Generally I don’t like to address the ideological critics -rarely is there any substance or opportunity for *rational* discussion- but this really is a bigger issue; And I’m trying to understand the thought processes.  First, here is an example of how the sunlight upon the recent information has been received:

Danny says:  I can not comment on the gossip that Mr. OMara had advised anyone on the HOA settlement. There is no proof. I am sure many will agree Sundance has been consistent with diverting away from important issues involving this case. In fact this may be the nail in the coffin for many who were teetering on whether or not SD is a reliable advocate. This does not mean people should not be grateful, but face it SD has made an enemy out of the wrong person. It makes me question his character and his motive.

Besides SD has not mentioned one thing about the HOA case since last year. You better believe if SD knew MOM was advising on this civil case we would have known about it. But now SD hides behind inside info.

Nothing is stopping anyone from personally questioning the defense about this rumor. Besides SD is not our spokesperson. In fact I have other questions relative to who is offering SD insider information concerning his client.

Later Danny Continues:    I want to know specifically if this source is reliable. I do not need to know the source specifically. I just want to know how they know and if they are legally involved in the criminal case. I do not take SD s word on anything concerning MOM considering he has continued to attack him.

Let me walk this through step-by-step, and then I’ll summarize toward the end.

I can not comment on the gossip that Mr. OMara had advised anyone on the HOA settlement. There is no proof. I am sure many will agree Sundance has been consistent with diverting away from important issues involving this case.

Really, does this person actually believe there is some malicious agenda to divert attention?   Has this person not seen the thousands of hours of research that have specifically focused attention into the most important aspect of this case.  The big picture of how this is all constructed, who constructed it, and why it was assembled.

What could be more important, at this moment, than the fact-based knowledge that Mark O’Mara gave opinion and advice to settle a claim against the RTL, and has been a party to such since last year?    -Against the backdrop of a Writ To compel and override a lower court ruling-

Doesn’t this help to explain or understand what the position of Blackwell is?   Doesn’t this newly discovered information help to understand what *might* have been in the mind of Judge Nelson regarding one of the most important depositions in the case?    That is a distraction?

In fact this may be the nail in the coffin for many who were teetering on whether or not SD is a reliable advocate. This does not mean people should not be grateful, but face it SD has made an enemy out of the wrong person. It makes me question his character and his motive.

I have made an enemy out of the wrong person?   Whom have I made an enemy?  Mark O’Mara?…  is that the implication?  If so, who exactly is Danny to know that Mark O’Mara considers me his enemy?    Additionally, if O’Mara does consider ME an enemy then wow, what does that speak to his objective.

Question my motive?   My motive is exactly what it has been from the outset of research and discussion in this case – The TRUTH.   If that pains people, so-be-it, but it stands alone.

Besides SD has not mentioned one thing about the HOA case since last year. You better believe if SD knew MOM was advising on this civil case we would have known about it. But now SD hides behind inside info.

I did not know O’Mara’s depth of involvement until recently.   Sure I was told about it last year, but it really did not matter at the time – The Writ Changes That.   Also, if you had any comprehension how much information flows through this place it would stagger you.  It cannot be that quite simply I forgot all about it until I was reminded.   No, for you there must be some *other* agenda at play (((insert creepy music here)))

Why would you expect us to be discussing the HOA beyond our bringing the issue to the sunlight in August of last year.   Remember, it was us – not anyone else – who first brought up the Travelers lawsuit against Sybrina Fulton which Jeff Weiner then took up the story and wrote about it.

I’m not hiding behind anything.   Quite the contrary, I put it out there.   Yes, there are people who provide information, sources of various affiliations, and we protect them;  Subsequently, often we cannot discuss details and specifics – they trust us to retain confidence and we always will.

The people who contact us never have to worry about being exposed or put at risk, and the only time we refer to specifics is with their full permission.    Such is the case in the ongoing M-DSPD research which is far more important than a settlement.

Nothing is stopping anyone from personally questioning the defense about this rumor. Besides SD is not our spokesperson. In fact I have other questions relative to who is offering SD insider information concerning his client

I am not a spokesperson for anyone except myself – and to a smaller extent this blog and the admin team who do exceptional hosting.   Nor would I ever accept a consideration to advocate for anyone.

You might have multiple questions about knowledgable sources, but I’ll just add that many people are well aware of the nefarious intents of multiple interests in this case.  Some have also been victimized by it, others have more of a guardian angel approach.  Regardless, no one has ever provided information for nefarious reasons – only to request help, or support in revealing the agenda-less truth.

I want to know specifically if this source is reliable. I do not need to know the source specifically. I just want to know how they know and if they are legally involved in the criminal case. I do not take SD s word on anything concerning MOM considering he has continued to attack him.

If the person was not reliable, we would not assert their position or information.  Nor would we present speculation that was not noted as speculation, or hypothesis.   Nothing we ever host is from unreliable or untrustworthy persons.  Everything we consider also must reconcile with our own historical fact-finding, on the ground research, specific information and everything must align accordingly.   If it doesn’t we ask more questions and do more research.

When we host opinion it is specifically cited as such.  And when we hypothesize you know it.

Summary:   No-one would know Ryan Julison without our research.  No-one would know the extent of how the scheme was organized, who connects to whom, how varied interests all reconcile within each social circle, etc. etc.   All of that is considered good or valuable – but widen that spotlight and whoooaaah..   not-so-much!

It is both disappointing and odd that many people do not want the same disinfecting sunlight applied to the defense they do want shining on the prosecution.   Indeed the very definition of “attack” appears to be based on who is being researched and discussed.

And finally, what information and research have we EVER provided to you that has been false?

Go ahead Danny, give me an example…….. I’ll wait.

But then, according to your logic, for some unknown reason, we would all of a sudden selectively choose to pivot and engage in some theretofore unknown agenda.?

Or you can be sure to tell us in the comments.