A massive amount of division lays at the heart of many George Zimmerman supporters regarding his legal counsel Mark O’Mara.    In an effort to heal the infection – here is why it matters, and what it infers moving forward.

Personally, I am not a fan of Mark O’Mara – simply because I do not trust, nor am I willing to excuse, those who have shown a history of untrustworthy behavior.   However, I will try to disassociate myself from opinion and reflect upon the integrity issues within, because, quite frankly, George has NO option(s) – For better or worse, he’s stuck with him.

History –  Mark O’Mara ideologically, like his friend and CNN contributor Mark NaJame, is more in alignment with the people who are prosecuting George Zimmerman than the people who support him.   Mark O’Mara’s central outlook toward life is “progressive”, and he infers that sentiment into his approach.   This ideology and familiarity is why Mark NaJame’s firm recommended O’Mara.

In short, he’s a legally left-leaning Democrat; and his views on gun ownership, stand-your-ground laws and trial lawyers, are counterintuitive to the position of the client he represents.

Most professionals would argue that attorneys are capable of separating their individual biases when advocating for clients positions.   This is generally true;  However in the case of Mark O’Mara he has specifically framed George Zimmerman’s positions on the case as if he is distancing himself from his client.   Intellectually honest persons would agree with this overall impression that O’Mara exudes.

Most importantly however, there are three essential actionable references which should have immediately raised warning flags and demanded explanation:

1. The filing of George and Shellie Zimmerman’s financial affidavit.
2. The Mark O’Mara mistake with the Passport.
3. The handling of the client Defense Funds.

a.) The filing of the financial affidavit, the mistakes therein, and the consequence from it, are perhaps the most troubling.    George and Shellie Zimmerman were blamed for lying to the court on their financial affidavit, Shellie now faces perjury charges, and George Zimmerman’s credibility was lambasted not only in the court, but also in the court of public opinion, driven by the media.

George started the fund when he was without representation on April 8th 2012, George was arrested April 11th.   As court records would later show, George told Mark O’Mara about the fund on April 12th, though he did not (at the time) know the full amount in the account.   George’s brother, Robert, also informed O’Mara about the fund – and raised concerns about exclusion from filing.

So Mark O’Mara knew about the PayPal defense fund began by George Zimmerman, and it was his specific instructions/opinion that it did not pertain to the financial filing of the affidavit.    O’Mara gave instructions to ignore it.

This could have been a mere inexperienced decision.  After all, the funds were technically not a part of an estate for Zimmerman, were they an asset, did he actually own it? these are all legitimate questions….  but questions not supported by O’Mara’s position – He just blamed his client.

This is factually not disputed by anyone.   What is disputed is whether or not this compromised Mark’s ability to defend his client.   I think it did, many more do not.

Here is the central issue – Who was blamed?   “The client”.   Yet the Zimmermans were following the instruction of their attorney.   When the substance of the non-disclosure became an issue, O’Mara had the professional, ethical, legal, and heck moral responsibility, to take ownership of the issue and tell the court this was his decision – If that decision was a mistake, then the consequences should be felt by the professional who made the decision, not the client.

O’Mara’s conduct after the issue became flamed by heated media-debate was horrid.  Not only did he NOT take responsibility for what he intentionally and specifically instructed, but worse he publicly said the credibility of his client was compromised by “their actions”, in numerous media outlets.

Think about that.

The attorney tells the client to NOT disclose information, and when the non disclosure becomes a legal issue for the client the attorney publicly blames the client.  Is this a trustworthy attorney?   Is this integrity?

Put yourself in the client’s shoes – what would you have done?

b.)  The Passport Issue – Upon release from jail (initial bond), Mark O’Mara instructed George Zimmerman to send him the funds from the PayPal defense, and include his passport as required by the States bond instructions.    George Zimmerman mailed a fed-x package containing a check, and the passport to Mark O’Mara.

O’Mara then took the passport and put it in his briefcase to give to the prosecutor’s office.

He never did.

Over three weeks later, when the State was taking George back to court demanding bond revocation one of the issues in support of their motion was the passport not being turned in.   The State said it was another example of George Zimmerman’s lack of integrity.

The Passport was still in O’Mara’s briefcase.

While O’Mara did tell the court he “forgot” about it, he buried the story of his mistake by not publicly repeating [he gave one presser] that it was his mistake, and his mistake alone, and should not be held against his client.

By omission, he again – blamed his client and made the credibility of his client an issue.   Is this integrity?

c.)  The client defense funds – For reasons only known to Mark O’Mara [he never justified] O’Mara took the PayPal close out check from George (prior fed-x package) and instead of putting it into the “surrogated client defense fund account” (with oversight from the Florida Bar) he put it into a totally separate account under his control without any oversight agency.

Essentially, he did something he had never done before in putting the funds into a generic unregulated, unsupervised (by FL Bar)  and unaccountable bank account, and then appointed one of his colleagues to oversee/manage it.   He hired a CPA to administer the fund, but never explained why it was not handled in the customary manner for client defense funds.

The Florida Bar even took exception to his being “off the range” with the money, and sent numerous inquires to O’Mara about what he was doing.

Ask any ethical attorney about ‘Clients’ and ‘Money’ and they will tell you – “I don’t want anything to do with it”, because attachment immediately calls into question their ability to be seen as an “impartial-best interested-decisionmaker”.

Such questions came screaming to the forefront when O’Mara purchased the adjacent office building a mere two days after finding out George had over $200,000 and growing in the account.    Perhaps such a purchasing decision had nothing to do with “control” of the Zimmerman Defense fund – but you can see how it looks.

Besides, no one ever raises the issue of “why did O’Mara need that control”?    There simply was no reason for George not to retain control of his own defense account – none.

These three issues are facts – they are not disputed.   O’Mara told the Zimmerman’s not to disclose the PayPal account, O’Mara took custody of the Passport and *forgot* to turn it in, and O’Mara demanded full control of the client defense fund outside of the oversight of the Florida Bar.

None of this is factually disputed.

What are disputed are the consequences, and what this means, and whether or not Mark O’Mara has compromised his ability to defend his client.

I would also add the biggest issue is:  What does this say about Mark O’Mara’s integrity?

I am not prone to supporting fibbers, liars, or what I perceive to be manipulators.

We, well actually me, has also been accused of not supporting George Zimmerman’s defense specifically because I refuse to TRUST Mark O’Mara’s intentions.

Yet strangely enough there is a growing contingent of people, joining forces with the media, who seem ok with this going to trial now.

Six months ago most who reviewed this case, including Alan Dershowitz, believed it would not even reach the point of an immunity hearing – and all the truths of the case would implode it prior to the end of discovery.

Whether or not people choose to accept this is a political case is entirely up to them.  However, as the law continues to be circumvented hopefully more people will wake up to the reality as it appears:

…….everyone, including George’s attorneys, appear quite happy (and prepared) to take this to a trial.

In the interim, we will work diligently to deconstruct the evidence and destroy the fabricated nonsense by showcasing the TRUTH as it appears to be.

In my humble estimation, this approach eliminates the worries of Mark O’Mara completely.   If we can put the sunlight of truth upon the lies – the case falls apart with or without a defense.