Starting with a couple of recent videos that some might have missed.  Here is O’Mara after the jury selection:

Here’s another video of Robert Zimmerman Jr. debating on Headline News.  It’s noteworthy that O’Mara is comfy beginning opening statements on Monday.  This, despite the previously and quietly denied motion for a continuance.   In his own words, here is what is left undone.

[scribd id=148052762 key=key-2och0tk5ue3801fr6n61 mode=scroll]

About the all female Jury. A few points: 1.) It is going to be much harder, not impossible – but harder, for Benjamin Crump and Natalie Jackson to attack the jury of women. 2.) It also affords a particular sentiment of protection, or buffer, from the BGI hate.

The general public will not look kindly upon a crowd of young black male supporters filled with bloodlust  [“suspicious/scary”] wanting to kill or capture a group of women on behalf of the “Justice for Trayvon” crowd.   3.) Sure they are mostly moms with maternal protective instincts – but that cuts both ways to Trayvon and toward George; Both are sons of Moms, the latter perhaps more reflective of who is usually sitting around their Christmas Tree.

About the Media.   A few people have noted another subtle shift in the media narrative.  This is, as you well know, an ongoing battle.    I think of this as “juniors war“.  Robert Zimmerman Jr’s war.   The media is trying to decide which narrative will best afford them the optic of picking a winner;  Unfortunately that’s what drives their revenue streams.  It is – what it is.

Some of you have also noted the article about the New York Times doing a little walk back two-step while rehabilitating their image.   Some others noted the Washington Times outlining the BGI narrative through the book of Robert Zimmerman Sr.:  “stirring up some major controversy“, oh there’s a laughable sub-line — as if discussion of race in the prosecution of George Zimmerman is some new or novel 3rd rail issue.

You can literally watch the media dance around discussing the racism put upon the case by the New Black Panthers, and the Scheme Team, while playing musical chair narrative waiting for the music to stop so the media knows which chair to take.

It’s laughable, so don’t put too much stock in any of it.  The bias is constitutional for them, it’s in their DNA and they won’t stop because they can’t…they just don’t want to be laughed at.

That fear of laughter is why the Scheme Team overplayed the J Willie Civil Rights Angle.   The defense of Jerry became so absurd you can almost see the BGI leaders saying to the Sanford folks: “hey, knock it off, that guy is going to make all y’all look stupid, and out the agenda.”

They quickly dropped that narrative.  Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along…but not before the National Legacy Media got a taste of how stupid the Seminole County NAACP-er’s like Natalie Jackson really are.

….. A quick glance back to the recent Robert Z Sr’s book and the Jerry nonsense just proved his entire construct.   Priceless.

On to the M-DSPD – Yesterday I put forth a semi-related analogy to help people understand exactly how all encompassing this fight is.   This is not easy.  Dealing with liars never is.

The issue is not whether the information exists, that battle was won in Feb of this year.   The issue is not whether the information is more extensive than they were initially willing to admit;  That battle was won in April of this year.

By “battles”, I mean proving to them that we know of the information within their vault – as they simultaneously deny its existence.

That has led to the most recent front in this war.   “REDACTION“.

They said initially the information did not exist.  We proved it did.  They said later there was nothing more specific, again we proved it did.  Now they are fighting to redact the specific information within the documents they said did not exist.

Yes, this is their argument – their actual argument.   And it led to quite a series of phone exchanges.  Summed up in one of my comments to them thusly:

Me:  “So you’re saying *NOW* [emphasis added] you need to remove information, from within documents, that you previously claimed did not exist.  Am I hearing this correctly”?

Long pause.   Then a response:

Their Attorney:  “I’ll need to call you back”

Me:  “Why…why do you need to call me back?  Can’t we just deal with this issue right now?”

Attorney:  “I need to check with staff”

Me:  “Why?”

Attorney:  “Because they have more information?”

Me:  “More information than you?”

Attorney:  “No, of course not.”

Me:  “well, you just told me a few calls ago that you were the decision maker.  In your words ‘the final decision-maker’.”

Attorney:  “I am.”

Me:  “Then who would you need to check with?  You just said, and affirmed, you are the final decision maker.”

Attorney:  “Well, I just need to decide?”

Me:  “Decide what?”

Attorney:  “Decide if I can give you un-redacted copies”?

Me:  “Un-redacted copies of specific information you claimed you did not have? ..what would there be to redact – if it doesn’t exist?”

(((CLICK)))

As Sharon said so much better than I could:

These events illustrate again that those who are accustomed to living by intrigue and deception are often self-deceived into completely underestimating the power of sunlight and the influence of those of upright heart who want what is so to be revealed. 

Hard of heart and accustomed to trickery and disguise, they diminish and despise truthful people who have courage.  They don’t seem to be able to grasp the significance of the advancing edge of sunshine steadily moving across the forest floor, across the clearings, across the treetops.  It just keeps moving.

Threat does not stop sunshine. And they do not understand that.  Partly because they have not been confronted with it often enough.

In the Mel Gibson example from yesterday I drew you an outline somewhat analogous to the challenge.  We are on fundamentally solid footing here.  There is no cause for redaction beyond the name of the party involved.  (previous M-DSPD FOIA examples noted)

Fortunately we have allies in the fight.   And we have truthfulness with us, so we don’t need to parse words.   “Provide the information, or provide a legally defensible reason for NOT providing the information“…. “And, if you take the latter course, prepare to be challenged“.

We already know there is no legally defensible reason they can use to redact the content of the FOIA request beyond the basics as previously noted.   To do so would show an intent to disguise, cover up, hide, or manipulate information.

Then you get into the questions of “who does that unlawful action benefit?”

We should have an answer very soon.

In my humble opinion, while it cannot *currently* be independently verified beyond rumor, I believe the State of Florida knows EXACTLY what this information is.  I also believe they are currently rushing to trial specifically and intentionally to insure this information does not become public until after the trial.

It’s a pretty big deal when someone writes “a danger to himself or others” on a diversion document;  Relating to the descriptive of an individual who has been shot and killed by  another person.   “The other” was defending themselves from “the danger”.   Especially if the shooter is being criminally accused around a premise of being the initiator of the aggression.

Update:   Thanks to “mooney1el” who has sent information on a very useful contact to leverage assistance in the sunlight FOIA quest.   We’ll find out more on Monday.

More later.