Ideological Dilemma – Who Will Respond To The Fifth DCA Request “The State” (Corey/BDLR) or “Crump/Blackwell” (Poll Attached)

An interesting ideological dilemma now exists regarding the 5th District Court of Appeals (DCA) about who should respond to their request for “Position” – ie. “order to show cause“.

5th screenshot 2

The DCA is requiring “The State” be the respondant – they have to, there is no other way for the DCA to ask for an affirmative position to Nelson’s ruling.

Remember, the integral aspect to Judge Nelson’s ruling (essentially no deposition for Crump) was based in large part on the position that Benjamin Crump represented “Opposing Counsel” against Don West/Mark O’Mara and George Zimmerman. Subsequently she used the phrase “co-counsel”, a position from which the State of Florida, via Bernie De La Rionda, never distanced themselves from.

At the time, on February 24th, we wrote a follow-up post titled “An open letter to Don West” because, predictively we saw makings of an ideological dilemma. Essentially, what was outlined in that post / letter, was the missed opportunity for Don West to turn to the State of Florida (via BDLR) and ask the question: “do you accept Ben Crump as co-counsel”?

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? (link)

Why this question was/is important is now spotlighted by the request from the 5th DCA’s request for The States’ position in their “order to show cause“.

So who do you think will respond?

This entry was posted in A New America, Dem Hypocrisy, Mark O'Mara, media bias, Police action, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Trayvon Martin, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

305 Responses to Ideological Dilemma – Who Will Respond To The Fifth DCA Request “The State” (Corey/BDLR) or “Crump/Blackwell” (Poll Attached)

  1. rumpole2 says:

    I am wondering if they can all have a crack at it…. separately all submit a response?

    BDLR (Corey)
    Crump/Blackwell
    Judge Nelson Herself

    Like

  2. justfactsplz says:

    I think the State will respond but they may collaberate with Crump and Blackwell.

    Like

  3. sundance says:

    I think the state will respond all on their own – but I have no idea how that is possible.

    Like

    • BertDilbert says:

      I think that the state will have to respond probably with Crump trying to get his two cents in. Personally I do not see co council standing and giving Crump immunity as that would seem to lump everything Crump has done prior as an action of the state. IMO Curmp’s actions would prohibit him from serving as an opposing council which in this case would be Bernie’s sidekick. MOM/West put forth a very solid argument. If Crump is the state then the state tampered with evidence etc.

      Like

    • canadacan says:

      I still find the whole thing very confusing because Crump is a civil lawyer ( With
      out any civility or finesse).

      Like

    • hooson1st says:

      They will farm it out to Leatherman.

      Like

      • arkansasmimi says:

        You owe me a screen cleaning! Roflmbo!

        Like

      • nameofthepen says:

        Kudos, Hooson1st – One of the wittiest one-liners I’ve heard all year! 😆

        Like

      • thehoff71 says:

        Thanks for the spit-take

        Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        I got’s a grin too. The Leatherman brief. That is a quest worth questing for.

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          You see what the idiot was writing about yesterday. It seems the Professor’s followers were asking him about the different guilty pleas that might be available to George. No, I am NOT joking. And so Freddy went into some detail comparing normal pleas with an “Alford” plea (which is similar to “no contest”). The Leatherheads were all worked up over which type of plea they would prefer. Of course what they REALLY wanted was a guilty VERDICT, but since that would “put Trayvon’s family through a lot of stress”, they were trying to figure out how to convince George to plead instead. Really… these are some ODD people.

          Like

          • doodahdaze says:

            Progressives. As things get progressively worse rationalization must occur or the Canoe in their brain will tip over and spill the contents in to the H2O. CNN is even bring back Crossfire. The start of the madness. It is a disorder of the first kind. Elevating a lie to equal status with the truth then arguing about it. It is similar to what is going on here with criminal law. Civil law has already been infected. In fact they are training hoard’s of lawyers to practice in the field. To acknowledge them is a win for their side. Giving lie equal status. Well I gotta go back to Area 51 now.

            Like

  4. John Galt says:

    I think Crump / Blackwell will join the fray in some manner: joinder, intervenor, amicus.
    Nelson will not respond.
    Not sure if the State will go all out or just tag along with whatever Crump / Blackwell do.

    One thing I have noticed is that the State has been on the flip side of the issue of compelling production of evidence over an asserted work product privilege. For example:

    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1986752495So2d257_1698.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006

    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=1984769458So2d311_1685.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985

    Policy Consideration:

    Does the State really want to go on record as being in favor of allowing an attorney to sequester a non-client witness from LEO, coach the witness, and then hide behind the work product privilege? Wouldn’t that set a nice precedent?

    Like

    • eastern2western says:

      at this point, I expect the state will quote othelo for its rebuttal and crump will pull a polansky soon.

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      If they do it would be precedent if they prevailed. They could have a Private AG ally in any case to hide evidence and witnesses from defendants. Thus dodging the 6th and 14th.

      Like

  5. wrongonred says:

    IANAL, but the Appeals Cases which I have assisted with are strictly limited to the issues on the record. It would seem in this case, the record supporting the decision to to prevent Crump’s deposition is essentially bare. Nelson (as well as the Blackwell filing) entirely ignores the issue of waiver. Nelson issues a ruling with no justification whatsoever. Given that new facts cannot be introduced on appeal, how is this not a slam dunk? By issuing the writ, hasn’t the court already essentially indicated that the issue is ripe? I just cannot imagine a Judge on the panel not thinking that it is insane that there is virtually no record in the trial court, to even try and “thread the needle” to allow them to save face, by finding something small to remand. The record that does exist in this case is ripe with insane “Co-Counsel” and “Private Prosecutor” references, that are sure to leave the panel scratching their heads.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      “Given that new facts cannot be introduced on appeal, how is this not a slam dunk?”

      AFAIK, the best issue for Crump is: “you should deny the petition for cert. because you don’t want to set a precedent of allowing pre-trial appeal of discovery orders which will increase your work load.”

      Like

      • eastern2western says:

        roman polansky will be much easier for crump. hey, I know cuba is perfect. may be he can join dennis rodman. what about north korea because crump can claim he is a nba super star,

        Like

      • jello333 says:

        😉 Ha, yeah… and if the DCA was even a little bit concerned about that, they would not have agreed to hear this in the first place. Agree with Wrongonred… just the fact that they’re taking this tells me they ready and willing to dump on Nelson and Crump. I think they can do this with just 3 justices, right? But it’s up to them how many they actually use? If so, it would be SOOO cool if they used all 9(?), just to make a point (assuming unanimous ruling).

        Like

        • canadacan says:

          Jello and wrong on red that is why my gut is telling me Crump is about to be dumped on

          Like

        • MJW says:

          The DCA hasn’t done anything yet that they don’t do in every petition for cert. The docket for Eutsay v. State shows the 1st DCA issued a show-cause order, even though in the end they dismissed it because relief was available on plenary appeal.

          Like

          • John Galt says:

            “The DCA hasn’t done anything yet that they don’t do in every petition for cert.”

            FALSE. See 9.100 (h) which sets forth the showing predicate to issuance of a show cause order.

            Like

            • cboldt says:

              The showing to get across the 9.100(h) threshhold is pretty low. Petitioner has to meet one (or more) of the three justifications for going further. But, meeting one of the three criteria is sufficient. And too, while the rule is phrased in discrectionary terms (the DCA may issue a show cause order), recent decisions and current practice is that the court MUST issue the show cause order .

              Two of the three criteria are a showing or preliminary basis for relief; departure from essential requirements of law that cause material injury and post-proceeding (post-trial here) relief is not available. I don’t think the third justification for issuing a show cause order pertains under this petition. I think O’Mara’s petition easily meets a showing a preliminary basis for relief. Everything in the petition is assumed true, for that purpose.

              I do agree that not every petition for cert results in a show cause order. Absence of an appendix, for example, will result in flat out denial. But I don’t think that the court issuing a show cause order against this petition represents anything remotely close to a signal of agreement with O’Mara, or as a signal that the petition is providently filed. As MJW points out, Eutsay got a show cause order, and lost his appeal.

              Like

          • MJW says:

            I’m actually wrong about that, and happy that I am. Though the court did issue a show-cause order in Eutsay and later dismiss the petition, there are other similar cases where the DCA dismissed the petition without issuing a show-cause order. So the show-cause order does seem to suggest the court is taking the petition seriously, even though they may eventually dismiss it.

            Like

            • John Galt says:

              Petition for writ of cert denied w/o order for response.

              http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FLCO%2020090224130.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

              “The State petitions for a writ of certiorari ”

              “Even if we had jurisdiction, we would conclude that the State has not shown a preliminary basis for relief, and a response from the defendant would not be necessary. Fla. R.App. P. 9.100(h).”

              Like

              • cboldt says:

                That case does illuminate what consitutes a preliminary basis for relief. The state was caught violate defendant’s attorney/client privilege and privacy, during the course of the trial! The trial court kicked the prosecutor off the case, and that is what the state was appealing. The DCA gave good reasons why the state’s position didn’t hold water, among them that the trial court did a good job of reviewing the facts and made a comprehensive record (and implied the decision made was the right one); that allowing appeals DURING TRIAL (not before) would make a mess of the trial process; and that the error by the state, to listen in to privileged conversations, merited the trial court’s remedy, and the state is wrong to assert that defendant must suffer actual harm from that offense, in order to justify kicking the prosecutor off the case. And too, the state can continue the trial, just put in a different prosecutor.

                Like

              • jello333 says:

                “Even if we had jurisdiction, we would conclude that the State has not shown a preliminary basis for relief, and a response from the defendant would not be necessary.”

                Yet another instance where they appear to be saying that if they DO ask for the opposite side’s response, it’s fair to assume the petitioner HAS “shown a preliminary basis for relief.”

                Like

            • jello333 says:

              You know what? Look at the people who frequent this site (also DMan’s, Rumpole’s, Mike’s, etc), and compare us to the people who frequent the GZ Hater sites. We are always asking questions, we listen to each other, and if need be, adjust our opinions accordingly. Compare that to the sheep-like, totally closed-minded behavior of those on the other side of this case.

              Like

            • MJW says:

              As an example of a petition that apparently didn’t result in a show-cause order, conside Paulcin v. State, 941 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The petition was dismissed, per curiam, in two lines:

              Petitioner is the defendant in a criminal case pending in the circuit court and seeks review of certain interlocutory orders. These orders are reviewable on plenary appeal after imposition of judgment and sentence. Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari and/or prohibition is denied. See Mingle v. State, 429 So.2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

              The case docket, available from the Florida District Courts of Appeal Online Docket Search by entering the case number, 1D06-3658, seems to show no show-cause order.

              Like

          • MJW says:

            I see others have already responded. I need to remember to refresh before replying. Both John Galt and cboldt make good points, as they usually do.

            Like

  6. nivico says:

    If I understand the appellate process correctly, isn’t the appellate court limited to reviewing only the evidence that was available to Nelson at the time of her ruling?

    No doubt imo that BDLR et al has already been collaborating with Crump et al on the matter, which I’m guessing explains the HOA settlement suddenly surfacing and being rushed into evidence, but isn’t it too little too late to be trying to find new evidence that might support Nelson’s decision.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      “but isn’t it too little too late to be trying to find new evidence that might support Nelson’s decision.”

      I think so. I’m wondering if that was a Crump snafu, because the clerk’s letter was directed to Crump, not to Blackwell. Perhaps Crump thinks he can present and argue new evidence at first instance on appeal.

      Like

  7. John Galt says:

    “The DCA is requiring “The State” be the respondant – they have to, there is no other way for the DCA to ask for an affirmative position to Nelson’s ruling.”

    I am trying to figure out how they arrived in that curious position. FRAP 9.100 applies to filing a petition for cert.

    RULE 9.100. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS
    (a) Applicability. This rule applies to those proceedings that invoke the
    jurisdiction of the courts described in rules 9.030(a)(3), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c)(2), and
    (c)(3) for the issuance of writs of mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, certiorari,
    and habeas corpus, and all writs necessary to the complete exercise of the courts’
    jurisdiction; and for review of non-final administrative action.
    (b) Commencement; Parties. The original jurisdiction of the court shall
    be invoked by filing a petition, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law,
    with the clerk of the court deemed to have jurisdiction. If the original jurisdiction
    of the court is invoked to enforce a private right, the proceeding shall not be
    brought on the relation of the state. If the petition seeks review of an order entered
    by a lower tribunal, all parties to the proceeding in the lower tribunal who are not
    named as petitioners shall be named as respondents.

    “all parties to the proceeding in the lower tribunal who are not
    named as petitioners shall be named as respondents.”

    So maybe Crump should have been named in the caption by MOM / West as a respondent?

    That would seem logically correct, however, Blackwell specifically designated Crump as a “non-party” and 9.100(b) says that “parties” are the respondents. 9.100(b) doesn’t say anything about non-parties.

    Click to access Benjamin%20L.%20Crump%20Response%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Motion%20to%20Compel.pdf

    So where does that leave Crump at the DCA? FRAP 9.360 provides for joinder of “a party” which Crump is not. It seems like Crump should file a motion to intervene as a respondent, but I’m not finding a specific rule providing for such a motion. But the 5th DCA does list a filing fee for a motion to intervene:

    Q. How much is the filing fee?

    A. The filing fee for an appeal is $300. The Court accepts cash, money orders or checks made out to Clerk, Fifth District Court of Appeal. There is also a filing fee of $295 for filing a notice of cross-appeal, notice of joinder or motion to intervene.

    http://www.5dca.org/faq.shtml

    Conclusion: Call the clerk and seek help !!

    http://www.5dca.org/clerks_office.shtml

    Like

    • sundance says:

      That’s why I love ya John Galt (in a guy way ya’ know)…. you see the connundrum from a legal perspective and outline the specifics as such.

      Hence, my puzzlement at both the approach, and the subsequent questions the approach mandates. It is quite interesting ground – this judicial ruling from Nelson that, on its face, makes no more sense now than the day she made it.

      Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        The writ is not against Crump. It is against the State of Florida. The elected and appointed officials. The trial court itself. IMO and to cut to the chase. The defense sez it is the court itself advocating for the state. Not being an impartial trier of the facts or seeking the truth. Just the opposite. Kine like Judge Roy Bean. This is what it seems like to me.

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          Yep. In order for the DCA to consider hearing a case like this, one of the major points they have to look into is whether the trial court is, in some way, violating a law. MOM argued that that was the case. And now the DCA, after reading what MOM had to say, has ordered the other side to “show cause” why they shouldn’t get involved. In other words, unless I’m interpreting this completely wrong, the DCA has in effect declared that MOM has already made a prima facie case that Nelson HAS violated some law. Now it’s up to Bernie(?) to try to counter that.

          Like

          • Angel says:

            Jello: I couldn’t reply to your comment on Diwataman’s site as there was no reply button underneath your comment. However, it’s all good, as I am not easy ruffled when someone tells me to “eff you.” Been told worse. I realize this case can get emotional for some so he is/was free to “do him” as I told him. I only Stand My Ground when it absolutely necessary but, otherwise, it aint that serious.

            Like

          • doodahdaze says:

            Now. This is not what most think. Not a “request” to a higher court to take an appeal. It is a pre-trial writ. It will be decided. One way or the other. There is not an avenue to not “hear” it. Does that make sense? In Fla. there is a “post-trial” right to an appeal without cert. One. To DCA. This is not that. This is a pre-trial attmpt to “Quash,” “Squash,” and put a stop to the miscarriage of justice. It clearly sez this is a lynch mob. A Kangaroo Court. An out of control fiasco that endangers the CJS itself. I read it thataway. In fact it is what the Wolverines have suspected from the start. Jus disguised in “Mumbo Jumbo.” Least that is how I read it. But I am not a genius of law or a Grand PooBah. I never yet have learned the living breathing rules of criminal procedure.

            Like

            • jello333 says:

              Right, I agree. If something I said in any of my other comments made you think otherwise… just chalk it up to me getting my words kinda twisted today! 😉

              Like

              • doodahdaze says:

                No. Did not. Not even a little. It took me a few hours of research to begin to understand. This is not a motion, request for a hearing, or anything like that. It is very serious. It is a very serious claim. The justice’s must be upset that it is even on the table. Liberal, Conservative etc. I would think the more Liberal justice would be the most open to the writ. I also think they would rather make a unanimous decision. This is just from what I have learned about the legal system in the last year. What a dilemma. Strange bedfellows. I also think that a lot of the bickering is kine absurd.

                Like

                • jello333 says:

                  Yeah, I think they’d very much like it to be unanimous. And more than that… they can rule by using only 3, or they can go with all 9, right? Well, I suspect they just might go the full 9 route for this one… just to make a point (assuming again it would be unanimous).

                  Like

            • jello333 says:

              Well, I agree except for this one part: “There is not an avenue to not ‘hear’ it.” Because from what I’m seeing, the Court COULD have just dismissed it outright, without ordering the State to respond. The DCA could have just said, in effect, “You (MOM) haven’t even made a prima facie case, and so get outta here.” The fact they DIDN’T do that, means that Crump and his buddies should be very, very nervous.

              Like

    • howie says:

      It means he is not a co-counsel. Not a Private AG. Not a Grand PooBah. What he is, is screwed.

      Like

    • tim says:

      i thought the “non party crump response to defense…” meant that a “non party” was responding on behalf of crump. if my understanding is correct its saying that blackwell is a “non party” to this case but is responding to an issue within the case as an attorney for crump. iirc in all of the “non party crump” responses the undersigned counsel is blackwell so i dont think theyre referring to crump as the “non party”. i think blackwell is titling himself as “non party crump”.

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        I’m not sure, but I don’t think a lawyer for one of the parties (or non-parties) is ever considered to be a “party” himself. Basically Backwell IS Crump, as far as representation in court goes. So yeah, I think the “non-party” person is referring to Crump himself.

        Like

  8. waltherppk says:

    It is legal conundrum. Maybe those legal masterminds which are the trifecta conspiracy of the Magic Bruce, Crumpadump, and Judge Bozo #2 can put their siamese triplet conjoined pointed little heads together and formulate a reply as to why a constipated discovery process should not get the laxative effect and oh what a relief it needs to be provided by a writ certiorari based upon good legal grounds issued from the DCA. Crumpadump has a big enough mouth for the TV cameras for telling lies about the law and lies about a poor chile victim and a poor chile witness and a big enough mouth when threatening lawsuits attendant to such a scam involving numerous fraudulent claims….So there should not be any problem putting Crumpadump and his big mouth under oath and then asking some important questions, knowing that then maybe that big mouth will keep telling more lies on the record, and those lies will be his complete undoing for fraud. O’Mara wants to depose Crump to see how many times Crump will plead the fifth on the record. And settlements already gotten as a result of fraud can be nullified by a court, so there are some people who probably shouldn’t be making any long range plans just yet.

    Like

    • jello333 says:

      😉 x 1,000

      Like

    • canadacan says:

      Ben Crump needs to be hung by the tongue. Deposing him should undo him in every single way

      Like

    • AdukeLAXobserver says:

      “And settlements already gotten as a result of fraud can be nullified by a court, so there are some people who probably shouldn’t be making any long range plans just yet.”

      I would love to see that happen!

      Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        Hmmmmm? Velly interesting.

        Like

      • waltherppk says:

        It would be a “legal miracle” if any “settlement agreement” made to “avoid litigation” regarding claims that are PROVABLY FRAUDULENT would not be found to be an UNLAWFUL CONTRACT tantamount and equivalent to extortion. That “settlement agreement” could end up bouncing like a rubber ball in a case of “buyers remorse” recovery / refund litigation accompanied by a criminal investigation for fraud. People could go to jail, some of them lawyers.

        Like

        • auscitizenmom says:

          “Extortion”……………I like that word. I would like to hear it really often mentioned in the same sentence with “Crump.”

          Like

      • waltherppk says:

        The only way I could see such a “settlement” possibly working as legal is if the “parties” were making an agreement to globally indemnify ALL associated parties any way related to the same incident, for any future claims, because of potential “collateral liability” type repercusssions, and that would mean that Crump could definitely NOT go after George Zimmerman personally. Based upon the assertion by Crump that he would in fact be still going after Zimmerman personally, it would seem impossible that the “settlement” is a lawful contract. It leaves the door wide open for future liability to Liberty Mutual for Zimmerman to sue them for paying a settlement which serves as creating a war chest for litigation by the Martins against him which makes Liberty Mutual a de facto adversary and partner with the Martins in a fraudulent scheme.

        Like

    • hooson1st says:

      waltherppk:

      You exhibit some literary talent.

      Why not trademark “crumpadump” and write a children’s book ala Dr. Seuss?

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      Duces Tecum. The list is loooong.

      Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Waltherppk, you have such a way with words. 🙂

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      “And settlements already gotten as a result of fraud can be nullified by a court, so there are some people who probably shouldn’t be making any long range plans just yet.”

      Big money, take it to Brazil.

      Like

    • nameofthepen says:

      Nice one, Waltherppk. 😆

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      They can either object, take the fifth, or throw themselves upon the mercy of the court. 🙂

      Like

  9. akathesob says:

    When it all hits the fan and everything comes out it will all be epic. So many turns and twist all for a political / media show. George will NOT be “their” example!

    Like

    • jello333 says:

      It’s gonna reach a point where the State and Crump are gonna be BEGGING for the case to be dropped. Hopefully MOM and West will say, “Not just yet, Kimosabe. We need a few minor, shall we say, stipulations first.”

      Like

      • myopiafree says:

        Like deposing DeeDee, She needs to describe who approached her to lie about talking to TM on TM’s dead cell phone – and other issues like that one.
        After that Ms. Corey and Bernie need to explain WHY then never checked ANY STATEMENT MADE BY DEEDEE. Why they did not check any phone records – independent of the ones supplied by Crump. (It would have been so easy to do that type of truth-checking.) Why did they not ask DeeDee to go through a lie-detector test – since this case was going to cost $1,000,000 – if she was not telling the truth.
        Yes, how are Ms. Corey-Bernie going to “explain away” these issues of prosecutor misconduct and malicious prosecution of the innocent George Zimmerman.
        When that is completed, George gets the trial dropped, and full IMMUNITY from any civil suit that the Scheme Team might attempt against him.

        Like

        • auscitizenmom says:

          If that happens it should be stipulated (I guess that is the right word) that none of the Scheme Team ever, ever say anything at all about Zimm ever again. Otherwise, they will go out and keep spewing their lies like they are still doing now.

          Like

          • John VI says:

            I would also kind of like to see the state have to reimburse ALL expenses incured since this trial began, and pay a hefty fine on top of that. Sort of an all expense paid LIFE for george and shelly zimmermann, in the manner that George feels is fitting.

            Like

          • nameofthepen says:

            Auscitizenmom – Good thinking! Gag orders are very common in out-of-court settlements.

            Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        Crump will say “I do not understand why I am charged with a crime I do not think I committed.”

        Like

      • hooson1st says:

        I expect a fight to the bitter end.

        Like

  10. jello333 says:

    I chose the State will write with collaboration by Crump/Blackwell. But I don’t think they’ll ADMIT they didn’t do it all on their own. Bernie may even throw in a little Shakespeare to really show off his skills.

    Like

    • canadacan says:

      Bernie and Shakespeare-shudder!

      Like

    • letsbefairtogz says:

      The State will respond on their own. Team Miss-Piggy is far too arrogant to do otherwise. And, besides the fact that there is alot of new cubic-footage in the SAO office in Jacksonville due to all of the departures, Ms Piggy is not going to want the rotting corpse of the Scheme Team to mess up the ambiance of the office in hopes of new SAO robot attorney’s coming on board.

      Like

      • allhail2 says:

        “Team Miss-Piggy.” Bwahahahahahahahaha! As someone who grew up watching the muppets, that is hilarious. Now I’ve got to clean the screen and keyboard of coffee.

        Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        Now. Let us look back. Long ago many thought formal discovery by the defense might turn the tide. It is. But now the timeline’s come in to play. With a TCJ with nothing to lose and unlimited power. Minus the fail safe of a higher court. Timelines are unappealable.

        Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      I m thinking this is a first for me. I imagine it will be Law School fodder. How not to file a motion. Quoting William Shakespeare in your brief. Most jurists would put it in the “trash can’ at that point. At least I hope so. Shakespeare has absolutely nothing to do with the question before the bar. Nothing. He is losing it. Ask any lawyer if they would quote Shakespeare as a source of law. I would imagine not.

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      Now. Not to be “mean spirited.” But I was thinking. (dangerous). About how the locals in the 18th circuit feel about the hijack? The local SA office for example. Or jus the peeps who work in the criminal court. Ahhh Dunno? These folks are traveling from Jax. to mess it all up. Anybody there has got to wonder about the order for 500 jurors for this one case. 500 for one case. 500 for one case. Why?

      Like

  11. bullnuke says:

    I did vote that there will be collaboration between the state and Crump. I can imagine the state holding its nose when dealing with the piece of shit.

    Like

  12. Chip Bennett says:

    With the Writ of Prohibition that resulted in Lester’s recusal, the DCA ordered the State to respond in the show cause order. In that case, the response was submitted by (pdf) the State Attorney General, via Assistant Attorney General, Pamela Koller.

    So, I’ll just throw out there for consideration that “the State” will again respond through the AG (unless such is unique to writs of prohibition?).

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      Maybe they can show how the defense can repair the damage caused by the TCJ order in an appeal after a negative verdict. Maybe they can show how the TCJ rulings do not depart from the essential requirements of the law. This writ is directed at the head of the snake in this case. If the defense prevails though they will be short on time without continuance.

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      I’m thinking that the best ideological position by the state might limit argument to “GZ is not in danger of irreparable harm as he has an adequate remedy by appeal after conviction and petition for cert on a pretrial discovery order should therefore be denied.”

      Leave the work product issues to Blackwell. I really don’t think State wants to be on record as supporting precedent for “it is ok for a lawyer to tamper with a non-client witness and sequester the witness from LEO during an ongoing criminal investigation and then hide behind the work product privilege.” Does the state really want defense attorneys crumping witnesses and then citing a 5th DCA case for the proposition that crumping witnesses is OK?

      Apart from that, there is basically no legitimate argument to make in response to the waiver issue, which is why both Blackwell and Nelson completely ignored that issue.

      Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        Now. These are the issues that count. Not counter analysis, or anything spooking the uninformed.

        Like

  13. doodahdaze says:

    Long ago and far away several thought this case would be decided by higher courts. It still might. Unless the SA can rush it to trial somehow. The SA is trying to end the defense discovery before delivers a fatal blow to their so called case. This case is in need of a Crumpectomy operation. Excision of Crumps work product.

    Like

    • mcfyre2012 says:

      I told my wife last year that if GZ can hold out, the state’s case would implode, as it’s built on a very flimsy house of cards. I believe it was all about easy law suits and piles of cash…on the thought that GZ would eventually just cop a plea to be done with it.

      Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        One manufacturing biz that can’t be shipped to China. Civil Rights Civil Actions.

        Like

        • allhail2 says:

          “The SA is trying to end the defense discovery before delivers a fatal blow to their so called case.”

          That’s a very good point. Has there been any new info on ping logs, tox report, or the magical missing phone data from 2/26?

          Like

  14. auscitizenmom says:

    I think the Devil will write it and the State will sign it.

    Like

  15. Just the Facts Please says:

    My guess is that the State will file a response, on its own. Crump will have an amicus brief filed on his behalf, as the real party in interest, by the deadline for the State to file. Crump and the State may collaborate on their filings, or they may work independently; I’d guess the latter, so it is easier for Crump to continue to claim that he is nothing but an attorney working on behalf of the Martins with regard to an upcoming lawsuit against GZ, not part of the prosecution of GZ, and that is why he should not be deposed.

    Like

    • ed greene says:

      So once the state responds MOM has 10 days to answer their response.
      Remember he now knows, who Witness 8 is. If she is a family member that wrote that
      letter before March 19, 2012(I think this is the case) than it proves she was coached by Crump and Sybrana.Why wait days to interview her if letter was writtenbefore March 19??
      He knows what lies Crump has told about her.I hope he video depositioned her 2nd time already.
      He has depositioned Sybrana and Tracy and others knows their lies. So state has to be very careful in their response. If MOM can prove lies in their response, then DCA has to ok Crump deposition(If case is not dismissed by then) MOM gets to bat last Home field big advantage!!!!!.

      Like

      • myopiafree says:

        Hi Ed – I would like to see that video of DeeDee and O’mara. O’mara tells her he likes her letter handwriting. Then he hands her a sheet of paper and asks her to “write it out again”. Then DeeDee says she can’t write “cursive”, and asks – why must I give you that too?

        Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        I have had a feelin’ too about her being family related. Yikes.

        Like

        • ctdar says:

          I posted this last year from a online article i found that Tracy’s girlfriend Brandy’s sister Zakiya (the convicted drug dealer), has a friend from facebook that has a daughter named Dee Dee. In fact I wonder if in fact the drug connection via Brandy Green  has more of link to the Martin scheme than known. Both sisters & Tracy belonged to same black mason chapter in FL, also remember the group of unsavory looking individuals in poised picture with Tracy at one of the gatherings and than there is the questionable leaders of that chapter, one I remember reading lives well above his means.

            Also, Tabatha Green, a “friend” on Zakiya’s change.org page,  has a daughter named Dee Dee.  Coincidence, I’m sure.

          http://radionewz.net/2012/07/trayvon-martin-who-is-brandy-green-really/?wpmp_tp=0

          http://www.renfordpbrown.org/district_006.html

          Like

          • tara says:

            I thought someone here had checked into this, but I can’t find any details. I did some general google searches. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

            http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1994-01-23/news/94012 hospital-axxx monte-park-memorial-hospital-axxmer-hospital

            Of course this isn’t necessarily txxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
            ———————
            Edit by Admin

            Like

          • doodahdaze says:

            Now….my Spidey Sense from way back when was tingling bout drug deals and middlemen between Miami and Orlando. Be that as it may. They hooked the blacks on profiling. Now….I think that is a set hook. I have done a little investigating with my own black friends, workmates, etc. THAT hits a nerve. Every one has a story about it. With good cause.

            Like

        • ed greene says:

          I think the cousin xxxxxxxx , TM cousin is witness 8 Her letter in facebook on March xxxxx
          very similar to Marchxxxxxx handed to MOM in 2013. Her name if trying to hide that she is a martin interchanging first and middle name will put her alphabetically between witness 7 Brandy Green Withness 8 T. xxxxxxnson. She graduated from high school in 2012 so that could make her about 19. She lives in Miramar which is Broward
          county not Dade. She was question in Broward by BDLR.
          She lied about age and spoke badly to hide herself. She is attending college now so can not be as lliterate has she made herself sound. If this is true too many lies to count.
          Here are just a few
          Sybrana only meet her Xmas 2011(she is her niece), TM’s Girlfriend. just found her March 19 original letter written on March 9 . This would allow 10 days to come up
          with a coached story. Just My Guess
          —————
          Edits by Admin

          April 10–edits by Admin: This is a general note to all commenters whose material was edited here today. This is not directed at ed individually. I just went through here and removed a bunch of detailed/personal information of a variety of kinds. The limits and lines where doxing are concerned are gray, and have much to do with intent. Since we can’t read minds and have a limited amount of time to analyze, we will make judgments that are broad. Much of the information being referenced here is apparently on Rumpole’s blog. Anyone who has read here for any amount of time is fully aware of the constant accusations and the real dangers (legal and otherwise) of doxing. We are not willing to even get close to that line, and when a thread begins to be loaded up with comments from individuals who are apparently intent on chasing details of the personal lives of individuals, we will clean it out. Suggestion: don’t get offended by the deletions, in case one of your favorite discoveries got xxxxxx’d out. We do not have the staff and time to have to spend disproportionate amounts on this kind of stuff.–Admin

          Like

          • tara says:

            Crump wouldn’t have advertised Trademark’s cousin as hi “girlfriend”. At least I don’t think he would!

            Like

          • yankeeintx says:

            When was she questioned by BDLR? I think DD has the initials JH, but it is not Jalessa.

            Like

            • doodahdaze says:

              All this will soon be irrelevant. What will count is what is, or is not, Mr. Crump’s work product. Now….that is what will tell the tale. I think.

              Like

              • yankeeintx says:

                Yes, it will be. Crump never thought it would get so far as DD being disposed, and is going to be having fits if they rule that he gets to be diposed too!

                Like

            • tara says:

              Do you think it’s JH because you also played with the blacked-out section of the letter image? Squinted and adjusted the monitor angle too? 🙂

              I swear I can see letters there, I just can’t yet make them out. Maybe I should get drunk or something.

              Like

              • yankeeintx says:

                LOL! No, I do see dots under the blackness, but I’m not computer savy enough to run filtering software to try and figure it out! JH fits the order for W8, and is someone that knows TM. She does have a FB page, but it has been scrubbed. She doesn’t show up on any of the family’s FB friends list, and I couldn’t find anything w/google. It just seems strange that I am able to find stuff on other people, but not her, so it is just a hunch.

                Like

                • doodahdaze says:

                  Gotta be some kine Cuz.

                  Like

                • yankeeintx says:

                  Not that I can see, but it wouldn’t surprize me. I wonder if Tracy left any kids behind in St. Louis, that migrated east? Who knows how many cousins/brothers/sisters might be out there.

                  Like

              • ejarra says:

                I think you should hire Trent. Her’s good at seeing things that aren’t there.

                Like

              • LetJusticePrevail says:

                I seem to remember a comment on Rumpole’s site where another person thought he/she could make out some letters, so I tried to view it as a jpeg, and adjusted the contrast, sharpness, etc. The best I could make out was the little mark at the top, about halfway across the signature. I played with that “little black square” for hours. It looks to me like the small mark is the horizontal starting stroke of a capital cursive “M”.

                Like

                • tara says:

                  OK, it’s not just me then. 🙂 I do think someone with the right software, technique, or just some pure luck might be able to discern the name. I don’t drink so I’m thinking if I have a little bit of alcohol it might loosen up my eyes and brain just a bit.

                  Like

                • ed greene says:

                  If you look at letterxxxxxxxput on her facebook page March xxx it is very similar to Marchxxx letter. You can find copy of xxxxxetter on Rumpoles site.
                  Look at it . What do you think.
                  Like to get SD, Jello, J Galt, Dman and others to comment
                  ———————–
                  Admin suggestion: discuss it at Rumpoles’ site since that’s where all the info is apparently

                  Like

                • ejarra says:

                  As much as those here want her to be DD, she’s not. To continue on this rad is getting close to dosing or even harassment. She got this info from Tracy who had gotten it from Serino. DD’s letter also appears contrived. My guess is that her mother wrote it from either what DD said to her, what Sybrina told her or a combo of both.

                  J T Martin is NOT DD! Please everyone stop this! We don’t need to give more ammo to BLDR and the Trayvonistas.
                  ——————–
                  Good insights, ejarra. Admins don’t have time to monitor these focused pursuits that skate the edge….maybe we will need to shut some of this down.

                  Like

                • ed greene says:

                  Here is copy of letter appearing at randomtopics

                  xxxxxxxxxxx (edit by admin)
                  While visiting the Orlando area, my cousin was walking to the store when he noticed a man following him. He asked the man “why are you following me?” the man replied “I’m not” and rolled his window up. The man then got out his car & continued to follow him. My cousin asked him the same question & the man gave him the same answer. (S/N: The man never identified himself as crime watch & was carrying a pistol. You ask how do I know because the account I’m sharing is the account he (the killer) gave to police. Oh and the first officer on the scene had the same name as the killer.) OK, so the man then reaches in his pocket. This is when my cousin struck the man, taking him to the ground and continuing to beat on him. The killer now calling for help got hold of his gun firing 1 fatale shot. This man was not arrested or even processed. No charges are being filed and the state is withholding evidence. Why did this man single him out, why did he lie & tell my cousin that he wasn’t following him, why did he continue to follow him, why did he get out his car, why didn’t he identify himself as the local crime watch? These questions were never asked or answered.

                  Like

          • ed greene says:

            Thanks SD appreciate your comments not trying to cause problems just giving information that would set light on witness 8 lies.
            —————–
            The admin comments were not made by SD. There was no suggestion that you were trying to cause problems. This kind of press with personal details about the lives of individuals does cause problems, regardless of intent. –Admin

            Like

            • ed greene says:

              ok appreciate feedback will not mention any names that are not in public record already in future

              Like

              • ejarra says:

                Ed, that was me that made that comment to you about doxing, etc. We’ll know soon enough about her. BTW, there are a few of us here, myself definitely included, who have made mistakes about her identity and came out with names who have NOT been her. That’s probably why it hit so close to home. Just wanted to explain why I jumped on you the way I did.

                Like

                • ed greene says:

                  Thanks EJ By end of year we should know who she is, then again if case dismissed
                  we might never know? Just throwing my 2 cents in and would bet a cake on my guess.

                  Like

  16. gannasview says:

    Crump planning a unwrongful death suit against GZ is a bit like counting your chickens before the hatch. IMHO he is trying to pull off a mirror trick to keep from all of the Scheme Team’s shenanigans being completely exposed. There is probably a lot more than we really know going on behind the thin veil of lies!

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      That could be interesting. Crump files wrongful death claims against GZ and GZ files counterclaims against Scheme Team. Crump rests his case and is then called to the witness stand to testify about tampering with witness 8.

      Like

    • nameofthepen says:

      Gannasview, the part about “…a lot more than we really know going on behind the thin veil of lies!” gave me a thought.

      I wonder if this is the first time Crump ever used the services of a Rent-a-Witness?

      Like

      • auscitizenmom says:

        “I wonder if this is the first time Crump ever used the services of a Rent-a-Witness?” Maybe West or Omara could ask Crump this if they get him on the stand. Ha, ha. 🙂

        Like

        • nameofthepen says:

          Auscitizenmom, it would be interesting to have a crystal ball to peer into the less-public particulars of his other payola cases. 😀

          Like

          • auscitizenmom says:

            Wow, wish I knew how to look that kind of thing up. It would help to have a list of cases he has been involved with. There might be some very interesting info in how they started and how they were settled.

            Like

            • nameofthepen says:

              Auscitizenmom, I agree. But, I think we’d still need that crystal ball for their TRUE details.

              Like

              • auscitizenmom says:

                I agree with that. But, I found a short list and wondered if anything might show up. Of course, since the CTH didn’t investigate, there is probably no real information that we could trust. It was just a thought.

                Like

        • John Galt says:

          “Rent-a-Witness”

          Probably cheaper to buy and reuse if you can keep their identity secret.

          Like

      • nivico says:

        Rent-A-Witness 🙂

        I have wondered if Tracy was passing on the grifting strategies he learned from Crump to the father of Jordan Davis when they spoke.

        “…….. Then, Tracy Martin called. Martin was the father of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old boy shot and killed in February by an armed neighborhood watchman two hours’ south in Sanford, Fla. Davis won’t talk about what he and Martin discussed, describing the conversation only as “private matters between two dads.” ……………….”

        Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          question…Where did Baby Face Nelson Go?

          Like

        • nameofthepen says:

          Hi, Nivico, Thanks. I had to go look up Jordan Davis before I replied. Yes, interesting that the two dads got together. I’m not surprised there’s no details about that little chat.

          Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      John Rawls? Veil of ignorance? You are getting very warm.

      Like

  17. Redrider says:

    This is what a Traybot suporter said to a US Army Soldier…….

    .@twofifs You shouldn’t be such an embarrassment to the kids you put in body bags.— BoiGal2 (@BoiGal2) April 9, 2013

    Like

  18. nameofthepen says:

    I ain’t votin’ in y’alls silly election less’n ah gets a free Obamaphone from ya.

    Like

  19. eastern2western says:

    if crump is forced into the deposition, the martins better get new lawyers because crump will turn on the martins. between his license and the martins, I am sure crump will choose his license because he can always get new clients very soon. It is already pretty bad that the new settlement is causing internal divisions among the clan, now there Is an impending deposition that may just launch manure to the ceiling fan. ha, ha, it will be a bigger fire work show than the 4th of july.

    Like

    • mung says:

      How funny would it be if they sued Crump!

      Like

      • eastern2western says:

        look, it is extremely possible in here because of the division of the settlement. crump has been working on this for a year and he could send the martins a huge legal bill that will eat up most of the various earnings the martins have made from this case. Once the martins are only getting pennies on every dollar, then they will counter sue the crumpster and it will be just lawyer heaven.

        Like

        • stella says:

          They probably have an agreement wherein Crump gets a fixed percentage of the settlement – 40% or so.

          Like

          • eastern2western says:

            the so call 40% can be just legal fees, but it may not include extra fees. as a lawyer, crump knows how to draft a contract that allows him to attach extra costs into it. I am sure that the fees from Blackwell was never expected.

            Like

            • stella says:

              Why would anyone sign a contract like that, where expenses are not capped?

              Like

              • jordan2222 says:

                It is actually fairly common for lawyers to add a clause that includes “court costs and expenses” in addition to their contingency fee. That can be as high as 40 percent but I have personally negotiated that down to 25 percent.

                Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          I predict he will never dare sue GZ. He may already have trouble with NBC trying to find a scapegoat.

          Like

  20. eastern2western says:

    I do not know how much the legal bills are, but I am sure it is going to be huge. crump and park have spent 1 year working on this. every time the martins show up in court, there are usually 4 lawyers around them and body guards. 4 lawyer times 400 dollars/hour/4 hours is a lot of money. then every time they make a tweet, another 400 dollars. television shows, 4 hundred dollars plus travelling fees. what about all of the various civil rights organizations? will the martins get a bill from the new black panthers? by the time every one finishes dividing the money, there will be not enough for pizzas and beer.

    Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      In the end the discussion may go something like this, “What do you mean there is nothing left for us? But, he was our son. We oughta get something..”

      Like

  21. doodahdaze says:

    Do they have to respond or can they pass on it? Is the DCA looking for cover? Are two justices trying to get a dissenter to join the fun? I have no idea.

    Like

  22. scubachick75 says:

    I don’t think Chump will be held responsible for anything he has said or done. He’s black and to even imply that he should be held responsible would be seen as racist. I’m sure they will say It’s George’s fault. Crump wouldn’t have had to lie if George would have just stayed in his car like a good little white boy….I hate that I’m so negative about this but the prosecutors and Crump do and say whatever they want and O’mara and Nelson just bend over and take it up the rear.

    Like

    • John VI says:

      Well, There are ethics involved with being a lawyer, (insert snark here), which, if he is proven to have violated, they will probably have to go after him if it makes other lawyers look bad ( that is, crush crump to make themselves look better). Im sure they can find a way to avoid the racial charges, after all, they have been watching him create them for most of his career.

      Like

    • eastern2western says:

      the law is the law and it is color blind. If the defense proves crump broke the law or bar regulations, crump should be prosecuted.

      Like

      • Sharon says:

        Well, I know what you mean—but if the law was color blind, George Zimmerman would never have been arrested.

        Like

  23. ottawa925 says:

    Like

    • ottawa925 says:

      This tweet is as clear as mud. What is he saying?

      Like

      • ottawa925 says:

        He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He apparently does not mean the DCA will not hear the appeal. What an idiot. Using tweets to report news to me is totally ridiculous. He must have run out of letters to splain himself.

        Like

      • auscitizenmom says:

        That was exactly my question.

        Like

    • John Galt says:

      “DID NOT agree to hear appeal.”

      Yeah, they did. DCA 5 might still decide the appeal on the basis of lack of irreparable injury and adequate relief in a post conviction appeal, but they decided to hear the appeal. The work product issues will be fully briefed.

      FRAP 9.100(h); 9.100 (e) (3)

      (h) Order to Show Cause. If the petition demonstrates a preliminary basis for relief, a departure from the essential requirements of law that will cause material injury for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal, or that review of final administrative action would not provide an adequate remedy, the court may issue an order directing the respondent to show cause, within the time set by the court, why relief should not be granted. In prohibition proceedings such orders shall stay further proceedings in the lower tribunal.

      (e) (3) Response. The responsibility to respond to an order to show cause is that of the litigant opposing the relief requested in the petition. Unless otherwise specifically ordered, the judge or lower tribunal has no obligation to file a response. The judge or lower tribunal retains the discretion to file a separate response should the judge or lower tribunal choose to do so. The absence of a separate response by the judge or lower tribunal shall not be deemed to admit the allegations of the petition.

      Like

      • ottawa925 says:

        but do you agree that ONE could get confused reading Pepitone’s tweet? I can just picture some Trayvonite jumping up and down … they won’t hear the appeal, they won’t hear the appeal. Again “integrity”. This guy is an “investigative reporter” and he tweets confusing info.

        ^He has since clarified, but I won’t bother to post his tweet.

        BTW, folks … I heard O’Reilly is going to have a segment on this case today. I’m sure it won’t be anything … just talk about the settlement. O’Reilly has a very poor format for getting legal opinions (other attorneys) on his show.

        Like

      • jello333 says:

        Yay! I like seeing it in black and white, all legal-like. 😉 Because just a few minutes ago I posted a comment that was just going from memory, and trying to use some common sense.

        My comment: “This really WAS a first major hurdle, because the Court could have just said NO. They could have just said, based on what’s in the petition, this isn’t something they can consider at this time. If there wasn’t a prima facia showing in the petition (that there would be irreversible error, that the judge was ignoring a settled law, etc), then the Court would have just stopped it right there. Instead, they told the State to answer… ‘Tell us why we shouldn’t hear this.’ ”

        The Rule: “If the petition demonstrates a preliminary basis for relief, a departure from the essential requirements of law that will cause material injury for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal… the court may issue an order directing the respondent to show cause”

        Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Appeals court asks state why it should not at least hear #GeorgeZimmerman motion to question @attorneycrump — DID NOT agree to hear appeal.

      That’s technically correct:

      Ordered that Respondent in the above-styled cause shall file with this Court and show cause, on or before twenty days from the date hereof, why the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed April 4, 2013, should not be granted.

      If the writ of certiorari is granted, then the DCA will consider the merits of the appeal.

      I would assume, however, that this is the normal order of things. The petitioner says, “hey DCA, please consider this appeal“. The DCA then says, “Okay, respondent, tell us why we should NOT consider the appeal – and petitioner, let us know what you think of what the respondent says“. Then, the DCA considers the writ, the respondents argument, and the petitioner’s reply to that argument, and then decides whether or not to consider the appeal.

      If the DCA then agrees to consider the appeal, it grants the writ; otherwise, it denies the writ. The question appears to be one of process: jurisdiction and ripeness, rather than a decision on the merits.

      However, since the court could simply have denied cert outright, I infer that the DCA issuing a Show Cause order means that the court believes that it should grant the writ of certiorari, and is providing the opportunity for the Respondent (i.e. the State) to argue why the court should not grant the writ.

      Like

      • ottawa925 says:

        That’s how I see it.

        Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        This is diff. Not a writ to accept a case. It is a common law writ to stop a runaway trial court. Different animals. You are thinking a grant of certiorari for a post trial appeal. Confusin’ ain’t it.

        Like

      • auscitizenmom says:

        Thanks Chip. That was actually very helpful.

        Like

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Alluding to the point doodahdaze makes below, the confusion I have is whether a district court granting a petition for Writ of Certioriari means that the court will conduct a review, or that the court is granting the relief sought.

        Some required reading here and here.

        Money quotes:

        Certiorari review by the district court of appeal is more limited than that afforded the parties in the circuit court proceeding. It has been described by the Florida Supreme Court as “second-tier certiorari review” which is “similar in scope to true common law certiorari.”38 In reviewing the circuit court’s judgment, the district court is limited to consideration of whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law.39 Consideration by the district court of whether the decision is supported by competent substantial evidence is impermissible. Likewise, the district court is without power to address the merits of the controversy by a judgment directed to either the circuit court or local government. The district court through certiorari review is only empowered to quash the order of the circuit court and remand for further proceedings.

        …and:

        Once the circuit court, sitting in its review capacity, issues a decision, a district court has jurisdiction to review the circuit court’s appellate decision through certiorari. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030. District court review by certiorari of a circuit appellate decision, however, is extremely limited. This “second-tier” review, as it is often characterized, is not available as a matter of right, but is governed by a much stricter standard.23

        The Florida Supreme Court recently addressed second-tier review and emphasized that a district court, when reviewing an appellate decision rendered by a circuit court, can only consider whether: 1) due process was observed, and 2) there was a departure from the essential requirements of law.24 The “substantial competent” evidence component applicable on first-tier review to the circuit appellate division disappears. This maintains the district court’s jurisdiction to review a circuit court’s appellate opinion, while reinforcing the principle that a party is only entitled to one appeal. Accordingly, certiorari review can actually vary within related proceedings – serving first as a method of guaranteed review in a circuit court for a quasi-judicial decision for which no other review exists, and then as a limited mechanism for further review of that circuit court’s appellate conclusion.

        And an interesting footnote:

        Rightler v. Pompano Beach Police & Fireman’s Pension Fund, 467 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1985) (noting that the court must issue an order to show cause and require an opportunity to be heard if a petition for writ of certiorari demonstrates a basis for immediate relief).

        That footnote would imply that issuing a show cause order means that the district court believes that the petition does demonstrate a basis for immediate relief.

        I also find the scope of district court certiorari review to be quite interesting. All the arm-flapping and straw men usually employed by BDLR (waving Hi, Bernie!) will be of no use in responding to a district-court writ of certiorari. The district court is limited to the statutory and case-law basis for a decision made by the circuit court. (And I have a feeling that, if reviewed, Nelson’s “opposing counsel of some kind” is going to get some extra-special attention from the 5th DCA, on those grounds.)

        Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          The diff is pre-trial v. post-trial. I think. A DCA is loathe to quash a pre-trial order by a trial court judge. The writ is an attempt and cry for help to stop a miscarriage of justice by the trial court pre trial.The writ seems aimed at the orders by TCJ that the defense can not depose Mr. Crump on matters unrelated to his work product, and matters where he has clearly waived his work product privilege. That the TCJ orders are not following the law. In fact after reading it it seems to dovetail with everything I think about this disaster. The orders by TCJ are intended to cause irreparable harm to the defendant. I can see no other possible explanation. If there is one I want to hear it. So do they. Thus the request for the State to respond.

          Like

          • jello333 says:

            Right. The DCA is saying, “It takes a lot for us to hear an appeal like this, but we think the Defense has made a good argument. And so unless you, the State, can tell us why we shouldn’t, we ARE gonna hear this.”

            Like

            • doodahdaze says:

              Close. I think they already have heard it. It only takes a few minutes to read it. They did not order to show cause if they have already read the writ and formed opinion. It does not take a DCA justice long at all to digest the writ and its merit.

              Like

        • jordan2222 says:

          Informative, but much too confusing for my limited legal mind. You sure as hell know your stuff.. .so thanks. All of your posts require a great amount of concentration.

          Like

      • waltherppk says:

        Yes that is correct. The Court is agreeable to granting petitioner the relief being sought. Unless the Court can be convinced by objecting arguments to change Court’s inclination to order such relief, then such relief will be ordered.

        Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          One thing to think about. The latest filing is an order. It says the State of Florida “shall” respond within 20 days. Not might, maybe, can, should, but “shall.” Now if you have to respond what are you gonna say? The rules don’t count? Crump is above the law? The TCJ can do anything they want? Yep. The latter. But there is a complication and the main point. Can the information the defense wants be had any other way? But again that only applies to work product. The writ is going after non-work product and waived privilege information. Is the state going to argue that non-work product information can be hidden from the defense in a murder trial? I can’t wait to see what they do.

          Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      He is going for the trash can slam. They heard it and are asking why they should not quash the TCJ.

      Like

    • jello333 says:

      While we may have gotten a little ahead of ourselves… not by much. This really WAS a first major hurdle, because the Court could have just said NO. They could have just said, based on what’s in the petition, this isn’t something they can consider at this time. If there wasn’t a prima facia showing in the petition (that there would be irreversible error, that the judge was ignoring a settled law, etc), then the Court would have just stopped it right there. Instead, they told the State to answer… “Tell us why we shouldn’t hear this.”

      Like

      • waltherppk says:

        You mean “Tell us why we should not GRANT this” (Show good cause why relief being sought by petitioner should not be granted, otherwise same relief will be granted) A show cause order is more than just an invitation to adversaries to make arguments. It generally means it is already a done deal that the relief being sought will be granted unless some persuasive argument can be made for not granting same relief being sought. The court has expressed agreeability to grant relief, unless compelling arguments can be made which will cause the court to reconsider and change that decision.

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          Yeah, thanks Walther. You’ll see from some of my other comments that I got it (more or less) figured out. 😉 We’re getting into some pretty complex areas of the law, and it takes a lot of WORDS to try to say what’s going on in my head…

          Like

        • jordan2222 says:

          “Tell us why we should not GRANT this”. Lot of difference between that and “Tell us why we shouldn’t hear this.” Must be some merit to it.

          Like

      • John Galt says:

        “Instead, they told the State to answer… “Tell us why we shouldn’t hear this.”

        Nope. They found that GZ made a preliminary showing of entitlement to the relief requested by issuing an order to show cause pursuant to 9.100 (h) and then they ordered the state to show cause why they shouldn’t grant the relief requested. Which is a hell of alot better than “tell us why we shouldn’t hear this.”

        Click to access 5dca_order.pdf

        9.100
        (h) Order to Show Cause. If the petition demonstrates a preliminary
        basis for relief, a departure from the essential requirements of law that will cause
        material injury for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal, or that review of
        final administrative action would not provide an adequate remedy, the court may
        issue an order directing the respondent to show cause, within the time set by the
        court, why relief should not be granted. In prohibition proceedings such orders
        shall stay further proceedings in the lower tribunal.

        Like

        • eastern2western says:

          yeah man, I would love to read what the state and Blackwell in response. The last responses they wrote to nelson were just pure mumble jumble legal mush because they were all in bed together.

          Like

          • John Galt says:

            Yes, and Nelson’s order was also just mumbo jumbo. The appeals court takes a fresh look at legal issues, so all the mumbo jumbo goes down the drain. Actual law will be applied.

            Like

        • jello333 says:

          Yeah. I wrote that comment before I had seen the Rule that you posted. Check out my later comments, where I tried to take that Rule into account, and you’ll see I did better. 😉 You’re right, it goes quite a bit beyond just “tell us why we shouldn’t hear this.”

          Like

          • doodahdaze says:

            For example. In the list in the Subpoena Duces Tecum just a bland production request…
            List all of the names and addresses of all persons who are known by you, your agents, or your attorneys to have any knowledge concerning any of the issues on this criminal case; and specify the subject matter about which the witness has knowledge….under oath and penalty of perjury, obstruction, and destruction.

            Like

          • justfactsplz says:

            The more I understand this, I am encouraged. Hopefully they will grant the relief.

            Like

        • jello333 says:

          And by the way, in another of my comments I noted how quickly this “Show Cause” order was issued. Unless they worked over the weekend, they read MOM’s petition and decided what they were gonna do in a single day. Wouldn’t you say that implies that the justices on the DCA have already been following this quite closely, and maybe already know a whole bunch of the facts?

          Like

          • hooson1st says:

            I don’t think that it implies anything more than the panel examined the pleading before them.

            The DCA has plenty of cases to decide without having to follow cases that have not, and might not come their way at some future date, and have not cause to do so before the matters are presented for their disposition.

            Like

        • nivico says:

          “…a departure from the essential requirements of law…”

          Considering that we now know that Crump was putting words into Wit 8’s mouth… doesn’t that essentially make Cyrano de Crump the real accuser and Wit 8 merely his mouthpiece?

          Like

          • doodahdaze says:

            I think the state is the main issue. Crump is jus a jusus lawyer. He cain’t do nothin’ by hisself. Cept’ file a civil action. But manufacturing one out of whole cloth….Ahhh Dunno. Maybe this is what it is all about.

            Like

        • ytz4mee says:

          JG:
          Everyone is assuming that the State WILL respond. Reading through the documents, the State is “invited” to respond within 20 days, but not “compelled”.

          What if the State choses to “not respond” ? Then Crump is left twisting in the wind without his deep cover as “private attorney general/ state-non state prosecutor”.

          It also helps the State uncouple themselves from being tied to Crump on these railroad tracks from h3ll guiding the Orange Blossom Special.

          No one has considered the possibility of silence from the State – and the second and third order effects of that.

          I’m not saying that “will” happen, I’m just positing that it’s another position to consider.
          I’ve been involved in litigation that has taken remarkable – and unknowable in advance – twists and turns, which change everything. So I rule out nothing as an “option”.

          Like

          • doodahdaze says:

            A bear in a trap can do lot’s of things. The only way to get out is chew off his own leg.

            Like

          • MJW says:

            The show-cause order says: “ORDERED that the Respondent in the above-styled action shall file with this Court and show cause…”

            That’s sounds like more than an invitation to respond. Also, the state is pushing for Crump’s position. Page 162 of the petition appendix is from the transcript of the hearing on the motion to compel. Following Blackwell argument, BDLR says, “I completely agree with Mr. Blackwell in terms of the case law and really the lack of relevance that they’ve shown.”

            Like

            • ytz4mee says:

              K
              Thx for clarifying.
              It’s a waiting game ….. then.

              Like

            • John Galt says:

              “BDLR says, “I completely agree with Mr. Blackwell in terms of the case law”

              Yeah, all that case law Blackwell cited about waiver. I assume the state must have a competent appellate attorney that will actually write the state’s response.

              Like

          • jello333 says:

            I hadn’t really considered that, but yeah… that would probably be the smartest move Bernie/Corey could make. Of course we all know just how “smart” they’ve been so far, so…

            Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            Absolutely correct and wouldn’t silence be golden here?

            Like

      • ottawa925 says:

        My experience was not with criminal law, although members of my family are in that and I hear them discuss. My experience was primarily commercial litigation, and when you file appeal either on a moving document or a verdict handed down in a case there is no issue of … “we’ll see if it merits appeal”. You file your appeal and it automatically goes through the process to be heard. Not sure tho if “criminal cases” in Illinois follows the process like Florida. It would be interesting to know what notable cases have been turned away by Florida’s DCA.

        Like

      • doodahdaze says:

        Excuse me but please can anyone cite a reason why? Why should Mr. Crum be immune to deposition on any non-work product or any matters he has waived the A/C privilege on? I do not think there are any. But West can still not depose the SA yet.

        Like

  24. partyof0 says:

    But…but….when is the DCA’s appointment with the CRS going to be? Notice I didn’t say the CRS’s appointment with the DCA….I still wonder who’s running the show here.

    Like

  25. bullnuke says:

    I can imagine the members of the DCA quietly said to each other..its about time we got something to slow or even stop this train. Thinking they have made up their minds but are curious as to just what kind of lame excuse the state comes up with.

    Like

  26. John Galt says:

    Bobby getting on Gutman’s azz.

    Like

  27. Matt is the biggest slimeball on planet earth next to Crump. He’s actually getting testy with Robert Z. As if he should bake him a g.d cake! “We were the first to report that he wasn’t adolf hitler and had a bloody head. After calling him a racist who murders little black children. What do you want from me, Robert?” /embellished

    If Matt, Corey and marble mouth aren’t tap dancing for nickles after all of this then we failed big time. Big.Time.

    Like

    • jello333 says:

      “If Matt, Corey and marble mouth aren’t tap dancing for nickles after all of this then we failed big time. Big.Time.” Those three, along with a few others… yep.

      Like

    • justfactsplz says:

      There wasn’t room to reply to you above. You are right. We need to spread the word, the truth. I tell anybody and everybody who will listen. Sadly many can’t wrap their brain around the fact that this is a political railroading of our justice system. They also find it hard to believe that high levels of the government are involved. I still keep trying, one person at a time.

      Like

    • tara says:

      My experience with shady people is that they get angry when pressed to do something they don’t want to do, when you turn the screws on them. That’s how I perceive Matt. He knows what he did, he doesn’t dare admit it because of a potential lawsuit, but he’s feeling the heat and can’t keep quiet either.

      Come clean, Matt. Tell all. Unless you signed a contract with Crump, you’re free to spill the details of the entire scheme. You’ll help right a gigantic wrong and you’ll probably make some $$ and boost your reputation in the process.

      Like

  28. tara says:

    I was just thinking last night that I don’t recall ever seeing this type of use of the internet before. Has there been any criminal case for which individuals across the nation and in other countries too have banded together seeking justice for a person none of them know? I’ve been on the internet about as long as anyone (I started using computers in 1976 and they are my career) and I don’t recall anything like this. O’Mara and West are crucial to George’s defense and they could do the job quite well without any of us, but I do believe we’re helping, especially to educate the public when the media has been completely silent or when the media has reported misinformation. Anyway, I think this is very novel and hopefully a sign of things to come, and I hope Crump-type attorneys take notice.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      It is an unusual case. I don’t think perps often plant a trail of lies and deception with the media and on the internet for amateur sleuths to follow.

      Like

    • hooson1st says:

      tara:

      The contribution of internet sleuthers, such as those here, have contributed crucially to the collection of facts, examination of assertions, digging up information, suggesting avenues of further investigation, monitoring misstatements from the TM crowd, and sifting of theories.

      This has been done in an orderly/disorderly fashion, but it has saved a tremendous amount of time and money for a defense that is strapped for time, funds, and worker bees.

      Whatever internet sleuthers uncover that has probative value has to be corroborated and verified by the defense team, but it has cut down response time, and opened promising avenues for additional evidence to buttress the defense case.

      Like

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi Tara – I have also been on the Internet – because of my profession. I got involved in this – because I simply did NOT BELIEVE the reporting in the “press” and “media”. I “stumbled into the CTH”, just to see what was “happening” – and added my own commentary on this incipient gross miss-carriage of justice. I again thank the leaders of the CTH for there truth on these subjects.

      Like

    • jordan2222 says:

      You are correct but consider what the other side has accomplished, too,

      Like

Comments are closed.