Co-Dependents All The Way To The Railcars…..

Not everyone will understand the coded message in the headline.  That’s ok.

Here is the media report from yesterday’s fiasco…. (HatTip Manybuddies)

Here are some random thoughts to chew on….

Anyone who believes a simultaneous (dovetailed, enveloped etc) Immunity hearing / Trial to be a good thing would have to believe that:

After weeks of testimony on Television, and after weeks of pundits talking about a dead child, and after the prosecution plays out their case, and after the defense is allowed to present limited rebuttal, and after President Obama proclaims his choice, and after the Professional BGI has spent weeks shooting out talking points 24/7 to MSNBC and media, and after the Congressional Black Caucus holds “Justice Rallys”, and after Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson and Daryl Parks fill the airwaves, and after the facial expressions of the jurors are discussed each day for hours, and during the middle of summer when school is not in session, and after throngs of hoodie wearing, banner clad -Skittle Carrying- marchers walk circles in front of the courthouse,…….  after all of that, Judge Debra S. Nelson is going to say:

….forget letting it go to the jury, he’s immune.

Seriously.

I.Mean.Seriously.?

Oh, the defense is not allowed to know the identity of Witness #8, or the actual address, age, etc. prior to deposition…. but she’s somehow going to find abundant courage to dismiss the case against GZ before a jury is allowed to render a verdict; having heard all the testimony, been sequestered, and…. well…. nevermind, you get the picture.

Ms. Nettles is not wrong in her analysis.   Nor are any of you.   All of y’all are brilliant and many of you have followed this far more closely than I.    We just disconnect on the key and central issue of this case:   it is not legal, it’s political.

A considerable chasm.   (ie. A profound difference between people)

Please understand, I have outlined previously my personal, and it is personal (albeit painstakingly researched), opinion of Mark O’Mara.   Even to the extent that I previously outlined twenty specific examples of why he is the wrong guy for the job.  Not only wrong, but insufferably, staggeringly wrong.  However, I accept that George Zimmerman and his entire family apparently have infinite faith in Mr. O’Mara.   So I digress…

….for more reasons than just unit cohesion.

I know this case is followed by many people.   (Heck, it would blow your mind if you knew the names of the people, famous people, who are seriously *in tune* with every nuance of this case, but will not speak/write about it due to the potential for incredible backlash)  I also know there is a very real and potential risk of financial retreat from supporters to Mr. Zimmerman if the defense issues are outlined with too much specificity.

(No-one wants to believe the outcome toward June is predetermined [read between the lines here]  So consequently much is not written)

Conversely, Mr. Don West is a man of courage and principle.   He has put his career on hold, heck, he quit his paying job, to join the defense of George Zimmerman as a matter of deeply held principle and belief.  He also does not book media time, nor have assembled media “sets” for public media appearances.  Nor is he planning/coordinating the media event summary for a publicity trial, collecting the contact internals and desk specifics for folks like the Miami Herald etc.   George Zimmerman is fortunate to have Don West on his side.

The second point of divergence between case reviewers and myself is probably best described as what George Zimmerman *is*.

The same people who believe this is a legal case also believe George Zimmerman is a man, an accused person, who is engaged in the judicial process.

He’s not.

George Zimmerman is a product.

In the political landscape, George is merely a product to be used for benefit, gain, influence and personal advancement.

The same product process that found the name Trayvon Martin being Trademarked all the way to the Rose Garden.

Those who simultaneously believe this is a legal case, and George Zimmerman is a person, are bound to interpret any activity in a fundamentally divergent light.   Hence, the apparent disconnect.

(link)…. and if you click it, read the whole thing please.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in BGI - Black Grievance Industry, Decepticons, Dem Hypocrisy, Election 2012, George Zimmerman Open Thread, Mark O'Mara, media bias, Obama re-election, Obama Research/Discovery, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Predictions, Racism, Ryan Julison, Trayvon Martin, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to Co-Dependents All The Way To The Railcars…..

  1. diwataman says:

    I don’t even understand what this whole “enveloping” thing is yet to even comment on if it’s good or bad. There seems to be confusion about exactly what it means. So I’ll ask again here. Is it a separate hearing during the trial or is it part of the trial itself? I have to understand that in order to understand what happens when she denies it. If it’s a separate hearing during the trial can O’Mara appeal it while the trial is going on? If it is part of the trial and she denies it and George gets convicted can O’Mara appeal on the SYG aspect and if that fails appeal on some other aspect?

    Regardless, I think everything else I clearly agree with, I’ve always made myself clear in that regard so pretty much preaching to the quire to me anyway 😉

    Like

    • myopiafree says:

      HI D-Man – I don’t understand either. Hold the immunity hearing – and let the chips fall where they may.

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      “So I’ll ask again here. Is it a separate hearing during the trial or is it part of the trial itself?”

      A combined immunity hearing / trial would involve the presentation of evidence and testimony of witnesses before a jury, just like a normal jury trial. A jury would have to be selected and seated, just like a normal jury trial.

      Sometime after the close of evidence, I think there would need to be a separate hearing, without the jury, in which the attorneys argues the evidence and law with respect to the immunity determination to the judge.

      I don’t think this is a big deal, because the defense in every jury case files a 3.380 motion for judgment of acquittal after the close of evidence, which is determined by the judge. So having a judge also determine immunity after the close of the evidence in a jury trial is not a radical shocking departure.

      However, at the moment, I think that combining the immunity hearing and trial is probably safely done only at Nelson’s discretion, and likely can not be forced by the defense because the Petersen and Denis cases discuss that a defendant properly seeks immunity by a pretrial 3.190(b) motion. 776.032 (1) states:

      A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

      The argument against allowing the defense to combine immunity with trial is that 776.032 was created for the purpose of granting immunity from criminal prosecution. If the immunity determination is done at trial, criminal prosecution, as defined by 776.032, has already occurred. The defendant has been arrested, detained in custody (in Z’s case in jail and also via GPS monitored release on bond), charged and prosecuted.

      However, if all the issues against Z are not resolved at trial (hung jury), such that Z is subject to further prosecution, then I think a post trial immunity motion filed to seek immunity from further prosecution would be on more solid legal ground. This procedure was followed in a prior case.

      http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/files/34726-32374/JarkasOrder1.pdf

      Like

  2. LittleLaughter says:

    Holder is as currupt as they come. He was hand picked and continues to use his office and position to further the agendas of those who hand picked him. With reagrd to the George Zimmerman case, one only need to look at how his own hypocracy worked to benefit his and his handlers in the past. He took over the April 1 2009 legal process, one that already found then Sen Ted Stevens guilty of corruption, and had it dismissed. He claimed prosecutorial misconduct. Yet in the case of GZ, he not only turns the other way while their is clear evidence of the same, he sends his people to investigate GZ for allegations of racism. He wanted this to be a hate crime. This is and always has been political, and those with agendas continue to use it for thier own benefit. My only hope is that the evidence supporting self defense is so strong, and the bright sunlight is shown so fiercly on the misconduct, that someone with the authority to do so will simply and quietly call a hault to the prosecution. However, knowing that their are none within the current political powers that be-that are not currupt and that are also shielded completely from such corruption- that none will bother.

    Like

    • libby says:

      Holder called all white folks out in 2009 saying we were cowards with regard to racism (it seems he may have been correct, white folks are mostly cowards with respect to BLACK RACISM).
      White people have been trained to ignore, overlook, encourage, and to justify black racism. We have not been given the courage to address black racism nor do we encourage each other to address black racism where we see it.
      While some try to pretend white racism is mythical and invisible, black raicsm is thinly veiled, largely something to be proud of and not something they are willing to discuss in a civil manner.
      Simply, put, black racism is the good kind of hate that you are neither allowed to criticize or to dislike. Disliking black racism is akin to being a racist yourself.
      Speaking up and telling anyone you dont like black racism is akin to declaring membership in the KKK.
      Find the courage to speak up agaisnt black racism or expect to see that form of hate blossom more than it already has under this cowardly attorney general.
      Eric Holder is a coward too scared to address black racism (or he is just a black racist who is in favor of black hate for whites).
      Other than that, he prolly loves his wife and is a jolly little racist

      Like

      • Unicron says:

        Very well put, I couldn’t agree more.

        Like

      • art tart says:

        Libby I agree. Holder imo is a spineless POS, he had the ability to do something about the “New Black Panther’s” that put a bounty on GZ’s head, forcing the family/GZ/SZ to have to have costly security & live in fear, but he CHOSE to do nothing.

        Ineffective, political a hole doing the bidding for Obama on Libya/Fast and Furious, I had hoped he would have been replaced, apparently his work is not done.

        Like

      • scubachick75 says:

        Right on! You can’t even fire or lay off a black person anymore without being sued for discrimination…let alone promote a white person if a black was also in the running for the same promotion. You can’t say anything negative about Obama or your racist. Where does it end?

        Like

    • hooson1st says:

      The prosecutorial misconduct in the Stevens case, may be mirrored in this case.

      Like

  3. Chip Bennett says:

    I get the disconnect.

    My approach to this case has been two-fold:

    1) Focus on the statutory and evidentiary aspects, and avoid speculation
    2) Recognize that the entire prosecution is as political as it is malicious

    I can do absolutely nothing about the latter, and can only observe as it unfolds. That’s why my discussion generally involves the former.

    Like

    • rumpole2 says:

      I go along with that.

      I’m not quite as “focused” as you… but am more involved with 1)

      As for 2)…. I read with great interest, but see nothing I can do about it.
      Y’all voted for 4 more years against my advice.

      Like

      • stellap says:

        I did not!

        Like

      • Sharon says:

        rumpole2, I’m seriously suggesting yer gonna get clobbered up the side of your New Zealand head if you ever say again, “Y’all voted for 4 more years….”

        Take it back, sir.

        Like

        • rumpole2 says:

          Not YOU “y’all”
          But y’all Americans (majority) did…. and I told y’all not to 😦

          Like

          • Sharon says:

            WE were screaming at the top of our longs at the “y’alls” you mention. How do you think we feel? It’s a wonder that assault and battery planned an implemented by normal Americans hasn’t increased by the same #s as the national debt and deficit combined.

            I knew that’s what you meant, of course, but I am SO SICK of the responsibility for this mess being generalized onto those who have been fighting it–some for decades. “Well, we voted him in….” when someone says that nearly always turns about they are part of the “Y’all obama Party” (the YOPs) and they still can’t quite manage to take personal responsibility for what they have done.

            Like

            • rumpole2 says:

              Y’all know what they all say…..

              A country gets the Government they all deserve.

              I KNOW the people who post here don’t deserve Obama and fought against it…. but sadly the battle, though hard fought, was lost.

              Like

          • michellc says:

            I didn’t vote for him and neither did my state, not even one darn county went for that POS, the first or second time.
            Those who did in this state, when I know they did, I have nothing to do with them, refuse to conduct any kind of business with them or even speak to them.
            I’ve been threatened to be sued about a half dozen times since the election for refusing to sell livestock to the idiots. I just laugh at them and tell them to get in line with their buddies and maybe eventually they can get the ACLU to take up their case.

            Like

          • Sha says:

            rumpole2 👿 just kiddin…..

            Like

    • jello333 says:

      That’s about it. Just because I’m optimistic about the eventual outcome, doesn’t mean I’m naive as to the political manipulations going on. My God… I don’t know that there’s anyone here who complains more about that than I do. Over the past few DECADES I’ve seen what our “system” is like, so I’m under no illusions. And yes, of course it’s political. But as you say, there’s nothing we can do about that. It is what it is. Sundance is right. But then what? We can say, Well then it’s a foregone conclusion where this is headed, and there’s nothing we can do to stop it. But if we do that, what’s the point? What are we doing here? Sorry, I just don’t believe that. DESPITE the politics involved in this case, there’s still laws, rules, facts, precedent, the Constitution that will all have to be thrown in the trash heap in order for politics to triumph over justice. If I was to assume that that’s what’s gonna happen, then I’d just throw up my hands. But I won’t… NOPE.

      Like

      • Sha says:

        jello: I think the ” SYSTEM ” is trying to brake George….. I say the hell with the system fight even harder !!!! If I where him and I know I’m not but if I where they wouldn’t take me down with out one hell of a fight . When a man is already down there is no where to go but up ! I have said it before and I will say it again it’s time for Omara and West to get down and dirty…….. There is no place for gentlemen in a street fight ! I think alot of people need to pay close attention to this case…. for the simple FACT that these are people who where voted in to office. The next time I cast a vote and everyone I know I will make dang sure I know who I am voting for not just who they wont me to see. Oh! bye the way…. I didn’t vote for any of the crupt things playing a part in this scheme .

        Like

      • selfdefenseadvocate says:

        I feel the same way, Jello. Altho I think the original political plan backfired when Y’all 😆 voted Obama in for a 2nd term. I suspect that Pam Bondi was salivating at seeing herself in a high up Washington appointment under Romney when she got her buddy and Corey involved who was hoping to ride her coat-tails all the way to Washington. I sure hope West is planning to run for office in next Florida election 😉

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          Hey now! I’m not one of the “y’all” either! 😉 Even though I’m far to the left of most people here, we’re in agreement about what a slime Obama is. I have probably 100 other online friends outside of the Treehouse, and nearly all of them are way to the left like me. And only a small handful of them voted for Obama last year. Most of the rest either sat out the election or voted 3rd party. We all, almost to a person, hate Barack Obama. (And as I’ve mentioned before, I felt the same way about GWB.) So no, from my experience, it’s not really the “left” who put that man back in office. Rather it’s your average Democrat, who are basically centrists or SLIGHTLY left-leaning, and some “independents”. Actually, it’s probably more accurate not to label them at all as for as the political spectrum goes. It’s probably more accurate to just call them ignorant and lazy as far as issues are concerned. I think this last election (and probably the ’08 one too) was more about “personality” than it was “politics”.

          So yeah… don’t blame ME! 😉

          Like

    • sundance says:

      Chip, if you get the disconnect then you will also get the structural flaw.

      Mark O’Mara is a politician.
      Don West is a legal representative.

      Who’s lead?

      Hence the draaaaaaaaaaaawn out issues. The emphasis is on the wrong syllable.

      Like

      • libby says:

        George seems to need both a politician on his side as well as a good lawyer!
        .
        Mom can do the politicking when the judge allows the politics to enter the courtroom and West can do the lawyering when that is needed.

        Like

  4. myopiafree says:

    I think Omara makes no sense at all. Do your best in the immunity hearing. If success – that is the end of it. If not, then on to the trial. But would happen if, in the trial, he was found “immune”,and the trial found him guilty?? Or vice-versa? What Omara is proposing – does not even make logical sense. Can Omara explain it – in better detail?

    Like

    • Ugh says:

      They defence needs more time, judge ruled no, what is MOM to do?

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        I think that’s what he’s doing here. He really had no intention of doing the “enveloped” hearing in with the trial. He’s setting up another demand for more time, based on the discovery games of the prosecution. We’ll know a lot more after next Friday’s hearing. Mark my words: MOM and West will NOT move forward until they have deposed Crump and have all the other Dee Dee (and discovery in general) issues resolved.

        Like

    • waltherppk says:

      It is STUPID to “fold in” the IMMUNITY HEARING into the trial which would only further subvert and circumvent the entire intent and purpose of the IMMUNITY statute which was to even prevent an ARREST, much less an indictment and later trial. The immunity statute has ALREADY been ignored and trampled and to further indulge the abuse of process and TRIVIALIZE the intent of the IMMUNITY statute by suggesting that the immunity “aspect” be incorporated into a trial is giving tacit approval to the abuses of due process which have already brought an ARREST, INDICTMENT, and further prosecution of a case to a TRIAL ….absent the prerequisite of a Grand Jury for a subverting of process at the beginning …..which produced an ARREST and everything subsequent in the way of continuing subversion of DUE PROCESS which should have never happened. There should have been objection after objection that the legislative intent of the Immunity Statute has already been circumvented by BAD FAITH of the State which has been underscored by all the Discovery Violations. O’Mara should not be trying to “streamline process” for this Orange Blossom Special railroading …….but should be doing everything he can to dynamite the tracks in front of that railroad, using the Federal Courts and if expedient filing preemptive complaints there and asking a stay of proceedings by the Federal Court if necessary until the State is deemed to have crossed the line in its constitutional violations of the Due Process rights of George
      Zimmerman.

      Like

    • stevie g says:

      it would only get to the jury if he were found to have no immunity.

      MOM wants to put the show on once. He does not want to show his hand twice to the state. He is a great, competent attorney, and is doing much more than any “high-profiled” name attorney. He is smart enough to know that this case will make him one of the high profile gang.

      Like

      • waltherppk says:

        Until discovery is completed, particularly all the forensics evidence about the phones is disclosed and examined by an expert for the defense, there should not even be an immunity hearing so there are no surprises. The immunity hearing is an evidentiary hearing where the rules pertaining to what is relevant evidence are more restrictive than what is allowed at a full blown murder trial, so that the immunity hearing is less subject to being made into a circus and theater drama. The Immunity hearing will focus on forensic evidence and undisputed facts …..not arguments and theories, and the nature of what is material is much more narrow in scope. The presentation is more limited than what will be the broad range of matters allowed to be argued at trial. So these proceedings that are sort of apples and oranges do not really lend themselves to being mixed together combined in one proceeding. Essentially the immunity hearing could already introduce more than reasonable doubt based upon the evidence with regards to a murder charge, because the evidence could show it is more likely than not (based simply on the evidence) that the claim of self defense is more probably true than not. That being found would basically impeach the probable cause affidavit and end the prosecution by nullification of the premise for the indictment. But at that point you have jury sitting there at a trial already underway which should not be occurring, where the cart has been put before the horse. And a jury can make any screwball decision it pleases, about a matter that should not be in front of it in the first place.

        Like

  5. mooney1el says:

    If George were to get a new, high profile lawyer, would the immunity hearing and probable trial be continued until the new lawyer was “up to speed”?

    Like

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi Mooney – At this late stage – it is too late for that. What bother me most (early-on) was when Omara stated that “…George THINKS he is innocent”. That is a red-flag for a “plea deal”. At that point – George should have found a lawyer who stated, “…my client is INNOCENT – and we will PROVE IT”. I think Omara now realizes that George is innocent, but is now in a bad position to do anything about it. This is indeed, “Alice in Wonderland” – a political trial, were ordinary reason and logic – DO NOT WORK!!

      Like

  6. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    I have said from day 1 that GeorgeZimmerman is just the scapegoat in a political fiasco that is much bigger what should have been a local and legal issue. Perhaps I am naive, but I don’t see where Mark O’Mara is not doing his best for GZ. It seems that Sundance (sorry to mention you in 3rd person SD) knows something about O’Mara that the rest of us do not know. Please tell us, Sundance! I no longer belong to a political party- I’m registerd NPA, so I have no political? dog in the fight. I have a hunch that O’Mara is a Democrat (possibly wrong?) and I do not know enough about Don West to have an opinion. The fly in the political ointment was revealed when GZ was proven not to be white but to be Hispanic and a “black hispanic” at that. (Sorry for all the cliches but I try to use language that everyone can understand). That was about the time O’Mara came on the scene. Something BIG is definitely going on behind the scene for West and O”Mara to both put careers on hold with no pay (at the moment) to represent GZ. Folks need to be familiar with the “movement” that has been slowly building in this country since long before Civil Rights laws were implemented. People did not pay close enough attention to the “teachings” of OBama’s pastor and MENTOR, Jeremiah Wright…

    Like

  7. gannasview says:

    I thoroughly believe this is political. I have said before that if the race baiters and the politically perverted had never gotten involved, we would have never heard of this case.

    I will never believe that this Judge has the backbone or the integrity to view the evidence and rule accordingly. She is just another player in the political cesspool. As for MOM…he needs to grow a set, remove his pinky ring, roll his sleeves up and fight for his client! This is not just any ordinary case. If MOM loses this case, it WILL only further the cause of victimhood for the black communities.

    Like

  8. 22tula says:

    The final nail: If I had a hammer/If I had a son

    Like

  9. michellc says:

    I had a similar discussion with someone yesterday. They were talking in terms of the innocents shot in LA and what if it had been a concealed carry they fired on and they fired back. I told them one of two things, either they would have been killed or they would have been arrested and charged with shooting/killing a LEO. They tried to argue with me, you have a right to defend yourself even against cops and they would get a team of lawyers and I said a team of lawyers cost a lot of money and the state run media would turn you into a cop killer, just look at George Zimmerman. They said there is no way that is going to continue.
    I told them you’re obviously not paying attention, GZ was sort of one of them, he supported Obama, yet the state run media and the progs needed a poster boy for the whites who wrong the blacks, it didn’t matter that he wasn’t white. Then the progs masquerading as conservative republicans joined in and charged him when there wasn’t the evidence to charge him. Not because any of them gave a crap about Trayvon Martin, they had what they needed and wanted.
    So a concealed carry especially a white concealed carry or at least didn’t look like Obama’s son would have been turned into the criminal. That person would have become the new poster boy for their political agenda.
    As soon as people figure out we don’t live in a world of laws or justice anymore the better off they will be. We live in a political world where everything is about an agenda, an agenda that turns everyone against one another, where white people are the true enemy, guns are the enemy, military needs to be weakened, economy needs to be weakened, etc. All of this is needed for control and the total destruction of this country. They’re close and they can smell blood in the water and we’re all just tokens in their game. Obama they believe was the last piece of the puzzle.
    They said you sound like we might as well all line up and march off to the camps. I told them no not yet, but a lot more better wake up and realize what is happening and thankfully the gun issue has stirred many but I don’t think they’ve fully awakened yet. So there is still hope, but not a lot of time, they have 4 years and the perfect man at the top, they will do their best to finally reach their goals before there is another presidential election.

    Like

  10. waltherppk says:

    This case is plainly political and that was evident when the use of a grand jury was circumvented and an “information” based upon an unsubstantiated probable cause affidavit was filed to expedite an arrest, with that arrest itself then circumventing the intent of the IMMUNITY provision of the statute applying to a claimed self defense or claimed justifiable use of deadly force which resulted in a homicide. The intent of the IMMUNITY statute was already largely circumvented and the effect of the IMMUNITY statute NULLIFIED by the failure to use a Grand Jury in a type of case where the accused was clearly entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the review process and investigative capability of a Grand Jury in consideration of the Due Process right of the accused, consistent with the constitutional and civil rights of the accused as both a citizen of Florida and a citizen of the United States and consistent with the laws of both. The law and the spirit and intent of the law simply was NOT followed here and Due Process has already been DENIED to the accused by the way the ARREST and EVERYTHING subsequent to that arrest has been followed. George Zimmerman has been a “political prisoner” from the moment that an arrest was made based upon the subversion of law AND law protected Due Process which made a detour around the Grand Jury and DENIED that review and investigation AND discovery which that DUE PROCESS would have produced as a PREREQUISITE for ARREST that would have necessarily SATISFIED also the Statutory Purpose of the IMMUNITY provision of the self defense law. It is ludicrous to propose that the clear legislative intent of the IMMUNITY from arrest and liability which rightly ought to be enjoyed by an accused involved in a self defense case could ever be a matter left to the sole discretion of two bureaucrats who are agents of the state, a prosecutor and a circuit judge, by FAILING to FIRST put the case before a GRAND JURY.
    Failing to use a GRAND JURY makes a mockery of the IMMUNITY STATUTE and makes a mockery of DUE PROCESS and is a TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE on full public display, which has been further punctuated and CONFIRMED is a calculated and deliberate SUBVERSION of law and due process by the many equally calculated and deliberate VIOLATIONS of DISCOVERY, which have been documented and are yet another violation of DUE PROCESS because of the delay of process and hindering of defense preparation for reason of the adverse bearing upon setting of reasonable bond, and delaying completion of defense preparation efficiently for accomplishing a speedy trial, as well as causing excessive legal expenses for the accused for reason of the many actions needed to compel discovery disclosure from a State that is simply not playing by the Rules of Criminal Procedure …..and ALL of these things testify that the case is NOT any conventional criminal case at all ……but is indeed a “political case” being conducted as theater for the entertainment of a public audience ….a subverted process done for “show” that is leading to what will also be a “show trial”.

    Forensic Discovery should have been largely completed very early as part of the police investigation done PRIOR to any ARREST and certainly prior to a CRIMINAL INDICTMENT.
    For there to be a bizarre dozen part discovery disclosure of “supplemental disclosure” including material not disclosed from six months earlier is BAD FAITH being shown by the State ignoring its own laws and trampling the Due Process rights of the accused. So yes there is plenty of evidence to show that this case is NOT just a routine prosecution of any ordinary criminal case, but indeed has been from the very start a “special” POLITICAL PROSECUTION, and everything about the case declares that FACT. This case has been a three ring circus.

    Like

    • boutis says:

      George Zimmerman is a political prisoner being subjected to a political prosecution and should be referred to as such. Every time he is referenced he should be called political prisoner George Zimmerman, or George Zimmerman, American political prisoner, will be tried etc.

      Like

      • waltherppk says:

        Absolutely evident that George Zimmerman is a political prisoner, and this political prosecution is a huge billboard for exactly why there needs to be a nation wide REVIVAL of that all important Fourth Branch of Government which too many people have forgotten even exists ….The Grand Jury. Nothing scares the hell out of corrupt politicians and other “crime cartel gangsters” like a good old Grand Jury that can INVESTIGATE and INDICT what are bona fide criminals needing to be put away and dotting every i and crossing every t in getting the ball rolling for that to occur. There is nothing better for getting rid of VERMIN than a good old GRAND JURY directing the attention of courts to prosecute those who need to be prosecuted, and at the same time unburdening the system of those cases too flimsy which should NOT be made a burden of wasted time and resources of the justice system. A Grand Jury is like a good old bird dog for sniffing out what the hunters should focus their attention. 12 person petit juries for all felony trails are a good thing too, and too many corners have been cut by legislators and courts who plainly don’t know what they are doing is not real justice and is not helpful. The People need to insist that things be put right again. Reel in these “progressive” bureaucrats that have gone off the reservation. Grand Juries need to be back in business all over the country and the sooner the better.

        Like

        • boutis says:

          Absolutely agree. Prosecutors should not have a choice of not using them. My late father was on a grand jury in the 1960’s. All were men and they sort of kind of knew each other. Then they realized they were all Baptist deacons. They thought it was funny and it was the only comment he had about serving.

          Like

          • Sharon says:

            I believe the nation would be far better off today if all the Grand Juries were made up of Baptist deacons! 😉 (and yea–before anybody starts bopping the particular “lying Baptist” they knew–we know there are imperfect scalawags everywhere!….) But you just gotta love a Grand Jury of Baptist Deacons. That’s solid stuff, that is!

            Like

        • Sha says:

          waltherppk : I agree there should be alot of VERMIN investigated by a grand jury….

          Like

    • cassandra says:

      Agreed.

      And I think O’Mara agrees and has so much publicly in court and interviews. I do not share SD distrust of O’Mara, he and West appear to be a team. O’Mara/West have an impossible task, defending a criminal charge in a case where racial politics (not partisan) trumps all.

      The facts are there for a major journalist to expose the motivations and obstruction of
      the BGI, if only someone would have the courage to shake it up

      Like

      • cassandra says:

        edit should be “has said so much”

        Like

      • jello333 says:

        Yeah, it seems to me if we don’t trust MOM then we shouldn’t trust West either. After all, he’s still on the team. Surely if West is as solid as we believe he is, then if MOM was doing something that will be harmful to George, Don would QUIT or do something equally dramatic. He would NOT just stand by and watch his own partner aid in the railroading.

        Like

      • sundance says:

        “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

        Like

    • recoverydotgod says:

      I agree completely.

      I think the Feb. 22nd hearing on the motion to depose Ben Crump is important. Don West seems to be handling that part [i.e. he wrote the motion]. This seems like the chance to get on record how the discovery process has worked given there was no Grand Jury.

      http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/motion_deposition_crump.pdf

      [The full paragraph on page 4 couldn’t be written any better…and only by someone who holds principles they are able to communicate in a straightforward manner]

      But who will be listening? Which media will want to write up that story?

      Phone call reveals final moments of slain Florida teen: lawyer
      By Barbara Liston
      ORLANDO, Florida | Tue Mar 20, 2012

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE82I17520120321

      (Reuters) – The case of an unarmed black teenager shot dead by a white neighborhood watch captain who police have failed to arrest will go before a grand jury, Florida prosecutors said on Tuesday.

      State prosecutor Norm Wolfinger made the announcement as the victim’s family lawyer said 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was on his cellphone with a girlfriend, giving her a chilling, minute-by-minute account of what was happening in the moments before he died.

      -snip-

      The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the FBI said on Monday that they had opened an investigation into the shooting.

      -snip-

      Crump said the investigation of Martin’s killing is unfolding in typical fashion for a case involving a black victim in America, with police and prosecutors prolonging an investigation before passing the buck to a grand jury.

      -snip-

      Like

      • waltherppk says:

        There was a committee that studied the SYG and Immunity statute in the review of what may be wrong or need to be changed about the law and the review committee finding was that the law was fine like it was but that a Grand Jury should be used to assure the intent of Immunity from unnecessary and unjustified arrest and prosecution would be accomplished. It seems to me like this is OBVIOUS and is a no brainer and even though it was not explicitly specified in the statutes that a Grand Jury is required to provide such assurance ……the Zimmerman case is a perfect example that as a practical matter the Grand Jury is indeed a given as a necessity to assure the intent of the Immunity Statute is realized in actual practice, rather than the Immunity Statute being circumvented by a politically motivated prosecutor “cooked and filed” information.

        Like

        • recoverydotgod says:

          They need to study media reporting of the Grand Jury in this case, and release that report. They need to study elected officials response and reaction to the Grand Jury being announced…but then they would be studying themselves…assuming it is a legislative committee.

          So did the review end in a recommendation to use the Grand Jury process? Is there a link somewhere? I would be curious…which elected officials saw the review and recommendations.

          Like

          • waltherppk says:

            Yeah there was a report that came out months ago, but I don’t have the link. I’m sure that Gov. Scott and the Florida legislature received the findings and recommendation of that review committee, and I know the use of a Grand Jury being made mandatory by the statute was the principal recommendation.

            Like

            • recoverydotgod says:

              If I was an enterprising reporter, I would find that review and try to ask Gov. Scott, Pam Bondi, as many legislators as I could find that had seen the review about that review and the recommendation regarding the Grand Jury the day of the hearing on the motion to depose Ben Crump. I’d try to ask Blackwell and West [preferably] or O’Mara about it after the hearing on Feb 22nd.

              I’d also ask if they were aware of any of Ben Crump’s statements to media specifically about the grand jury on March 20 & Mar 21 2012 and would ask Blackwell about that in light of what I understood to be his remarks in court on Feb. 5th, 2013 about “private attorney general” essentially applying to Crump in the case of his W8 interview.

              Like

              • waltherppk says:

                Yes at some point it would be good for O’Mara to introduce into evidence that report by the Florida SYG review committee identifying the need for a Grand Jury to investigate claimed self defense cases and to approve by true bill any indictments with due consideration of the legislative intent of the Immunity Statute, understanding that a Grand Jury does not concern itself with how its careful decisions may please or displease voters and so may ignore such political influences as could affect an impartial review of the facts and evidence, prior to any charging of a person with a crime who has claimed self defense as an affirmative defense for use of force. The same consideration of impartial review by a Grand Jury should apply to any ordinary citizen claiming self defense for use of force as would be given to any law enforcement officer involved use of force claiming similar justification. Discovery Violations documented for this case illustrate the same BAD FAITH by the State as is likewise illustrated by State’s failure to use a Grand Jury, showing clear evidence that politics more than facts and law have been the motivation for the prosecution of George Zimmerman. O’Mara should not merely “infer” by abstract language that BAD FAITH has been shown by the State, not only in the arrest and indictment, but also in Discovery, but should say so in plain language, call BAD FAITH what it is on the record. The “blank videos” which were recently received as “discovery” are another fine example of such BAD FAITH by the
                state. A federal court would not have a lot of patience with this sort of garbage.

                Like

                • recoverydotgod says:

                  “O’Mara should not merely “infer” by abstract language that BAD FAITH has been shown by the State, not only in the arrest and indictment, but also in Discovery, but should say so in plain language, call BAD FAITH what it is on the record.”

                  Yes. I completely agree.

                  I don’t see O’Mara able to say what needs to be said.

                  I do think Don West is able to say what needs to be said.

                  Next Friday’s hearing where Don West would likely be presenting the argument [since he wrote the motion to depose Ben Crump] is important.

                  Like

  11. John Galt says:

    “Judge Debra S. Nelson is going to say:
    ….forget letting it go to the jury, he’s immune.
    Seriously.
    I.Mean.Seriously.?”

    I don’t think that Nelson is going to grant immunity at any time.

    “The second point of divergence between case reviewers and myself is probably best described as what George Zimmerman *is*.

    The same people who believe this is a legal case also believe George Zimmerman is a man, an accused person, who is engaged in the judicial process.”

    Assuming the whole thing is a political railroad (and yes, I confess to difficulty operating from that perspective because I am ingrained by virtue of education and experience to conducting legal proceedings according to the rule of law), then it seems to me that Z’s hopes of salvation lie (1) sunlight at a televised trial or hearing (2) a jury (which may well be hung) and, ultimately (3) appellate court, the last stop on the railroad before the ovens. In order to prevail on appeal, it seems to me that team Z must pretend that the railroad is actually a legitimate legal process (albeit ridden with “errors”), because that is the basis from which the appellate court will conduct the review. Keep in mind that the appellate court will not trample Nelson, although they may very well politely reverse her “errors”. Note that they said nothing derogatory about Lester in their order booting Lester off the case. In fact, they didn’t even boot Lester off the case, they allowed Lester to disqualify himself.

    Starting from that perspective, I am not sure I understand specific reasons why combining an immunity hearing with trial would be disastrous, or even substantially different from proceeding with a separate two week immunity hearing beginning April 22.

    Separate Immunity Hearing

    Televised, Nelson denies immunity, issues written order mid to late May or even early June. There is massive publicity about Nelson denying immunity. Scheme Team announces that Nelson has blown Z’s absurd self-defense claim out of the water. The timing has team Z scrambling to prepare for the immunity hearing, spending two weeks conducting the immunity hearing, perhaps spending a week drafting a post-hearing brief. Then, defense is jammed up against the June 10 trial date. Then, a week or two before trial, Nelson issues her written order denying immunity. Defense immediately moves for an order staying trial pending appeal. I think that would initially be decided by Nelson per FRAP 9.310(a) with possible review on appeal after Nelson denies the motion for stay. So defense is then appealing denial of the stay and moving the appellate court for expedited review. So now it is early June and defense has to prepare for trial, assemble the record from the immunity hearing, get transcripts of testimony, draft the appeal brief, and prepare for trial. I don’t see any way that can be accomplished by three lawyers.

    The foregoing can also be complicated by Nelson’s ruling on the Crump depo. If Nelson orders the Crump depo, Crump appeals on the basis that he needs an immediate appeal to avoid the potential irreparable injury of disclosing privileged information. So the defense has to brief Crump’s appeal. If Nelson denies the Crump depo, then maybe the defense tries an immediate appeal on the basis that Crump is a material witness. Or maybe the defense decides to wait and appeal the Crump depo denial along with an appeal of the immunity denial or trial.

    Alternatives:

    Combine immunity hearing with trial. ****
    Another Motion for continuance (denied)
    Emergency Appeal of denial of continuance (my belief is that the law is to the effect that an order denying a continuance is not ordinarily a proper basis for interlocutory appeal / writ)
    Announce Inability to Proceed, publicly announce railroad, denial of due process, discovery stonewalling, evidence tampering, witness tampering, maybe move to withdraw, refuse to proceed when motion to withdraw is denied. Pretty sure MOM won’t do that.

    **** Combining immunity hearing with trial

    This may be subject to the discretion of Nelson, although if she denied continuance and denied combining immunity and trial, it could be a further argument of denial of due process on appeal. The Florida Supreme Court discusses the proper procedure for determining immunity in the Denis and Petersen cases as being the filing of a pretrial motion pursuant to Rule 3.190(b), such that it might not be possible for the defense to force the combination by withdrawing the motion for immunity and then refiling it at the close of evidence or post trial because of the timing requirements of Rule 3.190.

    Interesting case discussing standard for review on appeal of denial of pretrial immunity motion:

    http://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Case-Studies.pdf

    Findings of fact by the lower court must be supported by substantial evidence. The appeals court takes a fresh look at legal issues.

    Like

    • boutis says:

      That may be what West/MOM are doing. It is obvious that this judge is bum-rushing this case to completion. It is also obvious that an immunity hearing will be denied and probably a waste of scarce resources with little to no hope of success. The prosecution probably wants an immunity hearing so they can gin up more outrage and fine tune their hysterical arguments as well as determining what evidence the defense has while bleeding the defense of resources. If an immunity decision can be made after a jury trial (the case precedent shown in prior remarks seemed very strange to me at the time but now seems logical) a tactical move to delay immunity pleadings seems reasonable. It would also probably piss off the prosecutors and the Scheme team. Make them go through jury selection not knowing what West/MOM are going to do.

      Like

    • jello333 says:

      If Nelson doesn’t develop some ethics REAL quick, then I can see this from MOM/West in the very near future:

      “Announce Inability to Proceed, publicly announce railroad, denial of due process, discovery stonewalling, evidence tampering, witness tampering”

      And yeah, as an absolute last resort, even:

      “maybe move to withdraw, refuse to proceed when motion to withdraw is denied.”

      Like

  12. chopp5 says:

    I was under the impression that either side is allowed to appeal the decision of the immunity hearing before any further hearings. Therefore, what is the purpose of calling in jurors for a trial without being certain it will go forward? It is a waste of time and money.

    Like

  13. skeptiktank says:

    I believe this is one case where the defendant should have insisted on a speedy trial. I know it is routine for lawyers to waive the speedy trial, but in this case where all the solid evidence was in support of the defendant, I think it would have been better to make the prosecution produce their discovery immediately. Mainly because they didn’t have squat, and you don’t want to give them time to manufacture hearsay evidence which a clueless judge might allow. The more time that passes, the more political it becomes. The more political it becomes, the more the principles of justice become compromised. This case should not have gone beyond Norm Wolfinger, but the Governor cited “public Interest” as his reason for interceding. It only gets worse as time passes.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      “I believe this is one case where the defendant should have insisted on a speedy trial.”

      Judging from the glacial pace of production of evidence by the State, the Defendant would have then proceeded to trial without much of the exculpatory evidence that has recently been brought to light.

      Like

  14. maggiemoowho says:

    This statement that MOM made always bothered me, did GZ know that MOM felt this way. I would be curious to know if he still feels this way. He isn’t using SYG so that won’t effect his beliefs I suppose. Read the entire story, it’s a good refresher of info.

    The CTH posted this a while back: It is a statement made by Mr. Omara about the SYG Law,

    ” It’s an absurd statute, y’ know, I don’t find it’s purpose.  To be quite honestly, because there have been a number of people quote “exonerated” because of the Stand Your Ground Law, um, it really should be a traditional self-defense.”

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/07/08/the-hidden-agenda-exposed-mark-omara-on-bet-air-date-april-20th-730pm-videos/

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      The difference between SYG and traditional self-defense is that with traditional self-defense, there is a duty to retreat, if safely possible, before using deadly force outside your house or car. I think MOM is alluding to the fact that people reported as exonerated under the SYG law, would have also been exonerated after passage of SYG, when in fact they would have also been exonerated under traditional self-defense law.

      I do not agree that SYG is an absurd statute. If somebody attempts to make you a knock-out game victim as you are walking down a sidewalk, I don’t think you should have to evaluate whether you can safely retreat prior to shooting your assailant.

      Like

      • boricuafudd says:

        John, from a legal standpoint, if you were the prosecution, would be your case. In other words,how would you cover all aspects of the stature?

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          Based on publicly available information and BDLR’s presentation at the April 20 bond hearing, there is no case. If I was unfortunate enough to be in BDLR’s position, I would demand that Corey dismiss the charges. If she refused, I would file a motion to withdraw and start looking for another job.

          Like

          • boricuafudd says:

            That is what I am getting at, there is no case, it may go trial but at time something has to be presented not just to the jury to the nation, live. Politics aside, a case still needs to be made for a conviction. Actual evidence still needs to be produced that GZ committed a crime. Innuendos, guesses, etc. will not do it.

            Like

            • John Galt says:

              “something has to be presented not just to the jury to the nation, live.”

              I think the best available information as to what that might be would be BDLR’s presentation at the April 20 bond hearing, relying on W2’s subsequently retracted statement that she saw shadows chasing, alleging that bald people bleed a lot and asserting that Z’s statements to the cops contain inconsistencies. It is pretty clear that the State intends to grill Z on his statements to police and his Hannity interview.

              Like

              • boricuafudd says:

                I don’t see GZ testifying. The closest here wil come with be the defender’s desk.

                Like

                • selfdefenseadvocate says:

                  I don’t see him testifying either, bori. GZ is his own worst enemy. I don’t know if it is because of his ADHD or what, but he does not always say what he obviously means to say. Look at what happened in the Hannity interview. The prosecution would rip him to pieces on the stand.

                  Like

          • myopiafree says:

            All Bernie has to do is to REQUEST A JOB TRANSFER!! He can say, It is that easy.

            Like

    • jello333 says:

      I don’t know if MOM still feels that way or not. That question might be important IF this was a SYG case. But fortunately it’s not. And from what I can gather, MOM is a very strong advocate of traditional self-defense — which is what this case involves — so I’m sure he’s 100% comfortable with arguing that.

      Like

      • selfdefenseadvocate says:

        Jello, I don’t have a link, but I specfically recall MOM saying that this case is a self defense case, but that it also falls within SYG law. Any one remember where O’Mara said that?

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          I think it is a little awkward to argue that Z had the right to stand his ground and did not have a duty to retreat, after Z testifies that he was attacked while retreating to his truck. Maybe put that in a footnote.

          Like

          • selfdefenseadvocate says:

            John, he had no duty to retreat when (if– for argument sake) TM was pounding his head against the sidewalk. The SYG law was passed because in the past, people were required to “retreat” even in their own homes if an intruder broke into their home. Thank Goodness, SYG did away with that requirement- I am locked & loaded.

            Like

        • jello333 says:

          Absolutely, George COULD use SYG if he wanted. He’s perfectly within his rights. The thing is, he doesn’t NEED it. One of the big things about SYG is that you’re not required to try to escape/run away. And from the facts of this case, George had that right, had he wanted to. The thing is, as we all know, he could NOT run away, even if he wanted to. Which is the reason MOM isn’t bothering with SYG…. it’s just that George doesn’t NEED to use it to prove self-defense.

          Like

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi Maggie – I profoundly disagree with Omara on the face of it. The law is poorly named. It is a matter of the “right of self-defense”, and if that is the case, the right TO IMMUNITY from attack by BGI (pumped up Civil suits – after you are found innocent because of obvious self-defense). SYG are very poor descriptive words! Omara should have planned to use this “Immunity” defense – FROM THE START – IN MY OPINION.

      Like

  15. jello333 says:

    Just now starting to read this thread. But here, here’s something I just posted in the other GZ thread:

    There will BE plenty of time to do what they need if they demand it. How do they do that? They show WHY they’ve had trouble getting the discovery they need…. and they do that through a Richardson hearing. If things don’t go well (or maybe even if they do) at next Friday’s hearing re. Crump, then the next step is to demand a Richarson hearing.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      Yes, to make a record for appeal. Rotsa Ruck with Nelson.

      Judge Nelson: January 1980 – July 1983
      Broward County State Attorney’s Office, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Chief Prosecutor Misdemeanor, Hollywood Court, Felony Prosecutor.

      Like

    • myopiafree says:

      Legal Definition:

      A Richardson hearing is a hearing to conduct an inquiry into the surrounding facts and circumstances of an alleged discovery violation. For example, a Richardson hearing might be requested because the opposing party attempts to call a witness not included on their witness list.

      The court will attempt to determine whether discovery violations are inadvertent or willful, trivial or substantial, or affected the defendant’s ability to properly prepare for his\her case. The question of prejudice does not depend on whether the undisclosed evidence might have affected the outcome of the trial, but whether the violation affected the defendant’s ability to prepare.

      Like

  16. justfactsplz says:

    The truth isn’t always pretty and sometimes ii hurts. I want more than anything for George to go free and evidence says he should. The truth is the outcome of this case was decided long ago by the BGI, DOJ, and CRS. Long ago I was posting that this was political on another site. I was chastised and basically called a nutcase. I was told there was no conspiracy but I knew better.Legally George shouild go free but he is a political prisoner. I just pray that God will intervene on his behalf.

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Many a foolish crew have thought they will win just because their cause is righteous. While this may be a laudable attitude to have, it’s a very naive and foolish chink in the armor for a team to head into battle believing they’re going to win because they’re right.

      Too strong a conviction in that regard creates a refusal to take the enemy’s strengths, proven track record and experience into account.

      Data is misinterpreted,false-truths are wrongly reconciled with events; and It’s not just dangerous, it’s weird, when the ideologically righteous almost make it a point of pride to refuse to acknowledge what they are seeing.

      Some of these engineering/legal mind types have giant blind spots.

      A wise friend puts it in succinct perspective: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

      Unfortunately, few have such grasp.

      Like

      • justfactsplz says:

        It would all be different if the outcome of the election had been different. I see they not only can but will do that.

        Like

      • jello333 says:

        I think I’ve been pretty clear in my opinions on this, but it may have been more by implication than anything else. So I’ll try to put it more bluntly:

        If MOM or West (or anyone else) were to have the following attitude, “Oh we’ll be fine. Almost all the evidence is on our side, and surely that’ll win the day. So let’s just get this over with.” … I would TOTALLY disagree with them. As I’ve said many times before, including last night, I want EVERYTHING to come out. And I think that unless and until the discovery games stop, and MOM/West get EVERYTHING they need, they should NOT move forward. Now how, exactly, they accomplish that is debatable. But as to the question, “Should they just go ahead with what they have if they can’t get the judge and Bernie to budge?”… ABSOLUTELY NOT!

        (Just thought I should clear that up 😉 )

        Like

  17. ottawa925 says:

    From Daisha at the pound:

    Click on the photo:

    https://twitter.com/DaishaMarie2014/status/302417513919168513

    Like

    • mung says:

      Wow that is exactly what it looked like, how did they get the real photo?

      Like

    • rumpole2 says:

      That is a good graphic illustration of the narrative that the Scheme Team has managed to imprint on Traybots. They would obviously scoff at that being a true picture of events.. but subconsciously the “sentiment” of that picture is what they have locked in their minds..
      They are conditioned to react with hate now when the TM/GZ case is mentioned at all.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s