An Open Letter To Don West – “Is This Your Honor’s Intent”?

This writing is awkward but necessary.


Dear Mr. West,

It is an unknown variable how much of the case background you were technically aware of prior to your entry into this case. It is also an unknown variable as to the nature of your relationship with Mark O’Mara, and whether it is in fact more than professional? However, it is well-known to interested observers that you are the primary researcher/investigator of the defense.

Don WestMark+O+Mara+Trayvon+Martin+Shooter+George+o7h9YCzuwnMl

Your partner sucks.

Not only is he professionally compromised, known by many within the courthouse circuit to be a fibber and ‘stretcher of truth’, and concerned more about his selfish ego than the protection of his client, your client, – but he is also smarmy and truth adverse.

Being truth adverse might be a keen professional benefit for lawyered types when representing guilty folks, or those who might be guilty; But it’s a horrid professional trait when defending the innocent because truth is supposed to be on your side.

So what does that mean?

Quite simply, it means that you, Don West, are the only hope that George Zimmerman has.

With that in mind, and considering the presentation before Judge Nelson on Friday 2/22/12 – You really dropped the ball regarding the motion to depose Benjamin Crump.

You, and we, know that witness #8 is a fraud and a guise – with a specific narrative created by Benjamin Crump. We, and you, also know the key to deconstructing that fraudulent narrative is the disinfecting sunlight of truth through discovery.

Judge_Nelson bioWhen Judge Nelson denied the motion to compel deposition under the precept of Benjamin Crump being “opposing counsel”, and all such descriptives as defined by referenced precedent in law, you should:

a) have expected it, and b) have had a pre-plan to use such a ruling to your advantage.

Remind the court that by offering Benjamin Crump the protections codified within statute and prior case referenced conditions -saved only for prosecuting counsel- she is simultaneously then attaching all of his behaviors, conduct, and actions to the State Prosecutorial team.

In essence, if Nelson is going to protect Crump “as if” he is the state prosecutor, then you should present your counter points as if the “state” is now responsible for the behavior of Crump:

Your honor, if you are going to use, and afford, referenced case-law to protect the non-party Crump from deposition, thereby assigning him a new status of central party or conjoined counsel with the state, it is prudent to ask the State Prosecutor Mr. Bernie De La Rionda if he accepts such distinctions?

Secondly, and as a consequence of such acceptance, if such distinctions are now accepted by the State, will the state clarify for the record why they specifically and intentionally have erroneously misled the court -and the accused- with regard to the identity of Witness #8.

Mr. Crump, and now by your honor’s extension, ‘The State’, have presented and portrayed  the witness to be a “minor child” of 16-years-age on March 19th 2012.   Simultaneously, the same State is now presenting the identity of this witness to be 19 years old on February 22nd of 2013 – A seemingly irreconcilable difference.

Previously, Mr. Crump presented through his counsel, Mr. Blackwell, an affidavit to the court noting that at the time of initial discovery for witness #8 (March 19th 2012) she was a minor, and further she was never asked, nor voluntarily gave her last name.  

Additionally, not only was Witness #8 not asked her name, but she was not asked her address or other such identifying characteristics.  

Lastly, according to the same sworn affidavit presented to the court, Mr. Crump, who is now by your judicial interpretation -a member of the state prosecutorial team- has claimed to have had no further contact with the Witness after March 19th.

If Mr. Crump never asked for her name, and the witness was identified by her age of 16, and he had no further contact with her after their March 19th conversation, then how can the State assert it was the same witness who was later interviewed on April 2nd and physically presented herself to be 18-years-of age?

If Mr. Crump is now a representative of the State, and the State is to be taken at their word to be truthful and honest, then how can this be reconciled?   

Would this not represent a fair question that can only be answered by the same person or persons who presented her, through her sworn affidavit, to this court -which subsequently led to the arrest of my client?

Is the court now affirming that it is permissible for the “key” and “primary” state’s witness to be hidden or sheltered from questioning?   And how can the State, or by extension this court, affirm to the accused that the identity of the person they will provide for deposition be the same person either party, Mr. Crump or Mr. De La Rionda have interviewed?

The accused is being restricted from any identifying “any” characteristics of Witness #8 such as her address, despite the fact that the state has presented differing and actual physical accounts of this same witness.

By granting Mr. Crump the protections of opposing counsel from deposition, the court is now restricting the accused from knowing, with certainty, the identity of his accuser – and simultaneously putting a road block in the quest for truth and justice by allowing the State to avoid having to reconcile the differing accounts of her personage.

Is this your honor’s intent?

Judge Nelson

About these ads
This entry was posted in Conspiracy ?, Mark O'Mara, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

277 Responses to An Open Letter To Don West – “Is This Your Honor’s Intent”?

  1. Lou says:

    “Your partner sucks”
    I think it’s safer to say “your partner lacks chutzpah!”
    With this case, you must overstep your boundaries and see if it sticks. that’s what Benjamin Crump has been doing. If Trayvon is portrayed in a positive light, George will serve the rest of his life in prison.

    • Lou says:

      yep, that’s what I was referring to.

      • Lou says:

        and yes, West did well. the 3 criteria were met. it’s weird how she used the old auto manufacterer AMC to shoot him down in a murder trial. 14:19 she deliberately tried to catch him off guard. he should have been allowed a written response to show how it’s relevant.

    • jordan2222 says:

      Truly an exceptional letter, Sundance.

      I’ve been waiting, hoping and praying that you would do something like this because it could be a game changer.

      I only hope that the media picks this up and exposes the “real” DeeDee but you have made public on this site other “lies” and they did nothing. I don’t recall any “reputable” media outlet ever actually challenging any of the allegations you have made here at the Tree House.

      I made a suggestion in a post above because I feel morally obligated to do whatever I can as a citizen to insure that justice will be served.

      You appear to be the only person in any media who is willing to tell the truth so I am wondering if you have any suggestions as to what I, or anyone else, can do to help in this cause?


      • libby says:

        Seeing as the treehouse is the only place that acts to uncover the truth in this persecution, I can see why the persecutor is real upset with us

      • I have a sneaky feeling Mark O’Mara is up to something. … he does however need to up his game. Why hasn’t this infamous DeeDee been depoed yet? Could it be she doesn’t exist? Why all the erased evidence from the state what are they hiding??

  2. ejarra says:

    I wrote this in Friday’s thread and I feel it bears repeating here:

    “In hindsight, (isn’t hindsight great) the one area that West should have attacked was when she interrupted him and cited a Supreme Court case involving “opposing council”. That was when I said, “OH S**T! That has nothing to do with this. He’s NOT BLDR and this is NOT a CIVIL case. She has already decided not to grant this!” He needed to focus and argue that point and ask her directly if SHE decided that Crump’s position was that of “opposing council”. She made him focus on “relevancy” so as to not have him pursue that topic. Her judgment had little to do with “relevancy” and all to do with not deposing “opposing council”. West DID gave her multiple points of “relevancy” which she ignored because she concentrated on the case law involving “opposing council’; to a point, where in giving judgment, she forgot which case(s) she was citing.”

    MOM and West needed to role-play what would happen if Nelson leaned toward the “opposing council” ruse and how to counter it. She just didn’t lean in that direction, she fell over; and West was NOT prepared for it. Like I mentioned above, he needed to find out right then if she felt that Crump was “opposing council” and if questioning DD amounted to work product. Their lack of preparation was BOTH of their faults.

    The questions I would have for West would be: Is MOM telling you to tone it down? Whose fault was the lack of preparation? When are you going to show that your client is the victim in this? When will you stop pussy-footing around with the Martins and show everyone as they truly are?

    I’m done.

    • canadacan says:

      Sundance I can’t begin to tell you how much guts it took to write that letter. I’m very proud of you personally even though we will probably never meet in person. you have pulled out all the stops to save George and a show at American justice still stands for something. quite frankly it’s a bit like fighting the battle of Britain. very frightening but has to be done.

    • brutalhonesty says:

      “MOM and West needed to role-play what would happen if Nelson leaned toward the “opposing council” ruse and how to counter it. ”
      boston legal, maybe the episode “juiced”. allen shore prepares to go before the supreme court by arguing against card board cut outs of ginsburg, scalia et al…behind which are co counsel giving predicted arguments against allens arguments..

  3. mcbain346 says:

    I’m starting to see the light. What George needs is a lawyer who give press conferences and goes on talk shows speaking somewhat in detail about all the nonsense that has gone on. I know a lawyer never wants to tip his hand but if he could get the media talking about the cell phone data, the change in age of #8, and all the other nonsense, it might have an effect on the courtroom. Obviously, the PR campaign from the other side has had a huge impact on courtroom decisions… maybe it’s time to level the playing field somewhat?

    MOM might be too much of a local insider to want to speak poorly of BDLR and Corey. GZ needs someone who isn’t afraid.

  4. jordan2222 says:

    Suppose we all sent a copy of the letter to O’Mara, West, Nelson, Corey, Bondi, Scott, Holder, Obama and all other parties..

    Maybe ten or twenty thousand letters or more would get some attention. IMO, every newspaper in the state of Florida should publish this letter.

    These are extremely serious allegations and should be taken extremely seriously by all concerned and in particular the media. It is their responsibility to inform the public.

    • jordan2222 says:

      Looking for feedback:

      How do we get this letter out to the general public?

      What is more effective: Facebook, Twitter, mass emails?

      • ejarra says:

        “What is more effective: Facebook, Twitter, mass emails?”

        Yes, they ALL are. Do NOT chose. You chose, you can lose.

        • jordan2222 says:

          what do you mean?

          • ejarra says:

            Use all as ways to get through. Let the recipients chose the way they wish to receive that which you send. Savvy?

            • jordan2222 says:

              This is the time for an organized effort for justice and truth.

              • Sha says:

                jordan : Do you know why the BGI gets away with so much …… They band togeather as one force. One person is not strong alone but alot of people standing to geather is a force to have to deal with.

                • jordan2222 says:

                  That is my point. White folks don’t do that,.

                  • libby says:

                    True, but despite the FACT that whites don’t act this way, the media lies to the world and tells the world that whites are doing just that (this was the narrative from the get go, that whites had allowed a black innocent to be killed in the streets like a rabbid dog while the cops refused to even investigate.

                  • Sha says:

                    jordan : Alot of white folks and other races are scared to ban togeather even if they are the kindiest non racist group you would ever meet. They are afraid to be called racist and worry to much about what other people think about them instead of what they know to be true in there heart. Any group is powerful togeather and the BGI has it down to almost a science.

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    Translation: They have won.

                • libby says:

                  Largely supported by our educational system and liberal “anti-racist” policies that are, in fact, racist (they are not race neutral as dr king wanted).
                  see book (“the end of racism”) by dinesh disouza (very critical to understand how the bgi got so POWERFUL….recall how racism is tied into power dynamics as much as actual actions (pretending that blacks are powerless allows the media to continue to either ignore black racism or to encourage it since in their world view it is the good kind of hate

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    Yet., we are powerless to change anything.

                  • jello333 says:

                    “liberal “anti-racist” policies that are, in fact, racist (they are not race neutral as dr king wanted)”

                    That’s one reason I’m thankful to have found this site. There’s something I was beginning to realize from my last couple years on Daily Kos, but it wasn’t until after getting to know everyone HERE that it came into plainer focus. It’s this: It’s now obvious to me that there are HUGE differences between some kinds of liberals and some others. Look at your quote… it’s exactly right. But what’s funny is that all of my friends outside the Treehouse — virtually all of whom are liberal — would ALSO agree with your quote. And there’s no doubt that the “anti-racist policies that are, in fact, racist” really ARE promoted, almost exclusively, by liberals. So WHAT IS GOING ON?! How is it that people like me and many of my non-Treehouse friends consider themselves liberals, and yet want NOTHING to do with the types of people in your quote, who ALSO consider themselves liberals? You’d think that as long as I’ve lived I’d have this figured out, but instead I’m getting more confused as time goes by. ;)

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    Conservatives also have major differences.

  5. John Galt says:

    Add the stuff about the anonymous Simple Mobile phone, the missing 2/26 phone data and throw it down March 5. Let March Madness Begin.

  6. brutalhonesty says:

    posting here and the OT
    “I thnk that what you have said is about the most outrageous statement that I have ever heard from the bench, and Im gonna have my say right now, i truly am so outraged for you to say on a technicality we can not put dr abernathy on the stand, dr abernthy is the leader of southern christian leadership movement, he is the chairman of the mobilization against war, he has relevant testamony. I know this is not a fair trial, I know it in my heart, and I am going to return, to my chair, with the full realization that everything I have learned throughout my life has gone for naught, that there is no meaning in this court, that there is no law in this court!!!”
    Trial Of The Chicago 8

    • brutalhonesty says:

      “your honor this is a ploy, its ludacris(sp), the defendants know if mr seal were to cross examine witnesses here and argue to the jury, we would have a mistrial in two minutes. Its a game they are playing with the court. ” chicago 8

    • canadacan says:

      I get an education here everyday.

      • ottawa925 says:

        no chit … I hear that.

        • brutalhonesty says:

          we need west to say
          “I think that what you have said is about the most outrageous statement that I have ever heard from the bench, and Im gonna have my say right now, i truly am so outraged for you to say on a technicality we can not put atty crump on the stand, atty crump is the leader of jftm movement, he is the catalyst of the changefortrayvon foundation, he has relevant testimony. I know this is not a fair trial, I know it in my heart, and I am going to return, to my chair, with the full realization that everything I have learned throughout my life has gone for naught, that there is no meaning in this court, that there is no law in this court!!!”

    • jello333 says:

      And Bill was literally in tears as he said that. THAT was a lawyer who would defend his clients with no fear… none.

    • taqiyyologist says:

      And after, eyes closed and trying not to cry, thinking of Treyvonites and all the hate they carry for those who truly love them AGAPE-style, and of the love they have for those who see them as their serfs, from Hollywood to Big Music to D.C.

    • taqiyyologist says:

      Hey Treyvonites — the great majority of us would protect you. That’s what George was doing for his neighborhood: even the black residents that wanted Obama-voter Zimmerman to be their protector. Oh, dear God. The deception You have allowed to permeate our society is greater than in all of recorded history, as far as I can tell.

      We want you to be free. Prog Dems and their fully puppetized G.O.P. want you to remain on the Democrat plantation. They think they own you — and if you look at the percentage of blacks who voted skin color over content of character — you’ll understand that they do own you. Just like they did in the 1700’s.

      You leave their “comfortable embrace” and try and run, you will have the dogs called on you. You will be called “uncle Tom”, “house ni99a”, “Oreo”. You will be set upon like a wounded gazelle to a pack of hungry hyenas. Just like ever. You don’t run from Master, “Toby.” Just like when your Democrat Massas created the Klan — twice.

      And when you consider the color-blind Agape love with which you are loved by those whom you have been taught to hate? You should want to weep. Your massas, Democrats all. are laughing. Hollywood is laughing, slave. Your Hip-Hop/R&B actual “prch monkeys”, living in the lap of ultimate luxury (somehow, despite that nobody who listens to that crap actually BUYS their music, so how can they make bank?), who would be immediately set upon by their peers from both within the industry and from without, by the Democrat Slaveowners and their media pack of hound-dogs, if they strayed too far from the Democrat Progressive Victimhood line, ARE LAUGHING AT YOU.

      While “Puttin’ on the Ritz”. Again, somehow. Like they’re subsidized or something, and by some entity or other. MC Low-Rent that nobody outside one state ever heard of got killed and killed a couple of people in a spankin’-new Maserati the other day (remember?). $200k car. I would bet my last dollar that AT THE LEAST, 90% of those who own to Rap or R&B today actually bought the tracks that they own. But these folks are still living like princes. With none of their fans buying their product. How does this compute? Anyone?

      • taqiyyologist says:

        …actually ILLEGALLY DOWNLOADED the tracks, I meant to say…

        The folks whose culture has invented Knock Out Game and Flash-Robbery and Flash-Beating? None buy their music. They all just gank it from the internet. Yet the artists are insanely wealthy. (And laughing at poor black Americans who, intellectually, “buy” their product, and remain in the field like their Democrat Massa has told them to preach with their music.)

        Where are they getting their bank? Surely not from concert-ticket sales. Most certainly not for Album sales. Conspiracy tag, I summon thee.

      • jordan2222 says:

        Outstanding….. thank you.

      • Wow…………….that sort of took my breath away. These people are keeping themselves enslaved.

  7. Talah says:

    It has been 11 months!!! Close to $400.000 has been squandered!!! No experts!!! What is going on???

  8. Sharon says:

    Need sumpin’ big to happen.

    Here’s sound track for one type of sumpin’ big.

  9. Sharon says:

    …or this:

    That’s good for sumpin’ big.

  10. ottawa925 says:

    Pursuant to Order entered February 22, 2013, Motion for the Court to Reconsider the Taking of the Deposition of A-Hole Crump Previously Approved by this Court on Bla Bla date.

    [ INSERT THE ABOVE ARGUMENT BY SUNDANCE, then add the part about this dep was previously approved]

    Respectfully submitted.

    • ottawa925 says:

      Nope … that’s wrong. Lemme do again …

      Motion for the Court to Reconsider Order entered February 22, 2013 re: Taking of Deposition of A-HOLE Crump, Previously Approved by this Court on Bla Bla date.

      [ INSERT THE ABOVE ARGUMENT BY SUNDANCE, then add the part about this dep was previously approved]

      Respectfully submitted.

      That’s better.


  11. howie says:

    Watch and learn. What you see is not what it is. Traps, counter traps, this and that. This is dicey stuff and not as simple as one would think with simple common sense. Yes, it is really this bad. What appears to be, is not. That is why we still have jury’s. To try and apply layman common sense to this is hopeless. It is so Plus Ultra.

    • brutalhonesty says:

      On another place I was suggesting any black with connection to naacp, prince hall masons, attendees of black churches with trayvon statues on the altar, obama voters maybe included, and with prejudice against whites, shall be removed from the jury rolls…..and was basically told “nope, they can only stike so many, no more”…… am I to believe that such a person could ever under any circumstance be allowed?
      I hope not.

      • brutalhonesty says:

        side note….voter id is racist and jurists are pulled from dmv rolls……so why is it whites should be more likely to be called to jury duty? is that not in and of itself racism that blacks shall not do their civic duty due to their propensity not to have id?

        second side note: and off topic: when i worked for family dollar, it sure seemed that as white employees in white areas we were held to higher standards than the urban stores… fact when RM came to town the DM took him to the white stores because we were perfect, while the ghetto stores were protected in spite of their dirtyness, higher theft rates, and non-compliance with disabilty rules: ghetto stores cant accomodate the disabled due toe aisle widths.

      • jello333 says:

        No, the limit on number that can be objected to and excused is when doing so “without cause” (I think that’s the term). Meaning the lawyers don’t have to give ANY reason… just say, “Nope, we don’t want them.” There’s a limit to how many times you can do that. But otherwise, yeah, they have to give a good reason. Some of the reasons you mentioned would suffice (like supporting Trayvon statues, or showing prejudice), but some (like being an Obama voter) wouldn’t.

  12. stevie g. says:

    again, if you have information on MOM, just release it and stop beating around the bush.

    you might want to review a/c privilege first though.

    • sundance says:

      ROFLMAO (((( :D )))) Oh, yer killin’ me….. stop :D

    • Sharon says:

      Your second sentence suggests you’ve made some assumptions.

      What are they?

      • stevie g. says:

        anything between MOM and gz is protected by a/c privilege. now what?

        • sundance says:

          protected by who? from who? I’m interested to know how you reconcile or define “privilege”?

          You do not appear to have any clarity on substantive issues. An attorney is an employee of the client – there is no privilege unless and until the client expresses such a binding exists. The client is free to do and say anything he/she chooses.

          The binding in the relationship only extends toward he who is bound, in this case the attorney. Learn up.

          • stevie g. says:

            you learn up; no one has given up the privelege; duh!

            And gz never will. in spite of your stupid efforts to try to make him get rid of MOM. give it up.

            (Bye-bye….Admin)  photo banned2-smiley_zps6707365a.gif

            • sundance says:

              stevie g, is an annoying gnat. Not quite sure what the whole “privilege” thorn is about he appears to be so fixated on – but I digress.

              Privilege is not an exestential omnipotent state of being – it take an affirmative assertion to create. Meaning the content of a protected relationship would have to be “envoked” in order to be considered privileged.

              A parishoner may give his confession to a priest, but that does not bar the parishoner from telling his friends what his confessions consisted of. However, the priest would have to request permission from the parishoner to do the same telling.

              Not sure what stevie is attempting to allude to in his consistent babbling about “privilege”…. but it’s annoying and unneeded hijacking of conversation. Enjoy your trip to ban camp. Farewell and following seas.

              • maggiemoowho says:

                Sorry, but I can’t stop laughing at Stevie G’s choice of words. “You Learn Up”, I don’t think I have ever heard that before. I’m trying to picture the type of person who would use that phrase. :)

              • jello333 says:

                You’re right about who privilege is intended to protect. All I can figure that stevieg might have been implying is that someone knows of some things George has said in private (about him and MOM’s relationship), and is publicly disclosing those things without getting George’s permission. Not that I believe for a second that has happened… it’s just a theory about what stevieg may have been getting at.

              • mung says:

                Well after you correctly identified him as a troll, he ran over to Freddy’s house and posted this.

                stevie g. says:
                February 25, 2013 at 8:13 am

                It seems that there is even more dissension at the CTH. The moderator there just bans anyone who disagrees with his ridiculous opinions. So the group is basically formed by him and his sycophant followers.

                His arguments must be terribly weak if they cannot sustain any criticism at all.

                In the last hearing, BDLR alluded to the fact that W#9 has a lawsuit against CTH for doxing. Yet he continues to brazenly post all of her personal information on his website.

                So many intelligent people have left his group, or been banned if they dare to argue with him.

                His latest mission is to get MOM removed from the case, but he hasn’t a clue about that. All of his missives are based upon hearsay and his “spidy” sense. Give me a break!

                • jello333 says:

                  Oh my. Now that’s just SAD. It’s one thing to have some problems here and leave (or be banished) because of it. But it’s quite another to then go completely over to the dark side. “I’ll show you! Now I’m gonna go play with THESE guys!” Seriously?

                  And where exactly does he get this?: “So the group is basically formed by him and his sycophant followers.” It’s almost like this dude never actually read anything here. Yeah, there’s often praise here about what Sundance has accomplished, but there’s also plenty of disagreement with him. 99% of the time POLITE disagreement, but still…. “Sycophants”?… umm, ok.

                  • libby says:

                    so, which is it? are we all lock step in agreement or are we divided?
                    it cannot be both ways can it? of course, this case has been one quantum mechanical mess from the get go (dd was 16, 17, 18 & 19 all in 11 months time), crump is ‘opposing counsel’ but he is not a ‘surrogate of the prosecution’?
                    I would be a lot more worried if we all agreed with how this case should be handled (then I would accuse you all of drinking the koolaid)

            • dmoseylou says:

              Just when I finally wiped my eyes from laughing so hard at SG’s comment>>>HERE’S PUDDY! Post Patroller Extraordinaire.

  13. recoverydotgod says:

    Doesn’t the prosecution team [extended team] have to turn over exculpatory evidence. If Ben Crump is part of the extended team…time to turn over exculpatory evidence.

    • brutalhonesty says:

      no no no, in that case he is not a surrogate of the state, is a non-party, is not opposing counsel, and has nothing to do with this case. nelson already set that precedent a few months ago.

  14. howie says:

    Well he did not seem averse to a continuation of a couple three months. The Judge did. Seems like he was kind of a potted plant at the latest greatest litigation. Crump is taking center stage it appears. But Ahh Dunno. Have not been able to keep up lately. But a SA is sposed to get the crooks. Gotta wonder about it all. Is he still the opposing council? Or is Crump? Now, this is a good question at this point. One I do not understand.

  15. disgustedwithjulison says:

    I mentioned this before….but am puzzled….when West was up in front of the judge, he offered to put in the record some exhibits he had created regarding Mr. Crump….specifically Mr. Crump’s statements that he had information that the SPD was corrupt and covering up.

    That in alone would make him a witness into the investigation of the crime. How did Mr. Crump know this? Who provided him with information…etc. Mr. Crump’s information re: the SPD is not confidential Attorney-Client privileged information — further, it is OVERWHELMINGLY RELEVANT to the investigation of the charges filed against his client.

    Why didn’t West place those exhibits – Right then and there – into the record on the case. He looked over at O’Mara several times as if it was a “can I have permission to do this” and ultimately, he did not do it.

    Why did West only threaten in a veiled way to put these in the record….BUT THEN BALK? Looking for greater legal minds than mine to explain why it doesn’t help GZ to have the corruption created by Crump on the record?

    • John Galt says:

      “Why did West only threaten in a veiled way to put these in the record….BUT THEN BALK?”

      Evidence that Crump falsely accused SPD of engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Wolfinger for the purpose of coercing the State to file charges against Z and avoiding grand jury scrutiny of the evidence, including W8, connects the dots all the way to Bondi and may also put Crump in very hot water.

      How would Bondi and Scott look if Crump was deposed and could not state any actual evidence in support of his accusations?

      • jordan2222 says:

        “How would Bondi and Scott look if Crump was deposed and could not state any actual evidence in support of his accusations?”

        What are the odds that Scott and Bondi will be exposed in this mess? Doncha think that they bear at least as much if not more responsibility than any of the other players? Realistically, could this bring them down? I hope so but I have my doubts.

        If that even gets close to happening, something really big could happen. George is expendable.

        • boricuafudd says:

          Both Bondi and Scott are insulated that is what Corey is there for. All they have to say the put Corey in charge any wrong doing is her responsibility.

          • disgustedwithjulison says:

            Folks….this still isn’t answering my question.

            Why did West take the time to write up exhibits showing Crump’s potential misconduct regarding the case, let the judge know he had them there and ‘could’ put the in the record…but then seemed to be pleading to MOM to drop the bomb and the cavalry was never unleashed.

            They could have put some very, very damaging things on the record that would have certainly made Crump a witness to the investigation of the case by the SPD and Wolfinger, but backed off.

            Why? What was the strategy.

            • jordan2222 says:

              IDK but it’s a good question. Maybe someone has an educated opinion.

            • sundance says:

              I believe the “why” things changed is because of exactly what I outlined in the arguement letter.

              The judge assigned a relationship in her order conjoining Ben Crump to the State Prosecution team. That chaanges the nature of the relationship and inquiry to Ben Crump.

              If Crump is now by extension a co-counsel, albeit uncompensated, for the State. It would be prudent to frame your arguments and “sunlight” with such association clearly identified. Hence, perhaps West’s reluctance.

              However, that said, West should have prepared himself for that outcome based on the cited strategy within Blackwells motion and response. West should have immediately asked BDLR if he was accepting of the new status being afforded by the court to join him at the hip to Crump.

              The absence of that question was a massively missed opportunity – in many ways.

              If West had BDLR and the Court on record asserting they are now conjoined counsel and should be considered as such he could have moved aggressively to attach the crump lies, manipulations, and fabrications to the State of Florida. In short, he could have made visible the States ownership of Crumps scheme.

              That is the basis for the argument I have outlined in the post.

              West should have been fast on his feet, recognized the opportunity, and quickly used judo to glue BDLR and Crump together. After all, it is what Nelson was doing.

              Once that relationship was codified openly in the court, then West should have angled his approach to position the fraud against his client to being owned by the State. He might have requested from the court the question of whether he needed to re-write his current motion accordingly to reflect such a newly adjudicated arrangement….

              ….. or if he were really good, he would have had the plan to argue the motion “as if” Crump was co-prosecutor. Whereby he no longer argues for deposition, but demands the state reconcile immediately on the record why there is a disparity between their claims of the witness #8.

              Nelson would have shit herself, Blackwell would be freaked, BDLR would be trying to figure out how much damage and trouble he would be in, and Crump would be required to answer the question, or in his absence, a demand to appear and clarify would not only be appropriate, it would be substantively demanded.

              • rumpole2 says:

                Don’t you think that if West had moved aggressively to highlight the “new status” of Crump and make the points you suggest… then Nelson would have just made a vague rebuttal (as she actually did I think) that she did not mean Crump was “opposing council” exactly… (and then gone on to read case law about “Opposing council anyway.. as she did) she simply would not have acknowledged the new “joining at the hip with BDLR” that you suggest.

                It seems to me that bringing logic and valid debate, valid legal precedents to these court proceedings is a waste of time…. I am not sure ANYTHING West does or says to Nelson gets in…. maybe try bringing her a box of chocolates will work? It’s worth a try.

                • sundance says:

                  Hence, West did not need the judge to codify the relationship once she espoused it, he only needed BDLR to agree to it in court.

                  Put the burden on BDLR.

                  “Bernie, do you accept the judicial ruling that Ben Crump is a post facto counsel for your side?…. if so, I am willing to reframe my argument accordingly…. So Bernie, do you accept the attachment to Ben Crump?”

                  Bernie then has a decision to make. Either he is agreeing to accept Nelson’s ruling that Crump is a part of his team – or he says no, and then in all practical aspects he is joining West in opposing such a reasoning from the judge. both BDLR and West would be arguing that Crump has nothing to do with it. BDLR would be arguing West’s position for him and Nelson would be faced with both prosecution and defense saying Crump is not a party to the proceeding case.

                  See how that works?

                  • rumpole2 says:

                    But I imagine Bernie would have mumbled inaudibly.. and Neslon would have just gone ahead and read the ruling as written.

                    I don’t disagree that West might just as well make aggressive moves and statements in court… certainly nothing to loose…. I just don’t see it making a blind bit of difference with the fix so clearly in.

                    Perhaps stuff like that on the record might help down the line? I don’t see it changing the course of this case through a denied immunity hearing and then a trial… a very controlled and restricted trial for West and MOM>

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    Is the charging document no longer relative? How does the state explain Witness number 8?

                • sundance says:

                  If Nelson had injected herself and claimed that was not her assertion, then she is essentially nullifying the case law she cited to back up her ruling. She would have been stuck.

                  The only way for BDLR to save Nelson’s face would have been for him to accept the new status of Crump as being on his team.

                  You can well imagine what it would have looked like if both BDLR and West were standing in front of the judge saying “he ain’t one of us” – while the judge is trying to say “yes, he is because it’s the only way I can stop his deposition”…..

                  It would have been hilarious.

                  • jello333 says:

                    We accept him, we accept him, one of us…. gobble gobble

                  • gannasview says:

                    Sorry if this has already been asked. If West were to file a motion to compell evidence that Crump is holding, shouldn’t Nelson allow it? She is the one who has made him the opposing counsel.

                  • truth says:

                    She would have cut West off as she always does. While citing case law, she only used it as a reference, and made up her own case law, she acknowledged Crump is NOT “opposing counsel”, but some “some sort of counsel”. She’s making up case law for “some sort of counsel that is somehow related to a case”. This case cannot be won in court, logical arguments and relevant case law are not tolerated. The case can only be won on TV by the likes a someone like Uhrig or whatever his name was, who simply calls out the stupidity for what it is.

                • jordan2222 says:

                  She cannot have it both ways. IMO, she simply must clearly define who Crump is. She is making a fool of herself not only in our eyes, but also in view of the entire legal community as well as her “circle” over there, IF that even matters.

                • John Galt says:

                  Re “opposing counsel” – it is not just ordinary opposing counsel in a civil case that is required to bar deposition. Focus on what Sundance says here:

                  “The judge assigned a relationship in her order conjoining Ben Crump to the State Prosecution team.”

                  The Florida cases cited by Blackwell shield PROSECUTORS from deposition, not opposing counsel in civil cases. That is why Blackwell initially said that Crump was a private attorney general – because the cases he found in his research before making his oral motion pertained to prosecutors. Ordinary opposing counsel in a civil case does not suffice because, pursuant to the Florida cases cited in West’s motion, Florida law does not bar deposing counsel in civil cases.

                  See page 16 of Blackwell’s opposition:


                  The Florida state court cases cited by Blackwell are:

                  State v. Donaldson (“Donaldson is seeking to take the deposition of opposing counsel, Assistant State Attorney Windy Johnston.”) and

                  Eagan v. DeManio

                  “Petitioners, the state attorney of the Ninth Judicial Circuit and his assistant, seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent, a circuit judge, to quash subpoenas duces tecum which he issued compelling the petitioners to appear, give oral depositions, and produce their files in regard to a criminal case over which the respondent presides and which the petitioners prosecute.”

                  Things really went into the twilight zone where Nelson found that Crump did not have relevant information, after she previously designated him as a witness and after he submitted an affidavit demonstrating that he had relevant information.

                  • jello333 says:

                    This woman is a total freak. I won’t be the least bit surprised if she stands up and starts yelling, “Because I said so! Neener neener neener!!” Forget about this particular case….. this person should be removed from the bench, altogether!

                  • libby says:

                    “Nana booboo, stick your head in doodoo, you wont win cuz the state will cheat as much as they need to”

              • jordan2222 says:

                “In short, he could have made visible the States ownership of Crumps scheme. ”

                You should have been an attorney or are you one?

                Can’t they still accomplish this in a motion? Maybe now they could make the argument more forcefully in writing and on the record since they have more time to consider ALL of their options. I want to look at this in a positive manner.

                So what next?

              • jello333 says:

                That would have been great, to do that right then and there and watch everyone scramble. But there’s nothing to keep them from doing the same thing now, in writing. More time for the idiots to try to think of a response, of course, but the facts and the laws/rules will be the same.

    • jello333 says:

      Hmm… very interesting. Obviously wouldn’t have even brought it up if they wanted to keep it hidden. So sounds to me like maybe, for right now, the purpose was to SCARE someone. And maybe a bit of “wait for the right moment” kinda thing going on?

      • boricuafudd says:

        It could have been a bluff as you say. IMO the exhibits were an avenue of questioning that they wanted to deposed Crump, and were only to be used in that context. accusing another officer of the court of wrongdoing is a serious charge that could result in sanctions or disbarment. Once it became obvious they were not going to deposed Crump making blanket accusations is counter productive and could do more harm than good. Without concrete proof any questions or inquiry that they produced, without an answer under oath from Crump was useless, immaterial and probably stricken from the record with some sanctions thrown in for good measure.

  16. justfactsplz says:

    There is some ruffling of feathers with these chickens that are coming home to roost. The type of opposition Sundance is getting for exposing the truth atests to the fact that he is doing the right thing. I used to support Omara wholeheartedly until his lies startet to become evident. He has lied about people I know. He is not aggressively defending George and he is too worried about the Martin’s feelings. What a piece of work. West is the only hope for George. George does need pr work in the media. My local news was just covering Natalie Jackson and some of the young people who will be contributing to the Trayvon festivities on Tuesday. The more time that passes the more publicity the Scheme Team gets.

    • jordan2222 says:

      I know that it must have been difficult for you to change your mind about MOM but am glad you see who is now.

      Have you noticed any reaction to this thread at click orlando or any other site yet?

      Surely this should get a lot of attention. Let us know if you do, OK?

      • justfactsplz says:

        I will try. I don’t post that much there lately because the Trayvonistas have gotten so foul mouthed and full of hate. They do mention and ridicule the Treehouse to those of who post in support of George saying that’s where we get our stuff at. I posted there supporting George long before I ever heard of the Treehouse. I like it better here because Truth lives here.

    • justfactsplz says:


  17. jello333 says:

    Sundance, your proposed argument to the judge is excellent. Of course much more could be added, but it’s exactly what West and MOM (yeah, I’ll still include him ;) ) should have done Friday, and still SHOULD do. Maybe I’m naive to think so, but I still believe that in the coming days we WILL see arguments such as you propose. I think there will finally, AT LONG LAST, be specific accusations leveled at certain individuals. If these attorney’s don’t intend to be guilty of gross malpractice, they MUST start doing everything in their power to expose this fraud, no matter the repercussions.

    • jordan2222 says:

      “they MUST start doing everything in their power to expose this fraud,”

      What would you suggest that “they” do?

      • boricuafudd says:

        Jordan, for starters no prosecutor would use a witness that may be perjuring him/herself. If there are problems with a witness which could cause their testimony to be suspect that information has to be disclosed to the Defense as it may be exculpatory.

      • jello333 says:

        What they need to do is file any kind of appeals that they can legally file with the DCA. And whatever they can’t (by rules) file with DCA, they need to file “renewed” motions with Nelson, even if they’re near duplicates of other motions she has denied. Keep rubbing it in her face… “Here is how you ruled, and you are WRONG! So here, we’re giving you ANOTHER chance.” Oh, and of course demand a Richardson hearing. One other thing they should do is start making public statements about any wrongdoing they have evidence of (and can prove) regarding Crump or Bernie. But in concert with those public statements must be legal motions.

        • jordan2222 says:

          Don’t count on MOM being so brave. He just does not have it in him. It’s time for West to speak up.. we never hear from him and I wonder about why.

          I agree about overwhelming Nelson with motions. They have nothing to lose at this point. I mean how are you going to make Nelson comply with discovery rules? Think about how long we have been waiting for simple things like the tox report and everything about the cell phones.

          Do you ever get the feeling that MOM has prohibited West from being too bold?

          I would love to see MOM’s reaction when he reads this post. He knows now that he is has been exposed and I would bet he is at least a little bit concerned. But realistically what can he do about the past.. as in being complicit in the perjury accusations? One way or other he has screwed up royally. If he tells the truth now, he may be in even deeper trouble.

          For sure, he is squirming and probably not too happy with SD. LOL.

          • sundance says:

            His comfort is not even on the radar of consideration.

          • jello333 says:

            “He knows now that he is has been exposed and I would bet he is at least a little bit concerned.”

            Could be. But it could also be that he’s a bit RELIEVED. Think of it as a person who has been blackmailed, and has had something hanging over his head for awhile. Then suddenly the secret he was trying to keep hidden is OUT THERE, but not through the blackmailers. He wouldn’t be happy about it, but at the same time he would suddenly realize that the ones who were blackmailing him no longer had any power over him.

            • jordan2222 says:

              That is an interesting view but how does he deal with the consequences of what he has done and what are the possible consequences at this stage?

            • LetJusticePrevail says:

              “would suddenly realize that the ones who were blackmailing him no longer had any power over him.”

              I disagree. The “blackmailers” are not holding the threat of public exposure over Mark’s head, because the facts are there for anyone to see, and have ALREADY been discussed publicly, on many other forums.

              It might be more appropriate to say that they have, in some sense, won his acquiescence because of his own fears of legal repercussions, even though no mention has ever been made of them by the persons who have the authority to take action. Just as in SD’s example of the husband and wife.

              Several months ago it was discussed whether or not it would be better for George’s defense if Shellie’s case were brought to a conclusion before the onset of George’s case. I had mixed feelings about this then, but no longer. Frankly, the defense suffers more if Shellie’s case is NOT decided first (because of the issues we just discussed) than if it HAD been decided and she was convicted. (And, IANAL, so I have no way to argue for or against Shellie’s position).

  18. sundance says:

    @Disgustedwithjulison, the context of my letter was essentially subscribing a concession of “shock” to Don West on Friday when he heard Judge Nelson reframe the way she viewed Ben Crump’s relationship to the State’s case. In essence, West never expected her to deny the motion based on standing rules for opposing counsel deposition. This was short-sighted on his end and he should have expect it. However, it is also probably the reason he never referenced the exhibits he posessed.

    You see, as soon as Nelson attributed Crump to the prosecutorial team – the exhibit now needs to be viewed through the lense of the new relationship. Subsequently, it might not have been prudent to pull the lookie See on a prosecuting attorney. But again, he should have anticipated that angle to the ruling. It was, after all, the basis for the response from Blackwell – Judge Nelson just agreed with it.

    West might not have, and indeed did not, agree with it – but he was not prepared to use it to his advantage. A preparatory mistake, and a missed opportunity.

    • jordan2222 says:

      Well, isn’t it possible that could work out for the best, since they now know what’s on mind and also have time to respond to her in a detailed and well researched, prepared motion? I would think they might be able to put her in a trap from which she cannot escape.

      There is no way her reasons for denial could ever pass the DCA.

      • sundance says:

        There are VERY few opportunities to put three parties on the defense simultaneously. BDLR, Crump/Blackwell, and Nelson would all have been compromised openly in front of the world if West had better prepared himself.

        The entire scheme would have been exposed – in court – in one session.

        By dropping the deposition issue, and accepting the ruling, I don’t think West/O’Mara can do much more now other than look for another aspect to appeal.

        However, I do think they have just opened the door for Witness #8 to being deposed more than once. Especially if she refused to give her address.

        Because the argument for a second deposition is now bolstered by the same argument that I outlined. Meaning both people representing the state “BDLR and Crump” have given differing accounts of her personage.

        This can be argued easily in court if they choose to depose her and then depose her again. – Or at the very least will give them more ammunition for a cumpulsion hearing and possible contempt of court charges if she refuses to cooperate.

        There can be a bright side, but you have to be aggressive to identify it and even more aggressive to USE IT to your advantage…..

        • rumpole2 says:

          However, I do think they have just opened the door for Witness #8 to being deposed more than once. Especially if she refused to give her address.

          I raised a point related to this yesterday. Now here is a specific where West (MOM) missed a golden opportunity. The “Mini-depo” with DeeDee to get her fb and other details was raised… and it was revealed that DeeDee REFUSED to supply her address. Why on earth did West not jump in and say… “we tried doing as you suggested, Judge, and the witness refused…. Surely NOW is time for that witness to be compelled by the court… or would it not be simpler if BDLR just gave us the damned address here and now.

          • jello333 says:

            You’re right that they could have easily done that right then and there. But I gotta believe them NOT doing it wasn’t just an “oops!” moment. No, they had a good reason for not doing it then. I don’t yet have a good theory, but I bet that — for the hundredth time over the past few months ;) — something is afoot.

            • Sharon says:

              I gotta believe them NOT doing it wasn’t just an “oops!” moment

              …and I gotta ask you, Jello, upon what do you base that belief? Isn’t there a point at which optimism is delusion if there is no basis for it?

              I’m not trying to fuss at you…I really don’t understand how you keep swerving around and arrive at this “I’m expecting that….any day now…” so I’m really asking: Upon what do you base your expectations?

              • rumpole2 says:

                For me…. as I predicted… optimism DIED at the last hearing when Nelson denied the Depo of Crump… the nonsense about Crump being “opposing council” was icing on the cake….. the e-cake I might well have to provide to Dman.

                • jello333 says:

                  Me too… what very little hope I had for Nelson ended in that hearing. So that’s done. And as I’ve said here, and have been saying for awhile now, MOM and West don’t have much longer to prove themselves either. My optimism for THEM may survive only a few more days. Whether I renew it, or dump it altogether at the end of this week is up to them.

              • jordan2222 says:

                I thought I was the hopeless romantic here but Jello is in first place. He is the eternal optimist.

              • jello333 says:

                I’m basing it on the fact that it was right in front of their faces:

                “it was revealed that DeeDee REFUSED to supply her address. Why on earth did West not jump in and say… ‘we tried doing as you suggested, Judge, and the witness refused…. Surely NOW is time for that witness to be compelled by the court’ ”

                Exactly. “Why on earth” would West not latch on to that very obvious, very simple opening? It was not something that could have come as a surprise (as might other issues). So the fact that he did NOT latch onto it can only mean one of two things in my opinion. Either the man (and MOM sitting right next to him) is borderline incompetent, or he INTENTIONALLY let that moment pass, because they have something else in mind. That makes sense to me.

                So that’s why I made that comment about that particular point. Nothing to do with overall confidence or lack of confidence in either West or MOM… rather just basing it on an assumption on my part that West is not TOTALLY incompetent.

                As to your other question, about what I’m basing my overall expectations on? I don’t know if you’ve noticed some of my other comments, but over the past week or two, in the lead-up to Friday’s hearing, I HAVE shifted my views. What I said before the hearing was that, like most people here, I considered it a defining moment as far as my views of MOM and West go. I said that if things didn’t go well in the hearing (and in general they didn’t), then I was only gonna give them a few days to take action. That “action” being things I’ve spelled out elsewhere in this thread (harsh motions, appeals, disclosures, etc). And the reason I said I’d give them a few days is simply the time it takes to write and file motions. Nothing more. So I agree with you, they don’t deserve any more benefit of the doubt if they fail this major test. So this coming week is pretty much it. If they don’t do something BIG, you’ll see no more “swerving around and arrive at this ‘I’m expecting that…any day now…’ ”

                Deal? ;)

                • Sharon says:

                  Oh, sure, ;)

                  I guess I had noticed some different tone in some of your comments and it seemed like you “swerved” back to “Nope…gonna give ‘em more time.” In terms of the conversation and analysis, I’m a visitor on these threads (–my intensity and participation is honest-tourist level), so perhaps I have the luxury of not feeling compelled to make anything “fit” in a way that I argue this point or defend that point.

                  What I see in this whole mess that all of the officers of the court (both def and pros) are doing what they are doing because they want to. And the things they are not doing? they are not doing those things because they don’t want to.

                  I don’t believe their legal decisions are complicated at all, and most of them are not–truth be known–legal decisions any more. At this point, they’re making decisions by the seat of their pants, motivated by hidden personal issues (such as salvaging their careers and generating some cash flow).

                  None of it has had anything to do with George for a very long time, and now it’s to the point (in my honest tourist eyes) that it’s sort of embarrassing to even pretend that their role playing as officers of the court is a sell at all. They are into some very bad karma and some very poor role play and I suspect some of them are desperately trying to identify a personal exit strategy.

                  Those whose hold on power over others is dependent on deception will always be able to find an audience willing to be deceived. Don’t know nuttin’ ’bout no lawyerin’, but I know you can’t negotiate with a liar, and most of the officers of the court who are neck deep in this mess are documented liars.

                  I’ll be quiet and get back up on the porch now. I can’t begin to keep up with what you guys are doing–which is, of course, why I wait until midnight to jump in. Definitely you got a deal. ;) Made some apple pie the other day–want a piece?

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    It pains me immensely to try to imagine what George is going through. We are his strongest supporters and yet now we have to be realistic. It must be terribly frightening for him to read all of the things in this post.

                    No one should ever be in such a position when it’s clear that the State of Florida wants to send him to prison for something he did not do and they all know it.

                  • jello333 says:

                    Apple… pie? Yay! And cake from DMan?… yeah, this is gonna be good. ;)

                  • Sharon says:

                    Um-kay. I’ll put it in the mail tomorrow. :)

        • jordan2222 says:

          “I do think they have just opened the door for Witness #8 to being deposed more than once. Especially if she refused to give her address.”

          Wait, I thought that Nelson had already agreed that she could deposed more than be. I must have missed something.

          • sundance says:

            No, she specifically said in the February 5th hearing she would not allow any witness to be deposed twice.

            …. and before you say it…..Yes, I know this contradicts the December ruling where she instructed West to sit her down and ask her name, address etc etc and then if needed come back to the court for a request for a second round…. but Nelson is not exactly being consistent between hearings.

            After all,…. in October she ruled / instructed from the bench that Crump should be deposed…. and we see how that became inconsistent.

            • jordan2222 says:

              Are you seriously saying that she might not even be deposed after refusing to answer a few questions on the phone? That is absurd.

              • sundance says:

                No, she can, and I assume will, be deposed in person. Nelson told BDLR/West to do a phone convo for the social networking stuff and get her address. She refused to give her address, but we don’t know what else, if anything she might have refused to provide.

                • jordan2222 says:

                  Thanks for the update. I guess I missed a lot when I was out of commission.

                • jello333 says:

                  Hey, did you see my email about maybe putting a list together about the Dee Dee stuff? (I hate asking like that, but I don’t know exactly how your email system works… I mean if one Admin reads it and deals with it, or if all you guys see it eventually.)

    • recoverydotgod says:

      “In essence, West never expected her to deny the motion based on standing rules for opposing counsel deposition”

      I agree. A couple questions I have:

      Does the defense have a copy of a transcript of the Ben Crump interview of W8 from the state [not just a copy of the recording?]

      Does the judge’s ruling mean that Ben Crump could not be put on the stand during a trial itself if W8 was put on the stand and a transcript of the recording was put into evidence?

  19. Sharon says:

    I keep coming back to the thought that since the rule of law doesn’t seem to be important to any of the officers of the court involved in this farce it’s a weak strategy to plan a defense based on respect for rule of law. This is such an utter disconnect.

    It sure would have been an astounding benefit if West had grabbed what was happening in front of him…that specific 120 second time frame could have brought the whole thing crashing down around their ears in fairly short order. But that isn’t what happened. Nothing happened.

    I think this is an amazing post and summary. Even though it’s a summary of what could have been, and the moment is past, it still captures the moment and displays the rotten meat they are serving.

    • sundance says:

      …..”it’s a weak strategy to plan a defense based on respect for rule of law”…

      And therein lies the root of my personal frustration. Don West needs to accept into his psyche that he is not arguing law based rulings, he is arguing and fighting against politically based rulings. He’s trying to hit a golf ball with a pool cue.

      The best legal arguments are framed to the position encountered, not the position you wish you were encountering. Such is the disconnect allowing someone like Mark O’Mara to plan the defense….. O’Mara is handing West a badminton racket to play polo.

  20. jordan2222 says:

    I am stunned that Nettles has not commented on any of this. Has anyone heard from her?

    • sundance says:

      She agreed to no longer post – after she emotionally made the decision to disparage me and I took exception to it. Nettles is absolutely of the opinion that Mark O’Mara is doing an exceptional job on behalf of George Zimmerman.

      I have no issue with people who intellectually disagree with aspects upon our site, to the contrary I welcome it. However, I draw the line when someone will stand atop a box and proclaim attachments of *motive* toward my writing.

      There is no need to infer or write up a claim of alterior motive, it does not exist. If someone wants to know my position just ask. Or if they disagree, then challenge based on substantive known facts. But if you claim I am doing something because of some hidden unknown intention – you will find yourself at the door.

      I do not hold any agenda apart from seeking the truth.

      If that Truth causes people to withdraw support for Mark O’Mara then so be it, for I will not hide the truth because I am afraid of adversely impacting someone who is supported. If the truth has consequences then those who feel the consequences are not truthful.

      It really is that simple. I let Nettles know of my disappointment, and we parted on that.

      • jordan2222 says:

        I am very sorry to hear that and cannot imagine what ulterior motive she thought you might have. On what thread did all of this take place?

        • jello333 says:

          I know Sundance supports George as much as the rest of us do, so I can’t imagine what “ulterior motive” he could have for making these posts about MOM. He knows I’m not completely in agreement with him about such posts (sometimes I DISagree), but to think he was doing it for some underhanded reasons?… no, that never crossed my mind. Now I admit I thought maybe he was doing it in a roundabout way to HELP George… sorta as a slap across the face to wake up either George or MOM or West. But anything more than that?… no.

          (Still though… I’m very sorry to see Nettles go.)

          • sundance says:

            Yeah, I agree it sucks. But sometimes you’ve got to distance yourself and be intellectually honest when using sunlight as a guiding principle. Just because the truth is negative toward your side is not by itself a reason to hide it.

            There are defining moments in each of our quests. We each reach a point where we need to ask – do you really want to know? It takes a brave heart to keep walking forward when the batteries to the flashlight run out. Each judges the distance of their comfort from the light.

            Does the truth of MoM hurt George? Who really knows – personally I don’t believe justice is negatively impacted by the discovery of it. But the truth exists regardless of our opinionated comfort with it.

            • waltherppk says:

              My take on what SD has laid out about MoM is aligned with understanding that old saying about how you talk to a mule …..first you hit ‘em up side the head with a 2 by 4 to get their attention …..( so you aren’t trying to kill the mule, stubbornly pulling your wagon towards a cliff, but you gotta do something ) ….Is that about right SD ?

            • diwataman says:

              I really just don’t get why the O’Mara has always been such a contentious issue. It’s like he puts a spell on people, lol.

          • jordan2222 says:

            Do you know the thread or what date all of this took place?

          • Sharon says:

            A longtime pastor friend of ours experienced serious betrayals on a number of occasions. I asked him on what basis he chose to continuing being so welcoming and trusting to new folks knowing that probably a certain percentage of them would turn out to have been lying either about who they were or why they wanted to be part of the church. He had a very simple answer: ” I always take what they tell me about themselves at face value. If I learn differently later, I adjust the relationship.” In other words, bless his heart, he never made it personal and never tried to anticipate: Never assumed everyone was lying. Never assumed everyone was who they seemed to be. Just watched and listened….and adjusted when necessary.

            I’m always sorry when someone goes, too. Almost always – the reason is that new information got put on the table, We find out something we didn’t know earlier.

    • justfactsplz says:

      Read all the threads from the past several days and you will find your answer. A lot happened while you were out ill.

  21. rumpole2 says:

    And to top it all off, what do they do at the end of the hearing?

    Start talking about the seating arrangements for the trial :D

    Talk about arranging the deck chairs on the the Titanic lol

    The damned ship is sinking, Captain!

  22. rumpole2 says:

    Guess what… next hearing is a week away :D

    I would expect a flood of motions this week? Maybe not? who knows?

    • waltherppk says:

      Expanding the time frame for the state’s subpoena of the phone records for the prepaid anonymous user account phone of W8 to include the entire month of February 2012 would be an excellent Discovery motion. This to include GPS data of course, and if a justification is needed then it is to confirm by pattern of use that the phone bearing the alleged connection with the calls to TM on 2-26-2012 was plausible or probable to have been the phone actually identifiable as the phone typically used by the alleged user W8, since the phone was a prepaid anonymous user account phone which can not be positively identified as the phone used by a particular named individual who is alleged to be W8. Information which may tend to support or impeach the account of a witness, or an alleged witness is Discoverable therefore the subpoena for the phone history for an enlarged time frame has good grounds for being ordered by the Court. If the Court refuses immediately file a Richardson Hearing and explicitly accuse the State of BAD FAITH discovery violations as well as filing an appeal to DCA to have Nelson removed for this and other good cause.

      • jello333 says:

        “Expanding the time frame” of the phone records. I’ve seen you mention that before, and it’s an excellent point. We’d hope that MOM and West have already thought of that, but it wouldn’t hurt for you to email them about it.

    • waltherppk says:

      I did say on Saturday there is more than one way to skin a cat.

    • waltherppk says:

      The State of Florida wants to play poker with a bluff hand against a royal flush. Cards on the table friends. Riverboat rules.

    • waltherppk says:

      It appears the meat of my comment is “awaiting moderation” …just great.
      There is nothing of yours awaiting moderation. Although there might be if you don’t cool your jets. –Admin

    • waltherppk says:

      I just handed it to them on a silver platter what needs to be done, and if they do it, then the State just walked into the airplane propeller. Otherwise if West and O’Mara ignore me and don’t do this, then what happened Friday at the hearing was two pussies being sent back to school by a cunt. That’s legal rhetoric for what happened Friday.
      No, actually, that is not legal rhetoric. If you’ve got a problem with West and O’Mara ignoring you, take it up with them, and take the language with you. –Admin

      • waltherppk says:

        I laid it out what they can do to dynamite the railroad tracks. Whether they do it or not will tell everybody what is really going on here and if the “defense team” is a real, bona fide defense or just another part of the propaganda “due process” and show trial and conviction that is a political lynching. Think of it as a litmus test. See what happens, if they do it or not, and then you will know the real story.

      • jordan2222 says:

        Holy cow. .. they do not have much time.

        • waltherppk says:

          Exactly why a Richardson hearing would be in order. Defense preparation has been procedurally prejudiced with regards to completion of discovery in keeping with the calendar not because of delays caused by the defense but by the state. The state has not been prompt with timeliness of discovery disclosures and has delayed discovery to hinder the defense preparation. Numerous examples have been documented, yet Nelson is not being reasonable about allowing additional time for defense preparation.

      • anwtex says:

        Thanks for the calendar! You are soooo darned organized and thorough—-I am really impressed with what you (and others) on this site do. 3 cheers!
        btw-I was going to use my spray paint (thank you) but it won’t paste here. Works fine with email but I guess the site is set up differently. Anyway want you to know that I am having BIG fun using it in my emails.

  23. Did anyone contact Dershowitz aboout what happened in court on Friday?

  24. jordan2222 says:

    This is part of an email I sent to someone quite a while ago. There a few slight changes but it what Sundance said in a post to someone who was fully supporting MOM. I thought it might be relevant in light of recent events:

    You can guess the answers to the questions below. Now would you want someone like this to represent you if you were charged with second degree murder and you know you are innocent.

    So why hasn’t O’Mara loudly proclaimed from the beginning, “My client is innocent. He is absolutely NOT GUILTY.”?

    Have you ever even heard of that happening? He finally did the other day but what a feeble attempt. He sounded apologetic when he “mentioned” it. It looked like it hurt him to even say it.
    Did O’Mara keep George’s second passport for 30 days and not reveal it the Court? Yes or no?
    Did O’Mara say he did not know of George’s own Defense fund? Yes or no?
    Did O’Mara shut down George from answering questions regarding perjury in the Hannity inteview, and then go on the following day to do it with the media? Yes or no?
    Did George tell his attorney of the existence of the account? Yes or no?
    Did O’Mara inform the Judge first or CNN of the existence of the accounts?
    Did O’Mara call his client a liar in public? Yes or no?
    Did O’Mara state his client and his wife misled the court? Yes or no?
    Did O’Mara state that SYG is an “absurd” defense? Yes or no?
    Did O’Mara detach himself from ever saying his client was innocent? Yes or no?
    Did O’Mara set up the new Defense Account with his own private CPA? Yes or no?
    Can the Florida Bar oversee the lawful execution of the account? Yes or No?
    Did O’Mara select the Bonding Agent? Yes or NO?
    Did O’Mara structure the bonding contingencies? Yes or No?
    Can George Zimmerman seek alternate counsel under his bonding agreement? Yes or No

    • jordan2222 says:

      If you can find that thread, you will see that SD had a lot of foresight about MOM during those discussions. Things got heated up and a few regular posters left the board as a result but it’s clear that SD was right on target even back then.

      I think it’s pretty amazing, maybe even prophetic stuff.

      • waltherppk says:

        Solidly Daniel about the writing on the wall.

        • jello333 says:

          But there’s something I don’t understand. I can understand why people are upset about what MOM did back then with the bond/PayPal deal, and how that may still be having an impact even now. Similarly, the way that during the first few months, MOM seemed unable to forcefully defend George in public. “My client believes he is not guilty.” Even I had a major “WHAT?!” moment with that one. And he also, mostly early on, said several other dumb things in public. So I get all that. But what I don’t understand is the people who seem to have come to some NEW conclusion about MOM over just the past few days. Mainly since the Friday hearing. Yes, the hearing went mostly badly, but what has MOM himself done during/since then for everyone to suddenly “realize” what a problem he is? As I’ve said, he (and West) MUST react strongly to Nelson, Crump, Bernie, and they must do it quickly. But when this renewed anger against MOM began, he hadn’t yet had TIME to do anything new. Right? I guess what I’m saying is, if it was a week after the hearing, and MOM was at that point just twiddling his thumbs, then I can absolutely see justification in anger and frustration building to a very high level… even if it was partly based on what had happened way back when. I don’t know… the fact that we don’t yet KNOW what MOM has planned re. the fallout from that hearing… well, the anger just seems premature.

          Here, shorter: If you (the generic “you”) weren’t already very angry at MOM before the hearing began, then what happened in the following few hours to change things, and make you suddenly VERY angry at him by that evening? Please don’t think I’m arguing with anyone about this. Not at all, I just truly am a bit confused.

          • waltherppk says:

            There is nothing new about my dissatisfaction with O’Mara which is a matter I made plain last July in the “Et tu” thread. With the resources available and a focus on the phone forensics EARLY ….this case would already likely have been over during the time of the bond proceedings which were a complete distraction that derailed the defense. But the truth is that by not making the phone forensics a priority from the very start, the defense was never really on the right track in the first place. Blowing the state’s case right out of the water is what the phone forensics should do very handily. Yet the focus has not been there ……WHY ? Because for various motivations of all the “players” involved …..THE TRUTH of what happened 2-26-2012 and what is JUSTICE has been a lesser priority than pursuit of an adversarial agenda FOR PROFIT to the “players” involved.

            • justfactsplz says:

              It’s all about money and not about justice for George.

              • waltherppk says:

                + 1,000,000 Money and politics is what this whole crooked SCAM and persecution has been about from the get go, and every low down dirty SOB and scheming, lying POS involved should get their due in terms like they never “figured’ IMO ……and that could still happen. The corrupt involved would RUN from this whole sorry mess if they had any survival instinct, but the lowlife involved are used to running roughshod over people who don’t or can’t or won’t fight back. In this particular situation they have picked up a cat by its tail and are in for the kind of life lesson which no words are adequate for describing.

            • jordan2222 says:

              It is still unimaginable to me that we cannot get phone records for what happened during a 15 minute period on the night of 2/26. Somebody should be jumping up and down in the courtroom, screaming and hollering, “We want the damn phone records, NOW!!”

              • justfactsplz says:

                Yes, it is frustrating. Somebody should demand and pitch a fit to get them.

                • waltherppk says:

                  Absolutely I do know that defense attorneys have a professional DUTY and a discovery DUTY to investigate the case BEYOND what just the police or the state may be cooperative in disclosing BECAUSE it is common for the State to breach its own DUTY to DISCLOSE and to suppress and delay production on disclosure of Brady material in particular. This is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION of the due process rights of the accused when the State breaches its DUTY to disclose, and it is Professional Malpractice when the defense allows such a breach of duty to continue, without intervening by motions to compel or whatever else is needed to defend the rights of their client. I know this is true because I am presently involved myself in LITIGATION against the State of Florida involving the EXACT same type Discovery issues with Both the State and incompetent “ineffective assistance of counsel” defense attorneys having cooperated in producing a wrongful conviction. I know what I am talking about.

                • jello333 says:

                  Several people over the past few weeks have asked about what can be done, even maybe protest rallies and the like. I’d LOVE to do something like that, but for the life of me I just can’t figure out what the exact focus would be. Of course all of us here, and especially people like you who know George personally, KNOW the truth about what’s being done to him and his family and friends. But any kind of “rally” would have to have some FOCUS. It couldn’t just be signs saying “George is being railroaded”. It would have to, in some way, get really pointed, specific facts out there that would be impossible to ignore. Any neutral person looking in on such a rally should immediately say, “Wait a minute, is that true? That can’t be true, not in this country? SERIOUSLY?”

                  So whatever WE would try to do would be far more complicated, and require a lot more thought than what the idiot, lying, hypocritical GZ-Haters go out and do.

                  • boricuafudd says:

                    Part of the issue has been that the original framing of the story as racial, has made many people hesitant. This is imo why while a lot of people will say GZ is innocent or he is getting railroaded, privately won’t do so publicly.

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    It is shameful that THEY have such control over us. They are winning the race war just like the Progs are winning control of our government. We are greatly outnumbered.

                    No one is ever going to vote to stop their government checks from coming in because the Progs have convinced them they really are entitled to the free stuff.

                    Yes, we have become so afraid of them that we will not publicly express ourselves.

                  • boricuafudd says:

                    I don’t think we are outnumbered, we are out voiced. Our message does not get through.

                    I see it as a cycle, right now we are on the downside, but that will change. People are not stupid and while their self interests right now makes some support hand outs, people eventually figure out that living out the scraps the government hands out is not beneficial.

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    I hope you are correct but I have doubts.

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    Their rallies had no substance or true focus but they worked, didn’t they?

                  • justfactsplz says:

                    It would have to be very organized with a program of action and that plan of action would have to be stricktly adhered to.Numbers talk. It would have to be a very large gathering.

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    Any thought on this idea that I posted?

                    Suppose we all sent a copy of the letter to O’Mara, West, Nelson, Corey, Bondi, Scott, Holder, Obama and all other parties..

                    Maybe ten or twenty thousand letters or more would get some attention. IMO, every newspaper in the state of Florida should publish this letter.

                    These are extremely serious allegations and should be taken extremely seriously by all concerned and in particular the media. It is their responsibility to inform the public.

                  • pbunyan says:

                    If a million people showed up for this rally the media might be forced to vaguely, briefly mention it. They’d describe it a “more than 100, mostly white people,” and show a picture of about 10 people there– the one’s that look the most racist.

              • waltherppk says:

                Two “professional” lawyers supposed to be working for George don’t seem to understand that the phone ping logs compared to “billing records” and stories being told by various persons associated with or alleged to be associated as users of those phones could make everything else which seems to be needed additional work in discovery to be irrelevant. W8 should be declared a “hostile witness” and treated as such. Crump did effectively “waive” confidentiality and privilege by publicly declaring W8 was a 16 year old minor and later an 18 year old shows up reluctantly to give statement in response to leading questions by a state attorney. That entire scenario bears scrutiny to authenticate if the story of the alleged witness W8 is even technically feasible to have occurred, as the state has asserted. Interfering with investigation of the veracity of the statement of W8 is clearly prejudicial to defense preparation, and if there are any witness protection issues then it is the State’s responsibility to address that security concern in a way which does not shield the witness from simply having the veracity of statements by that witness from being investigated. There is no legal basis for the treating of W8 as a minor since it was a false representation publicly made she ever was a minor, also inferred in police reports even made the day her statement was given. If the witness W8 made false representation regarding her age then it is possible or likely that other false representations also attend the statement of W8 and the defense has a DUTY and a RIGHT to investigate the circumstances having bearing upon the veracity of that witness W8.

                • Sharon says:

                  It’s possible they do understand the significance of that evidence and choose not to pursue it.

                  I tend to give the defense team credit for making conscious choices based on their long term goals. I sure can’t account for their long term goals or their reasons for settling on them,but I don’t think the defense team is out of control. They’re not effective, obviously; but that’s a different business than being out of control, or even in over their heads.

                  It is what it is. We don’t know what all it is yet. But it is what it is.

                  Trying to overlay what it is with what it ought to be doesn’t change what it is.

                  If it isn’t what it appears it is, eventually the truth will out, but it sure would be weird to find out that all of this stumbling, incompetence, forgetting, failing to anticipate, not citing relevant cases, not making essential requests, not accounting for all the money….it sure would be weird to find out that what it is is not somehow the sum of the things rolling out over the months.

                  There isn’t much out there to construct some alternate what-it-is. Of course, it probably depends on what the meaning of is–is. Bill Clinton said so. ;)

                  • waltherppk says:

                    Yeah it’s possible the “brilliant” attorneys defending George have some “master plan” which doesn’t include attacking the prosecution theory and attacking the evidence and witnesses which the State will assuredly use to try to convict George. And from the looks of it the only thing such a master plan could have as a goal is to see George convicted while pretending he had a fair trail since he had two attorneys supposed to be zealously defending him. Exonerating George will come about as a result of a defense having SUBSTANCE not as a result of snappy appearances for having two or two dozen lawyers, but not doing the job they should be doing of effectively defending him. George needs to win by whatever means it takes, not just be a good sport about fighting gently and politely, and not be too controversial about fighting people who are trying to imprison him for life for a crime that never happened……then losing his freedom. It will be small consolation to say George was such a good sport about being sent away for life for a crime that never happened, because his genteel and collegiate, politically correct attorneys wanted to play nice.

                  • jello333 says:

                    “It is what it is. We don’t know what all it is yet. But it is what it is. Trying to overlay what it is with what it ought to be doesn’t change what it is”

                    Wow Sharon, that’s pretty close to brilliant. I think I’m gonna print out a big copy of that and stick it next to my computer so I can see it whenever I’m on here trying to deal with this case. ;)

                  • Sharon says:

                    heh ;) And thanks….. high praise from your corner of the world!!

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    What a mind Sharon has to say this:

                    “It is what it is. We don’t know what all it is yet. But it is what it is. Trying to overlay what it is with what it ought to be doesn’t change what it is”

                    I bet she can also write a lot of side splitting humor.. I mean really funny articles.. . shoulda, coulda, woulda stuff. I would guess she is also a master of onomatopoeia.

                    She is also our ultimate voice of wisdom, reason and good old common sense. She knows how to spank posters who get out of line in a gentle manner.

                    Do you read her weekly column?

                • jello333 says:

                  I’ll say again, Walther, half of these comments you’ve been making over the past few days should be copied and emailed directly to MOM & West. I’m not joking.

                  • ftsk420 says:

                    I don’t think anyone needs to copy and send anything. I think they come here daily and use what they need.

                  • jello333 says:

                    Yeah, I’m sure you’re right. But I’m still glad I posted that comment… I wanted to put in writing how impressed I am by some of Walther’s comments on this.

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    Reading the comments on any thread here about George would require a lot of time, especially if the person actually reads them all. Additionally, that person would have to decide what is useful and what is not.. and then also determine how to get that info to the defense in a concise manner.

                    How much time do you actually spend each day reading the Zimmerman threads?

                    I can no longer follow the other topics like I once did unless I devoted my entire life to doing that. Many comments cite other articles to read. It’s easy to get further distracted if you have a curious mind as I do because that one article can result in reading several more… very time consuming.

                    All that aside, I think it’s a good idea to email the defense with specific relevant info. I have done that and received a reply from MOM himself thanking me.

                    I also know they like the stuff that DMan posts on his site because it is concise, specific and reliable.

                  • waltherppk says:

                    Maybe BDLR can forward them a copy. :D

                  • jello333 says:

                    Oh, so you’re focusing on Bernie? Ha! I can see him now, “Arrgghhh! Another email from that Walther guy!!”, as his arms flail around wildly.

              • jello333 says:

                You know Bill Kunstler? That’s the kind of passion we need in this case, yes including INSIDE the courtroom, right now. Someone posted a quote of his the other day (from the Chicago 8 trial)… and it brought tears to my eyes.

                • John Galt says:

                  Chicago 8 – charged with crossing state lines to incite a riot.

                  That might be useful if things go south next time Sharpton comes to town shouting NO JUSTICE NO PEACE.

                • jordan2222 says:

                  As phony as it might be, Bernie has “passion,” certainly a lot more than MOM. He puts on a show, flailing his arms and speaking as if HE is convinced he is correct.

            • jello333 says:

              Cool, yeah I agree. MOM (and soon after, West) should have started hammering HARD on all the foot-dragging and misconduct of the State much earlier than they did. And a huge part of that revolves around the phones. I still have high hopes for whatever they might do during this week, but they better get on it… like NOW. I may be one of the more patient people here in regards to MOM but, as I told Sharon last night, it’s not limitless.

          • boricuafudd says:

            IMO some people are angry at the tone of acquiescence by the defense team, at the very least that they were unprepared. They feel that this was a wasted opportunity combined with others, the tipping point has been reached. I think that West went to argue the law, as a lawyer would, but the Judge was not having it, there was nothing that could have been done, arguing with the Judge and getting sanctioned is not going to help. Some feel they should have been prepared ahead of time for the Judge’s ruling and have something in backup. The judge’s ruling while unpopular may have been right inasmuch the information the defense is seeking can be obtained from other sources. Having Crump deposed would have made the process easier, but that presumes that Crump would not shield himself by invoking his own rights against self-incrimination, at which point the Defense would have to search elsewhere anyhow.

            • jello333 says:

              Ok, that makes sense. That maybe a lot of what we’ve seen over the past couple days is just a release of pent-up anger that’s been there for a long time. I can totally understand that, and I’m not far from that point myself. My only difference is that since we don’t yet know WHAT they’re gonna do about what happened in the hearing, I’ll keep my anger pent up a bit longer… but as I’ve said, only for a few more days. But that doesn’t make my approach right and anyone else’s wrong… there’s no right or wrong in how/when people start to get angry about things.

            • waltherppk says:

              Seeing Crump “plea da fif” would be a moment to treasure…a Kodak moment.

          • jordan2222 says:

            “But what I don’t understand is the people who seem to have come to some NEW conclusion about MOM over just the past few days.”

            That hearing was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Just like you have been wanting to believe that MOM is handling this correctly, so have others.

            The money and passport issues have always been on our minds, but we have never ruled them out as inconsequential. Those things do not just magically disappear. The same is true for all of the mistakes and absurd statements made by MOM. The hearing was the last straw.

            We cannot continue to ignore the facts. O’Mara is a serious liability and I don’t look for the next hearing to change anything. Nelson will be prepared for whatever they try to do.

            There is something seriously wrong when we cannot get phone records for a 20 minute period on 2/26 after all of this time.

            By now, the defense could have hired an investigator to reveal that DeeDee is a fraud. Why haven’t they done that? Would that be too aggresssive?

            I think George’s only chance is with the DCA and they should deal with that NOW, not later but, one or the other, MOM must go. If it means destroying his career, that’s tough. George must make a decision now. It’s either him or O’Mara.

            • ftsk420 says:

              I’m kinda on the fence right now when it comes to MOM. On one hand I see what everyone else see’s. But on the other hand I actually think he might have something up his sleeve. I kinda think he’s giving everyone enough rope to hang themselves. I do think he thought the judge was gonna allow him to depo Crump. I could be wrong but I think he knows what’s going on and wants everyone involved to lie on record.

            • jello333 says:

              “The hearing was the last straw.”

              Yes, I agree…. as far as Nelson goes. But as far as MOM (and West) goes, I don’t believe that hearing is even over yet. I mean the FALLOUT and FOLLOW-UP from that hearing. What if MOM, in the next few days, files some brilliant paperwork, harshly worded like we’ve been calling on him to do? It may not happen. But we don’t yet know, and we certainly didn’t know immediately after Nelson brought down the gavel the other day.

              • John Galt says:

                “What if MOM, in the next few days, files some brilliant paperwork”

                I’m wondering if ABC will file an 18 page smoke screen on the topic of journalistic privilege 48 hours before the March 5 hearing, which will go unanswered.

              • jordan2222 says:

                All I can say is that I hope you are correct but my personal optimism about MOM saving George has virtually vanished.

                I still think the money and passport things have legs and have affected a lot of decisions in this case. You cannot deny that O’Mara lied. That is huge and I think HE should be held accountable, not George and. .. the sooner, the better.

    • Springstreet says:

      Yes, MOM isn’t very good … and the Schemers are very bad, BUT so what? The Schemers don’t need or want DD or any (dead) phones! They’ve got an armed wife beating vigilante bouncer with violence problems (and documented views against certain groups) who cursed and chased after an innocent unarmed candy totting little black boy … who screamed in terror and fought for his life … after the cop wannabe left his truck and reached for his gun. And, yes their case is all lies, but without the phones (which Nelson will bar) what does George have … a soiled reputation for the truth, a biased judge, a corrupt prosecution and (soon) a very terrified jury?
      So … stop whining and do something about it! How did little Trayvon get to and from the 7/11 without being seen on any roadside security camera? How will the prosecution PROVE it was Trayvon who walked back from the store to be chased by the self-appointed Neighborhood Watchman? Witnesses? NO! Tan pants Trayvon had to have been driven by a CAR (which will have been recorded by security cameras and possibly yellow light intersection cameras) to the back gate (like his father said before being Crumped) and then walked to Brandy’s porch (like she first said on TV). There is your missing one hour!
      So then, what would the motive for a different shorter (buttoned for identification … by blunt totting 3 Amigos), looks black, teen with a drug history (in stone washed blue jeans) be for standing in the rain at a cut-thru … the only place with a view to the street (but out of sight of the front gate security cameras)? Just another rabbit hole?

      • howie says:

        With a phone at the ready. Maybe he was a watchdog.

        • John Galt says:

          Immunity combined with trial + denial of immunity = Scheme Team touchdown. Why would they want to fuark that up with an appealable conviction?

      • howie says:

        Ding Ding Ding!! How will they prove it was T-con? DD? No DD no case? Crump hires lawyers in court to try and save Crump from having to tell the truth? This is more than a little fishy. A kettle of fish, and a can of worms.

      • mung says:

        I not only question why the security cameras didn’t pick him up, I question how a toddler is roaming the streets at night, in the rain and no one bothered to make sure he was OK or try to contact his mommy and daddy. He was a toddler right? Just a wittle bitty black baby boy eating his candy? Well at least that is what I heard from the media, it might not be accurate.

  25. mung says:

    From Freddy’s latest post
    “Meanwhile, trouble is brewing at the Treehouse where Sundance is calling for Don West to take over the defense. According to his open letter to Mr. West, he believes O’Mara is incompetent and DD does not exist. I do not link to that site, but Opera Carla posted a copy of the letter in the comments thread to my Many Blessings post.”

    The funny thing is the post he talks about is a post about the huge fight that happened over there in reference to if it is OK for them to be slandering George, his family, and their supporters. Irony is not lost on Freddy at all is it?

    • Sharon says:

      I hate it when trouble is brewing and we don’t get the memo. Sheesh.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        I hate it when trouble is brewing and we don’t get the memo.

        Well, I almost always have coffee brewing.

        And over the weekend, I had some pork and roasted poblano chile stewing.

        But trouble? Nah… haven’t seen it.

    • thehoff71 says:

      The frequency in which he loses control of his readership is becoming more and more apparent. They are interested purely in George hatred, so when someone offers a more reasoned approach to their “He guilty” and this is why arguments they descend upon the offending party like vultures. I merely go over to look at his lolterpretation of latest happenings lately, his posters no longer interest me due to constant beating of the same dead horse.

    • John Galt says:

      Leatherman [deconstructed]

      Monday, February 25, 2013

      Good afternoon.

      I write today to clear up some confusion exhibited in comments over the weekend regarding the basis for Judge Nelson’s order denying the defendant’s motion to depose Benjamin Crump, the attorney who represents Trayvon Martin’s parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton. As all of you know, he located Witness 8 [Crump's affidavit says he learned of W8, not located her. Crump in paragraph 18 of his affidavit actually swears that he didn't know her last name or her address at the time of the interview. Crump in prior statements to the media said that Tracy Martin found DD from phone records / phone bill. Natalie Jackson said they hired a PI. Ronquavis said he met her at the March 3 funeral.], who is referred to as DD to protect her identity and privacy [and shield her from investigation]. She was Trayvon’s girlfriend [she told BDLR "getting there"] and was talking to him when the defendant accosted and attacked Trayvon moments before shooting him to death. [there is no evidence of Z accosting or attacking Trayvon according to Gilbreath's sworn testimony at the bond hearing]

      Crump recorded a telephonic interview with her from his office [No. "from within an enclosed room in a residence located in South Florida" Crump Affidavit, paragraph 20] in which she reported that Trayvon told her that he was being followed by a “creepy man” [No, the crazy, creepy old man was created in the BDLR interview. In the Crump interview, it was a big white dude] in a vehicle [Crump said man was following in a car, I don't think DD ever said car or vehicle in the Crump interview. "Vehicle" appears to be a fabrication by Leatherman to avoid the Honda Ridgeline truck vs. "car" problem.] as he was walking home. He ran to get away from the creepy man ["Trayvon say he ain't gonna run like that, he gonna walk fast from the back"] and thought he had succeeded, but the creepy man suddenly appeared on foot and close by.

    • justfactsplz says:

      Oh I am sure they would love to divide and conquer. I wasn’t aware we were slandering George and family here.Wolverines, only the strong and the truth survive!

  26. jay says:

    For the record, I am a Trayvon supporter But I have said from day 1 MOM stoped a runaway train dead in its tracks. IMHO mom has been Gz saviour…I think he is a very talented lawyer… I do not agree with most of the views “treepers” have but I will say that I do admire all of your efforts to support what you feel is Justice…In MOM’s defense none of us know whats going on behind the scenes.. A previous attorney for zimmerman said he was a very tough client to defend and he was adamant about beeing overly involved..I think Omara is doing a great job considering the circumstances.. Honestly some of you remind me of LAKER fans, first sign of adversity and your ready to fire the coach, AGAIN lol

    • sundance says:

      …..”In MOM’s defense none of us know whats going on behind the scenes”….


    • kinthenorthwest says:

      I jumped on the Zimmerman train when i heard the 6th or 7th lie about Trayvon revealed..And that was in just the 1st couple of weeks…
      There was no reason fo all the lies from the parents about who and what Trayvon was. In the long run it actually hurt Trayvon’s case. Teens who are really screwed up in life have ended up being shot/killed or ??? due to circumstances they had nothing to do with. Yet with all the untruths, and misconceptions the parents kept trying to put forth about Trayvon I could not help but wonder why they felt the need to cover Trayvon’s butt.

      Just because Trayvon wasn’t the greatest teen around doesn’t mean he deserved to be shot. Yet the cover-up by his parents and them creating fake evidence too turn many against him..
      Then you add in what the media did in order to help out Sharpton, Jackson, and Obama one cannot help but think that Zimmerman was being used. Used big time for money.

      Just out of curiosity have the parents returned to work, or are they living off the money donated to the Trayvon charities??

      • mung says:

        Last I read, they were full time working for the foundations.

        One of the big reasons I became so interested in this case was how appalled I was to think about the old ladies on social security who are now eating cat food because they gave their money to the foundations thinking it was needed to stop more candy eating babies from being gunned down. They will never know that they were duped.

        • justfactsplz says:

          What really got my goat was one of the rallies with Sharpton. He asked for large amounts, for checks, and even gold jewelry.

        • kinthenorthwest says:

          That kind of got to me too..When I asked about the parents working I had the feeling the answer would be working for the Trayvon Foundation..
          The Mom at the time of her son’s death seemed to be a bit disassociated with her son.
          The dad seemed to want to concentrate on his girlfriend issues more than his son.
          Then their son dies and all of a sudden, Trayvon is this all American kid with the all American parents.
          What was happening in Trayvon’s life in the year or so leading up to his death, and what probably should have been being done by his parents was so weird..
          Hey by the grace of the good Lord I have 3 healthy good daughters in their 40s with good jobs, college degrees and good families.
          Yes I lost a 21 year old step son to a murder. Though it was gang related it was not due to him back sliding. At the time he was being carjacked. He was going to church at least once a week, doing no drugs( autopsy says it was at least a year or more.) Between insurance and us we paid probably close to a couple of million to get him help with his drugs and behavior problems before he graduated..(Thank God my ex had great insurance at the time). However we did what we could and did not turn a blind eye to the problems he was having at school and home.
          Yet it seems that with all the help that Trayvon’s parents could have sought, they chose to ignore the problem until it was too late).
          Now I truly feel these two people are living off the fat of what they did to their son, while they cremate an innocent man. An innocent man who has a family that is also now suffering due to the selfishness of Trayvon’s parents, along with Jackson and Sharpton’s need to create another avenue to gain fame and money.

          • jello333 says:

            And don’t forget, Sybrina isn’t even the primary mother. Even though she’s the birth mom, from what we know it looks like she was directly involved on a daily basis with Trayvon for only the first few years of his life. After that, up till a few months before he died, Alicia seems to be the primary mother figure. And yet where is SHE in all this? I guess the Scheme Team decided she wouldn’t be as good in front of the cameras as Sybrina and Tracy. Or maybe it’s just they worried that she wouldn’t be as willing to LIE as the rest of them are.

        • jello333 says:

          When the trashcan tour began, the vast majority of people who attended those (mostly church) meetings looked to be old and poor. Probably nearly all of them living on Social Security. And they knew very, very little about the real facts of this case, so they had no reason to believe people like Crump, Tracy, and Sybrina would come in and lie to them.

          So the Scheme Teamers actually went in front of these people — these old, poor, maybe gullible people — and asked them to hand over part of their monthly, probably very small, Social Security check. God… it makes me wanna scream. Tracy, Sybrina, Crump, Sharpton… the whole lot of you are SLIME!

    • libby says:

      “For the record, I am a Trayvon supporter”
      Most of us knew this, already. (Surprise, NOT!)
      Most of the trayvonites remind me of rabid NBA fans who riot after their team wins or loses.
      I find the efforts on the part of trayvonites to support justice are largely on the side of openly declared vigilantism and race riots (which would be real bad if done by whites, but is commendable if racist blacks do it).

  27. BigMamaTEA says:

    I think we Treepers have been insulted!

     [sik-uh-fuhnt, -fant, sahy-kuh-]
    a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.

    Related forms
    syc·o·phan·tic, syc·o·phan·ti·cal, syc·o·phant·ish, adjective
    syc·o·phan·ti·cal·ly, syc·o·phant·ish·ly, adverb
    syc·o·phant·ism, noun

    toady, yes man, flunky, fawner, flatterer.

  28. Pingback: FBI to Zimmerman Defense: No Access to our Files Dispite Judge's Order - Page 13 (politics)

  29. Pingback: Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman won't get a fair trial with this terrible prosecutor. - Page 14 (politics)

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s