hasn’t up and quit, that would mean that he’s in on the scam. Or maybe there’s another option. I don’t know. But basically what I’m saying is, to anyone who doesn’t trust MOM… what about West?

                  • Flaladybug says:

                    Jello….I’m wondering if the reason MOM chose him is because he is immune from the political BS in Florida. Maybe MOM knew his hands were tied but when he realized….”Hey, this guy really is innocent” going with the program and letting an innocent man take the fall was more than he was prepared to sit by and watch. So….bring in West who is in this for the right reasons, has nothing the powers that be can hold over him, and has nothing to lose!!! Then again, everything I just said could be COMPLETE CRAP!!! ;)

                  • justfactsplz says:

                    Another option? Perhaps West doesn’t know. Remember he is all about the law not the politics.

              • recoverydotgod says:


                (5) INDIGENT FOR COSTS.—A person who is eligible to be represented by a public defender under s. 27.51 but who is represented by private counsel not appointed by the court for a reasonable fee as approved by the court or on a pro bono basis, or who is proceeding pro se, may move the court for a determination that he or she is indigent for costs and eligible for the provision of due process services, as prescribed by ss. 29.006 and 29.007, funded by the state.
                (a) The person must file a written motion with the court and submit to the court:
                1. The completed application prescribed in subsection (1).
                2. In the case of a person represented by counsel, an affidavit attesting to the estimated amount of attorney’s fees and the source of payment for these fees.
                (b) The person shall arrange for service of a copy of the motion and attachments on the Justice Administrative Commission. The commission has standing to appear before the court to contest any motion to declare a person indigent for costs and may participate in a hearing on the motion by use of telephonic or other communication equipment.
                (c) If the person did not apply for a determination of indigent status under subsection (1) in the same case and is not already liable for the application fee required under that subsection, he or she becomes liable for payment of the fee upon filing the motion with the court.
                (d) In reviewing the motion, the court shall consider:
                1. Whether the applicant applied for a determination of indigent status under subsection (1) and the outcome of such application.
                2. The extent to which the person’s income equals or exceeds the income criteria prescribed in subsection (2).
                3. The additional factors prescribed in subsection (4).
                4. Whether the applicant is proceeding pro se.
                5. When the applicant retained private counsel.
                6. The amount of any attorney’s fees and who is paying the fees. There is a presumption that the applicant is not indigent for costs if the amount of attorney’s fees exceeds $5,000 for a noncapital case or $25,000 for a capital case in which the state is seeking the death penalty. To overcome this presumption, the applicant has the burden to show through clear and convincing evidence that the fees are reasonable based on the nature and complexity of the case. In determining the reasonableness of the fees, the court shall consider the amount that a private court-appointed attorney paid by the state would receive for providing representation for that type of case.
                (e) Based upon its review, the court shall make one of the following determinations:
                1. The applicant is not indigent for costs.
                2. The applicant is indigent for costs.

                -cont at link-

                Here’s a link with two different application forms. I’m guessing the one you linked is the one that would apply.


          • John Galt says:

            “Why would O’Mara seemingly accept the ruling”

            I dunno. I would take it up,even if it bounces off the rim, it’s going up.

            • doodahdaze says:

              Or, you have a Royal Flush in Spades. When the lawyers have gotta have alawyer and the SA has to sit it out it is a tell. Now….Crump is the focus of the case.Or I am a dope.

            • jello333 says:

              Yeah, I don’t think we yet know that MOM really HAS accepted any of today’s rulings. Unless he’s said something publicly I haven’t heard. They obviously haven’t had time to file any paperwork yet. But if we don’t hear something by early next week?…. yeah THEN I’ll admit they’re planning to just sit on their hands.

              • Flaladybug says:

                You know guys, I know some of the things about MOM definitely look like he may be in on the fix. I’m not convinced it started out that way or if maybe he was played and used just like many of the others have been….with threats of political retaliation, and some of his decisions have been questionable to say the least. But, something in my heart keeps saying he’s really not the BAD GUY in this. I think he may have started this journey with the visions of political ambitions dancing in his head, and initially was part of the “GANG” but I think he may have finally realized he was just as much a pawn in this sick game as George…..he was used to achieve a certain outcome that didn’t seem a problem when he thought he was defending just another “guilty” client. Maybe now, realizing that George is INNOCENT, he has decided that his career isn’t worth selling his soul to the devil.
                Then again, as I’ve said many times, I may be just naive in hoping that the good in some of those involved will win out…..only they know what’s in their hearts.

      • doodahdaze says:

        Hey,,,,,is Crump the issue now? Oh, Darn.

  170. Flaladybug says:

    I, for one, am ASHAMED TO BE FROM FLORIDA!!! It is truly mind boggling at how UNBELIEVABLY DISGRACEFUL most all those involved in this case have behaved with NO REGARD of the LAWS of Florida or the CONSTITUTION !!! It is now beyond my capacity of reasoning to understand WHAT THE HELL is happening to our “JUDICIAL SYSTEM” that would allow this level of CORRUPTION to play out in such a well publicized fashion. We have officially moved from “back room deals” and quid pro quo philosophy to IN YOUR FACE…..LAWS BE DAMNED obvious and blatant political based, trial by public opinion, any means neccesary “JUSTICE”!! It is abundantly clear that whomever yells, screams, and threatens with riots or political payback is now in contol of how JUSTICE , in each individual situation, will now be defined.

    To the Zimmerman family, there aren’t enough words to express how sorry I am that your family is being treated so incredibly awful by the very ones that took a sworn oath to protect citizens from the unethical, immoral, and illegal actions that are destroying your family. My continued prayers and support go out to your family with the hope that truth and “LAWFUL JUSTICE” will somehow find its way to the forefront and this malicious attack on your family will be brought to an end. God Bless you all !!!

    • ottawa925 says:

      Here Here !! Fantastic post. I applaud your heartfelt honesty to stand up and speak the truth.

      • doodahdaze says:

        Don’t forget. A judge can rule however the heck he wants. You could dig up George Washington bring him back to life and make him counsel for the defense. It does not matter. That is why the appeal courts are so busy.

      • Flaladybug says:

        Thanks ottawa925. Feeling overcome with many emotions today and had to vent or felt I’d EXPLODE!! This travesty has my head spinning and I guess I just realized how insignificant and EXPENDABLE we have all become….a mortifying thought but one I can no longer deny. I have always tried to retain a “glass half full” outlook and rely on my belief that after all is said and done, JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAILS….. I am now forced to re-evaluate my beliefs and that ticks me off to NO END!!! I am starting to see that not only is this glass “half empty”…..THE DAMN THING HAS BEEN SHATTERED TO BITS!!!!

    • howie says:

      It ain’t over yet. And they ain,t got him yet.

      • Flaladybug says:

        Howie’s that’s what keeps me in this fight!!! It’s clear now that WE can no longer stay silent and hold to our misplaced belief that TRUTH will always prevail. I am now thinking that maybe this new ANGER that has found it’s way to the surface may be more effective in fighting these BA$&;/:, and the lawless behavior they seem to be so well equipped to utilize. In essence…..I am now learning the NEW RULES of this unscrupulous game and my intent is to become a well equipped opponent!!!!

        • jello333 says:

          It’s not often, but every once in awhile anger is a GOOD and APPROPRIATE emotion to have. And I think that right now we’re all quite justified to have it. I just hope that MOM and West share in that…. it’s time that THEY get angry. Like… NOW.

    • Coast says:

      Well said.

  171. The whole thing is political. Corey was accused of bias in the Melissa Anderson case by Rep Corinne Brown Brown, (is she the hat lady?) Melissa is black. They are overcompensating by prosecuting George. Mark – I hope you’re reading. Connect the dots…….

    Brown, the Jacksonville congresswoman, told reporters after the sentencing that the case was a product of “institutional racism.”

    “She was overcharged by the prosecutor. Period,” Brown said. “She never should have been charged.” Brown has been more complimentary about Corey’s work in the Trayvon Martin case, where her office filed second degree murder charges against neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the February 26 death of the unarmed African-American teen-ager.

  172. ottawa925 says:

    Let’s think of more ways to “skin the cat” (oops … sorry Ad rem) … how bout “cook the goose”? er no … that’s no good either … O you know what I mean …..

    since Matt Gutman was in the room with Crump when he interviewed W8, where is the dep of Matt Gutman? where is the tape recording from Matt Gutman? Where is the dep of Juliason? They must ask DD to name each and every person in the room with her when she gave the interview each time … for Crump and BDLR. NOW, what if she doesn’t know their names? hmmmm? You see or rather heard her rather limited command of the English language … so who’s going to answer that question? huh? Once we know who all was at each dep of DD, then those ppl can be deposed too.

  173. Unicron says:

    So I just got home a bit ago, unfortunately I was unable to watch the hearing. I am first and foremost looking for a place to do so. For obvious reasons, I’m avoiding Trent Sawyer’s awful audio quality uploads laced with his stupid commentary. I’m hoping manybuddies will upload it, but in the meantime if anyone knows of somewhere it’s up already I’d love to know?

    As for what I’m hearing, it sounds like exactly the result I expected. As many of you have said, Nelson had this decided long before today. The fix is in, I guess we just have to hope that their plan is to let the weight of letting GZ go fall onto 6 jurors rather than one judge.

    None of us should be surprised, REMEMBER: the fact that George was even charged to begin with tells you all you need to know about the state of the Florida legal system and it’s interest in actually following it’s own laws with regard to this case. They determined long ago there was too much at stake, they’re terrified of riots and Obama and Holder infused themselves into this and now have a vested interest in the outcome.

    Frankly, I hope that all their efforts to avoid riots or reduce their severity are a complete failure. I hope we have the largest BGI riots imaginable, on a national scale and of a severity that boggles the mind.

    It may be the only slap in traditional America’s face hard enough to wake them the heck up and trigger a very sorely needed backlash.

    • JC says:

      I hope the busloads of St Tray protesters at the Gates of Disney proceed to start looting the outrageously priced Disney gear immediately without waiting for the verdict and the FL NG begins shooting the looters daid to protect Disney profits in front of thousands of Euro tourists capturing it live on their cell cams.

  174. TandCrumpettes says:

    Okay. Let me take this from the top – because apparently someone has anesthetised me, fiddled with my brain, affected my ability to remember things correctly, and also fiddled with YouTube and erased the real proceedings in October and instead replaced them with “revisionist history” reenactments with actors who really do look a super-duper lot like the real folks involved – oh yeah, and the videos follow what I recall.

    So…Judge Nelson was the one who made Crump a witness, right?
    “Judging” is not an entry-level position, right? You have to know at least *some* law, right? At the very least, you know how the legal system works, right? You are aware that witnesses are deposed, right?
    …stop me where I’m wrong….
    Why yes, Judge Nelson DOES know that witnesses are deposed! In fact, she says on October 19, (paraphrasing) “The court makes Crump a witness for the purposes of taking his deposition.”
    Am I hearing this wrong? Am I recalling this incorrectly? Am I watching a video that has been tampered with?
    So the whole point of her making Crump a witness in the first place, was to take a bloomin’ deposition. (Please forgive me, but I am holding back my more ‘extensive’ vocabulary if you catch my drift.)
    One week later, MOM calls Crump and Jackson a “state surrogate.” Bernie jumps up and denies it. Paraphrasing again, he said, “[they] are not surrogates, just as the defense distances himself from what his brother says – we don’t have anything to do with him, he does what he wants on his own.”
    I got it right so far, didn’t I?
    Feb. 22, Nelson proudly says, “Crump is like, a VIP and stuff. He couldn’t possibly have anything relevant to say. Why, the Supreme Court scoffs at the idea of deposing an attorney, especially one so close to the case! In fact, Crump is opposing counsel! You can’t depose him! What were you thinking?!”

    Okay…so…where did I go wrong in my understanding here? SHE is the one who made him a witness – for the sole purpose of taking his deposition. Now she says that’s quite impossible as he’s “protected” or some nonsense, which she should have known on October 19 when she ordered it. Like I asked before, “judging” isn’t an entry-level position…is it?

    • JC says:

      has anybody here read Intermediate Range book?

      • John Galt says:

        Yes, I have the Kindle version. A decent fairly balanced book, imho, but lacking info re lean / syzzurp, 3 stooges, problems with W8. Some interesting info re gun shot forensics. The average person who gets their info from LSM would learn a lot from the book.

    • doodahdaze says:

      I doubt anyone but the players know more than the locals.

    • thefirstab says:

      Thank you for posting that link. There were some interesting comments coming from a variety of perspectives; of course, still a few sticking with the original “facts”.
      I had to post my own comment, re: if you scrape down to the bare bones of this case, all this BS is still about a tragic confrontation between two males, one armed legally who was able to defend his own life. It became the Circus of the Century when the greedy AA Law Firm called in their BGI reinforcements.

  175. Chip Bennett says:

    By the way, I’m sure I’m not the first to express this thought, but: given Blackwell’s proclamation today that Crump is “opposing counsel” due to the inevitable wrongful-death civil suit the Martin conglomeration will bring against Zimmerman, I wonder if a certain judge, newly moved from criminal to civil court, will be given such a case? After all, Nelson already has the George Zimmerman criminal case, the Shellie Zimmerman criminal case, and the Zimmerman v. NBC civil suit. Why shouldn’t she get the Martin, Fulton, Green, et al v. George Zimmerman wrongful death suit?

    • diwataman says:

      Right. Alva ruling prediction:

      George wins 1.2 million from NBC.

      Martin et al. also awarded 1.2 million.

      George gives 1.2 million to Martin et al.


    • doodahdaze says:

      As you can clearly see this is a quickly discombobulating fiasco. Blending a Civil Action with a murder trial. An amazing vista of the breakdown of society.

    • doodahdaze says:

      They can just remove it to Federal Court.

    • howie says:

      This may be part of the move for strict liability involving a firearm. But Ahhhh Dunno. I wonder how the blend of a civil action is so dependent of a criminal?

      • jello333 says:

        Just realize that everything Crump and his lawyer are doing now to try to keep him from being questioned has NOTHING to do with his hopes of filing civil suits down the road. That is no longer his focus… no way, no how. The entire reason he’s using that argument is to try to shield himself from being asked about questions that are DANGEROUS TO HIM. I’m talking potential ethics AND criminal violations. THAT is why he doesn’t wanna talk. It has NOTHING to do with trying to protect “work product” for potential civil suits.

  176. Chip Bennett says:

    Would this be an example of something immediately ripe for appeal?

    Since Rule 3.220 clearly states that the defense may depose anyone with relevant information without leave of court, O’Mara and West implicitly tell Nelson to go pound sand with her denied motion, and subpoena Crump anyway. Crump then files for a protective order, which Nelson grants.

    Is such a protective order immediately ripe, or is it, too, only ripe after conviction?

    • doodahdaze says:

      Now. This is just my opinion. The defense knew this is going to trial from day one and is acting accordingly. It will come down to jury selection. That is why they ordered 500 of them.

    • diwataman says:

      Is this what you are talking about?

      “The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category A witness or listed by a co-defendant as a witness to be called at a joint trial or hearing.”

      Crump is not listed as a Category A witness, he’s not listed at all by the state as a matter of fact.

      Has he been listed “by a co-defendant as a witness to be called at a joint trial or hearing”?

      • diwataman says:

        Wait, I see now the second part of that;

        “After receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged.”

        That’s why the word RELEVANT became so relevant today.

        So is it not the judges discretion as to the relevance? And that’s just what we saw today?

    • boricuafudd says:

      Chip, I was unable to watch the proceedings, so I am catching up. I was told that the reason Judge denied the deposition of Crump was not on the opposing counsel basis, but that West failed to prove that Crump had any relevant information for the case.

      This is a little different from what I am reading and does gives her justification separate from the “opposing counsel” argument.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        sing counsel basis, but that West failed to prove that Crump had any relevant information for the case.

        When Nelson made her ruling denying the motion, she referenced precedent case law (as noted above) that specifically involved deposition of opposing counsel, and prior to that, Nelson multiple times asserted that Crump is either opposing counsel, or counsel of “some sort” (paraphrased).

        Now, the audio kept cutting out, so I could have missed things. But it appeared to me that the “relevance” was specifically intended to meet the three-prong test required to depose opposing counsel.

        By my reading of Rule 3.220, with respect to unlisted witnesses being deposed without leave of court, the determination of relevance would be the prerogative of the defense – otherwise, if the defense had to justify to the court their determination of relevance, then such deposition would not be, in fact, without leave of court.

        As West argued (to a brick wall, apparently), the burden is on the deponent to present to the court justification for why he should not be deposed – not the other way around.

        • boricuafudd says:

          I see, that was part Blackwells argument, that Crump would be opposing counsel and or that whatever Crump could testify to, was irrelevant or information that MOM could get from other sources.


        • diwataman says:

          But what if a person the defense wants to depose protests and demands to know why they ought to be deposed and to know what relevant information the defense thinks they have to depose them?

          Again, that is in part what we saw today but regardless, if this happens would it not still just play out the same way? In front of the judge for a decision? Certainly just because a defense lawyer believes a citizen may have relevant information doesn’t automatically give them the right to drag anyone they please into a deposition.

          • John Galt says:

            “But what if a person the defense wants to depose protests and demands to know why they ought to be deposed and to know what relevant information the defense thinks they have to depose them?”

            The burden is on the party seeking to block the deposition to make a showing of good cause.

            (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.

            • doodahdaze says:

              The real fight is just starting….Go Defense! The race stuff may have been tampered down enough. Now let the rules of law play out. Crump is now the centerpiece of the case. He has a lawyer in the court. Hmmmmm. Velly interesting.

            • Chip Bennett says:

              The burden is on the party seeking to block the deposition to make a showing of good cause.

              …which basically makes Blackwell’s argument today tautological, and effectively placed the deponents burden to show cause squarely on the shoulders of the defense, who by rule do not have to show cause.

              • doodahdaze says:

                Key fact….Blackwell’s argument. He is representing the Crumpsters. They have to have a lawyer. That is BIG! In my opinion….real big. But that is just little ole….very old….me.

                • jello333 says:

                  Oh, I hear what you’re saying, and you’re right to point that out. It’s just that most of the focus today is on the anger over Idiot Nelson’s rulings, and the anticipation of what MOM and West are planning to do about it. But if we instead focus on the fact that Crump and his buddies, including the prosecution, are now all HIDING everything they can, and all now need lawyers of their own, yeah, that’s really important and telling. I’d think that anyone who only knows bits and pieces about this case would look at that one fact and think, “Well, that’s rather unusual, isn’t it?”

            • diwataman says:

              Okay so it’s not good enough to state that one would need to know what one has in order to begin to make the determination for showing good cause? I mean, it’s just like getting detained, arrested or charged yeah? You kind of need to know what you’re being accused of first in order to fight it, just saying “you think so” isn’t good enough.

              • boricuafudd says:

                No fishing expeditions, there are legitimate questions but MOM and West failed to prove that they were probative or that they could not find it elsewhere. Short of accussing Crump of witness tampering, vague questions will not suffice with the Judge. Then the issue is will anything Crump says adversely injure GZ.

                • doodahdaze says:

                  Lest time stops. There is still time. We are moving in to the realm of the old legal system. Even older than me. It is less compromised than other areas. Because usually the defendants are guilty.

                • diwataman says:

                  Yeah but I thought they didn’t have to prove anything or else that would not be, in fact, without leave of court as Chip said above. Are you now saying otherwise?

          • jello333 says:

            As I said the other day, this has to get dirty now. You’re right, that maybe the defense has to give some specific reasons for believing there’s relevant info to be had from a witness. And so far it hasn’t been very specific. But since they’re being forced to spell it out, that’s what they have to do. Explicitly state that they believe Crump has manipulated evidence and witnesses… yes, accuse him of committing crimes. That’s what they’re gonna have to do. And that would also have the effect of “piercing the veil of attorney privilege”… allowing them to ask Crump almost anything.

        • doodahdaze says:

          They must think it is a slam dunk criminal win.

        • doodahdaze says:

          I thought she was citing civil cases. I thought this was a murder trial. What am I missing here?

        • jello333 says:

          That’s exactly how I see it. I think her rulings were totally and obviously wrong. (Intentionallly-so, in my opinion, though proving that’s gonna be hard.) And now the appeal…. with the question being will those be heard NOW? (as opposed to the idiotic “wait till after the trial” rule in some instances)

      • doodahdaze says:

        Well, if nothing else the focus is now on Crump! Good defense plan. Really good. At least it seems so to me. Looks like the real legal issues are starting to come to the fore. Crump is in the Spotlight. Now the Crump team will come under scrutiny. This is good. There are still a couple months to go. Now Crump himself has a lawyer in the room!!!! This is Plus Ultra. The 15th of Marchbis when the Cuz tweeted he wuz going to Orlando to “Make some moves” for Trayvon.