Pity Judge Debra Nelson. Her life has just become very, very interesting. That’s “interesting” as in the ancient Chinese curse:
May you live in interesting times.
THE MOTIONS:
On March 25th and 26th, George Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, filed two successive and related motions that appear to be a significant departure from his past demeanor and strategy. The first is a motion to sanction the prosecution for its slow rolling and refusal to provide discovery, and the second, a motion for attorney’s fees incurred as a result of the prosecution’s deceptions.
The first portion of the initial motion deals with DeeDee and her significance to the case. O’Mara notes that Benjamin Crump interviewed her on or about March 19, 2012, and prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conducted a sworn interview with DeeDee on or about April 2, 2012.
In the Crump interview, DeeDee told Crump she was a juvenile. She also said:
Ben Crump: And why couldn’t you go to his wake?
Witness 8: I was just sick… that day.
Ben Crump: And what happened? Where did you go?
Witness 8: I went on Friday um Friday I was just sick so I just stayed home and then my mama came and she took…around 2 something…hospital the next day.
Ben Crump: So you had to spend the night in the hospital>
Witness 8: Yes.
Ben Crump: And this made you so sick that you had to get medical assistance?
Witness 8: Yes…. I was the last person talking to him and I fell…
Ben Crump: And that’s when you realized that the day of his wake that you were the last person talking to him and it just made you physically sick?
Witness 8: yeah.
Ben Crump: Okay.
O’Mara continues with a portion of the interview de la Rionda conducted with Dee Dee (the complete interview is available at Update 11):
Mr. de la Rionda: Okay what happened?
Witness 8: I didn’t feel good.
Mr. de la Rionda: Okay did you end up going to the hospital or somewhere?
Witness 8: Yeah. I had like, um, high blood pressure.
O’Mara, carefully building his case, also noted:
5. Finally, on August 2, 2012, Witness 8 was flown to Jacksonville for yet another interview by Mr. de la Rionda. According to the deposition testimony of Witness 8, this interview (which was not recorded and it is unknown whether or not it was sworn) was the interview when Witness 8 told Mr. de la Rionda that she had in fact not gone to the hospital, lied about it to him, and to Mr. Martin’s family.
This is interesting–and significant–for several reasons, but more about that later. O’Mara further writes that Mr. Crump has, in several public appearances, claimed Dee Dee was a juvenile entitled to significant protection. O’Mara writes that in a hearing on October 19, 2012, de la Rionda made an “offhand reference” questioning whether Dee Dee was actually a juvenile:
Mr. de la Rionda: I know who the person is, and I’ve cited the person. But we’re very far afield here, speculating, with all due respect to Mr. O’Mara, as to who the person is. He knows the name, because I’ve disclosed the name. But there’s been an indication here she’s a juvenile. Have they proven that?
O’Mara asked, on record during the hearing, and after the hearing what de la Rionda meant, but “that question was not answered.” In his enclosed notes, O’Mara wrote:
It became apparent that Mr. de la Rionda knew that Witness 8 was an 18 year old adult in April of 2012 when he interviewed Witness 8. However, the State redacted that information from the Defense until months later.
Regarding his deposition of Dee Dee, O’Mara wrote:
7. Witness 8’s deposition was taken on March 13, 2013. During that deposition, Witness 8 testified under oath that she had advised Mr. de la Rionda in the above referenced August interview that she was an adult, and had not, in fact, gone to the hospital; that she had lied about going to the hospital when she advised Mr. Crump of that statement, and that she had also lied to Mr. de la Rionda when she told him in the April 2, 2012 sworn interview that she had gone to the hospital.
But why would Dee Dee repeatedly lie? O’Mara continues:
The reason Witness 8 gave for lying to Mr. Crump was that Trayvon Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, was present during the interview. Similarly, Witness 8 stated that she told Mr. de la Rionda the same lie because during Mr. de la Rionda’s sworn interview of Witness 8, for unknown reasons, Ms. Sybrina Fulton was sitting next to her, and Witness 8 felt the need to deceive as to the reason for not going to the wake or funeral.
Why this might cause her to lie about her age goes unanswered. O’Mara asked the Prosecution about hospital records via e-mail on August 23rd, 2012, but got no response. A letter was sent on September 19, 2012, but it too went unanswered. O’Mara also spoke with the prosecution about these issues several times, but again, received no answer. O’Mara filed a motion for a subpoena of the medical records on February 21, 2012. He wrote:
12. This is significant because Mr. de la Rionda knew this information well before even the first email…[08-23-12]…was sent, and before the second correspondence…[09-19-12]…, yet continually failed to inform undersigned counsel. It was in this context that the State failed to inform undersigned counsel of this significant and exculpatory information until such time as the evening before the Subpoena…motion was heard by this Court.
O’Mara writes that only on March 4, 2013 at about 7:00 PM did Mr. Guy of the prosecutor’s office tell him about Dee Dee lied to Mr. Crump. Apparently, Guy my have informed O’Mara that she also lied to de La Rionda on April 2, 2012. O’Mara continues:
It is also now known that witness 8 lied to Mr. de la Rionda during his April 2, 2012 interview of her, which, for unknown reasons, occurred under the unique circumstances of being conducted in the presence of other state witnesses such as Sybrina Fulton. Based upon this evidence, it is apparent that the State Attorney’s Office was fully aware that Witness lied about the relevant and significant parts of her testimony, and the state knew this no later than August 2, 2012. In addition, the decision to conduct the interview in the living room of Ms. Fulton’s home, and to allow any other state witness, particularly the decedent’s mother, to be sitting next to the witness during the interview, when Mr. de la Rionda had to know the potential influence that could occur, places the legitimacy and veracity of the entire statement at issue.
As I noted in Update 23, O’Mara continues to be a master of understatement. In his notes, O’Mara included a statement made by de la Rionda in the March 5th hearing that appears to neatly encapsulate the prosecution’s attitude toward justice and the truth in this matter:
When asked on March 5th how long the State knew Witness 8 had not gone to the hospital, the State responded, ‘Frankly I just don’t think that’s necessary. They can depose the witness and ask her….’
O’Mara continued his mastery of understatement:
14. The decision by the State Attorney’s Office to fail to disclose this information was willful, voluntary, and caused the undersigned sounsel additional time, frustration and effort to attempt to find out this information through other means such as additional correspondence, additional conversations, additional investigation, delay in scheduling the deposition of Witness 8, and finally, the filing of a Motion for a Subpoena…”
15. The evidence of Witness 8’s deceit in this regard is significant exculpatory evidence as it goes to her credibility concerning her other statements and as such the State Attorney’s Office has an affirmative obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) to disclose.
O’Mara asked the court for an order requiring the prosecution to reimburse the defense for “all of the time expended to seek out this information otherwise readily available to the State Attorney’s Office.” He also asked the Court to “…fine the Office of the State Attorney for this willful and flagrant violation of discovery for their causing unnecessary delay in proper preparation by the defense for this case….” He also asked the Court to admonish the state for failing to live up to its discovery obligations and “…order strict and prompt compliance with discovery rules in the future.”
O’Mara also noted many past instances of prosecution slow rolling and obfuscation of discovery.
The March 26th motion contains extraordinary revelations about the prosecution’s continuing unethical and unprofessional behavior. Following usual procedures, O’Mara, in advance, notified de la Rionda of every aspect of Dee Dee’s March 13 deposition, including the fact that it would be professionally videotaped. When O’Mara arrived on March 13 for the 9:00 AM deposition, with a professional videographer, the factual, unemotional prose of the motion doubtless does not do the scene justice.
De la Rionda refused to allow the deposition to proceed if videotaped. O’Mara explained that his draft and filed notices of deposition–both of which were provided to the prosecution–specified that the deposition would be videotaped, including the applicable state rule allowing it. However, de la Rionda claimed state rules did not allow it, and would not relent.
For hours, O’Mara tried to speak with Judge Nelson by long distance phone to resolve the matter and offered to go ahead with the videotape with the understanding that if the Judge ruled against him, the taping would be stopped and the tape could be secured by the State or destroyed, but de la Rionda still would not allow it. O’Mara repeatedly offered this, but de la Rionda was unmoved. O’Mara wrote:
9. That undersigned counsel advised Mr. De la Rionda of the applicable rules in this regard including Criminal Rule of Procedure 3.220(8)(1) which identifies that depositions may be taken upon notice and to the extent that the procedure for taking the deposition…shall be as provided in the Florida rules of Civil Procedure. Undersigned counsel then referenced Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(4) which states that videotaped depositions may be taken without leave of court or stipulation to the parties provided the deposition is taken in accordance with the subdivision (a) of the rule which states that the notice is to state that the deposition is to be videotaped and give the name and address of the operator. In this particular case, that was appropriately done for all videotaped deposition notices.
O’Mara wrote the de la Rionda ignored the rules and continued to obstruct the deposition. As a result, the deposition was delayed more than five hours. O’Mara does not specify this, but it appears de la Rionda was finally forced to give in by order of Judge Nelson.
O’Mara lists the Florida rules that authorize sanctions, including reimbursement for costs, failure to comply with discovery rules and/or other related rules. O’Mara requested a total of $4,555.00 in reimbursement, which is hardly unreasonable.
The PDF document includes copies of the draft and file copies of the notices of deposition. Both include the fact that the depositions would be videotaped and specifically name the company. Also included are affidavits indicating that O’Mara’s hourly rate is $400.00 and Don West’s is $350.00.
ANALYSIS:
As this case has drawn on, I have become increasingly convinced that the behavior of the Prosecution goes beyond mere incompetence into the realm of malice. There have been indications, including some amount of direct evidence, that they have done all they can to slow roll or entirely impede discovery, all the while claiming that it was O’Mara that was trying to obstruct his own work.
In Update 20, I reported on an early February hearing where Judge Nelson denied O’Mara’s request for a continuance of the June 10 trial date. I wrote:
One might be tempted to think the system is working to deny Zimmerman the resources and time he needs to mount an effective defense. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asserted that Zimmerman should not be granted additional time to prepare and that he did not need expert witnesses. Judge Debra S. Nelson agreed in part and denied a continuance of the June 10 trial date.
I also noted that de la Rionda, in his interview with Dee Dee, did not reveal the presence of the entire scheme team: Benjamin Crump, Daryl Parks, and Natalie Jackson, and now we discover that Sybrina Fulton was not only present for the interview, it was conducted in her home(!?) and she was sitting next to Dee Dee! The presence of the Scheme Team was first reported in Update 18 via the report of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement agent that served as a chauffer for the Scheme Team. That report does not positively place them in the room for the entire interview–it does place them at Fulton’s home–but it is unreasonable to believe that if they went to the trouble to appear at Ms. Fulton’s home at the time of the interview they would not be sitting in on the interview.
In the Update 11 transcript, de la Rionda says only this about those present:
As I told you, my name is Bernie de la Rionda. I’ve been appointed by Miss Corey, who has been appointed by the governor of the State of Florida to handle this case that I’m going to be asking you questions about. Also to my right is Detective..uh..or Investigator T.C. O’Steen with the State Attorney’s office. We’ve come from Jacksonville, here along with some agents with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and we are at [redacted] because you have agreed to come here today, is that correct?
Correct interview protocol is, first, to have only the person being interviewed present, and second, as few interviewers as possible–usually no more than two–present, and to clearly identify each and every person present. This is done to fully and clearly identify every potential witness to the interview. To do otherwise is evidence of incompetence, corruption, an attempt to conceal evidence, or all three.
I cannot say this often or strongly enough: interviews are never–never–conducted with others in the room, particularly other parties to the case. As O’Mara so dryly observed, this compromises the interview because while it’s possible to predict that a given person being interviewed would be affected, by say, the presence of the victim’s mother, it’s never possible to predict exactly how, or to what degree. Anyone seeking the truth, in other words, conducts interviews with only the person being interviewed, and at most, one other interviewer. To do otherwise is unprofessional, unethical, and frankly, stupid.
Yet here is Deputy Special Prosecutor Bernard de la Rionda conducting an interview with Dee Dee with Trayvon Martin’s mother sitting right next to her, and also with Investigator T.C. O’Steen in the room. And it is highly likely the entire Scheme Team was also looming over Dee Dee.
We also now know that–according to Dee Dee–Sybrina Fulton was present during Crump’s interview of Dee Dee. We do not yet know who else was present for that interview (other than Matt Guttman of ABC News and an ABC technician, name unknown).
This might cause a cynical person to begin to wonder whether the prosecutor’s office has been engaging in unethical collusion with the Scheme Team and with Martin’s parents.
Some in the blogosphere and elsewhere have been claiming that Dee Dee did not lie. That’s over now. According to O’Mara, she has admitted it in her March 13 deposition. I doubt O’Mara would misrepresent this as it is in black and white on the transcript, and on videotape. One can reasonably argue about whether she should be prosecuted for perjury, particularly since it now appears her motivation to lie might have been at least partially induced by Crump and de la Rionda’s incompetence, but there is no doubt she lied at least twice under oath.
We also know that de la Rionda knew of two exculpatory lies by Dee Dee as early as April 2, 2012, but despite being asked about this multiple times in the intervening months, did not disclose the information to O’Mara until March, 4, 2013, a total of 336 days–nearly a year. De la Rionda disclosed that information not because he recognized his legal, ethical duty to disclose it, but because he would be forced to do so in open court the next day.
Remember that during the nearly one year that he was concealing information that he knew would utterly destroy the credibility of his “star” witness, and with her credibility, his case, he had multiple opportunities to do the right thing, opportunities when he was all but asked highly specific questions, yet he kept that information hidden. From the production of the transcript of his interview of Dee Dee, he opted, instead, for a cover up, redacting any mention of her true age. Update 11 shows the number of redactions, particularly in the early portion of the interview where she apparently provided that information. There can be only a single reasonable explanation: knowing how damaging the revelation of these two lies would be, he plotted to stonewall and obfuscate in the hope no one would find out.
Remember too that even in court, de la Rionda repeatedly claimed that he was doing nothing to impede the defense. He even blamed the defense for what he knew were his own deceptions and delaying tactics. In short, he lied, repeatedly, to the court.
Throughout this case, many have written that the prosecution wouldn’t be so stupid as to do X, Y or Z. We now know they would be exactly that stupid. How anyone could possibly believe that kind of information would remain hidden is almost impossible to fathom. Perhaps it’s a function of a certain warped political mindset, arrogance, power madness, an unthinking belief in the narrative that surpasses reason, all of these or more.
The bottom line is O’Mara has caught de la Rionda in blatant violations of the law and of his obligations as an officer of the court. There is no question that if he has done as O’Mara alleges–and his own actions and statements indicate that he has–that he is culpable for many violations of legal ethics, and possibly, multiple crimes.
Particularly deranged is de la Rionda’s behavior on March 13. His bizarre obstruction of Dee Dee’s deposition is all but inexplicable. Confronted with the law, which plainly showed O’Mara was acting fully within the law, he continued to obstruct and delay. What competent prosecutor wants to prevent his star witness from telling the truth? This is all the more bizarre when one realizes that the law is clear, and de la Rionda must have known all he could do was delay, never halt the deposition, which was indeed the case. Why did he do it? Dee Dee’s lies about her age and about going to the hospital had already been exposed; what else did he fear? It’s possible his behavior could have been inspired by arrogance and malice, but more likely, he feared that Dee Dee would actually tell the whole truth.
Probably, he didn’t want her deposition videotaped. It’s one thing to hear a halting, barely literate Dee Dee on audiotape in court, but quite another to see her on videotape. She will, of course, offer direct testimony in person, but if necessary, she is now on videotape, her own images and words available to impeach her if necessary. Consider too that we do not know all that she said regarding de la Rionda, the Scheme Team and others involved in the Prosecution. It is, however, now all on tape.
I’ll not get into speculation about what truths Dee Dee might provide. That will likely be revealed in due time.
De la Rionda’s actions in holding Dee Dee’s interview in Sybrina Fulton’s living room is jaw-droppingly bone-headed. In all of my years in law enforcement, I cannot imagine a law enforcement professional even thinking of such a thing, let alone doing it. That stunt alone screams incompetence, possible corruption, and undue influence. Seating Martin’s mother in the same room, to say nothing of right beside Dee Dee, is simply dumbfounding. How anyone with de la Rionda’s supposed experience could possibly do something so incredibly stupid beggars description. And putting–potentially–the three members of the Scheme Team in the same room is equally troubling. How, under those circumstances, could anyone’s testimony remain uninfluenced? If Dee Dee’s testimony was essentially worthless before this information become known, it is far less than worthless thereafter. Not only is de la Rionda a poor interviewer–as I noted in Update 11–he now appears to be hopelessly incompetent, or equally hopelessly unethical.
The full involvement of Crump remains in the shadows. We know that he has, in multiple venues, claimed Dee Dee was a juvenile and done all he could to keep her from the public and from the Defense. O’Mara’s motion suggests only that Dee Dee lied to him. However, Crump had more than sufficient motivation to want to hide Dee Dee from scrutiny. He had to know that her testimony amounted to nothing, and that it would be highly likely to harm the prosecution, yet he misrepresented her testimony and was instrumental in obtaining the arrest of George Zimmerman.
I’ve little doubt O’Mara has a great deal more evidence about Crump’s involvement, but he is wisely releasing only what he needs to prove specific, narrowly tailored points at the appropriate times. I have a feeling that those who have impugned Mr. O’Mara’s motives and competence might want to be–if they are honorable–contemplating retractions.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
NOTE: The Orlando Sentinel reports that the Defense has filed a new witness list with some 130 names. Certainly the Defense will not use all of these witnesses, but it’s an interesting, and likely effective, tactic which might just cause the prosecution to reverse itself and demand a continuance of the trial to find out what they all might have to say.
In addition, the Defense and NBC have mutually agreed to stay further work on Zimmerman’s defamation suit against NBC (See Update 20 for additional information) until the resolution of the criminal case.
Judge Nelson’s actions will reveal a great deal about her character, judicial temperament and conduct of the eventual trial. My sense of her, based on nothing more than what I’ve been able to read in public sources, is that she is somewhat hostile to the Defense and obviously deferential to the Prosecution.
No one should doubt that lawyers dislike disciplining each other, and virtually everywhere, judges are lawyers. Judges generally will not impose sanctions on attorneys absent the most blatant, outrageous, public insults to the Court. Lawyers comprise a small and exclusive fraternity, and they are jealous of its prerogatives. As those at the top of this exclusive hierarchy, judges are always mindful of their positions, and the fact that it is the body of lawyers that ensures they keep that position. Favors, subtle and gross, are the currency of the daily practice of law.
In this case, there is, again, no doubt de la Rionda has committed multiple violations, and under Florida law, the judge has substantial discretion in deciding what, if anything, to do. O’Mara has wisely asked for only the most defensible, rational, and logical sanctions, sanctions clearly within Florida law. What he is likely to get, if anything, is a mock stern admonishment of the prosecution from the bench, essentially a slap on the wrist, and a warning that they’d better shape up and fly right from now on. Fines are unlikely, and anything more serious, almost ridiculously improbable, but for Judge Nelson to do nothing in this set of circumstances would destroy her credibility and tarnish the Florida bench for years to come.
Keep in mind that O’Mara is building a strong record for appeal, should that become necessary. Considering the nature of these motions, O’Mara now has a very strong basis to ask for a continuance of the June 10 court date–should he decide that’s necessary.
We are now at the point of asking: what did Angela Corey know and when did she know it? If Corey knew, in early April, 2012, of Dee Dee’s lies and did nothing to see that the Defense was properly informed, she is as guilty of malfeasance as de la Rionda. If she was unaware of this–and this would seem to stretch the boundaries of credibility–it does not speak well for her managerial abilities.
More and more, it is becoming painfully obvious that there are a great many questions that must be asked of everyone involved with the prosecution. That may, of necessity, take place after the trial, but it must take place. That is, if there is any semblance of justice in Florida, and if the Florida bar has any sense of honor and integrity. All of this remains to be seen.
If she is wise, Judge Nelson is pondering that ancient Chinese curse even as these words are written. And well she should.
boricuafudd said:
Reblogged this on Justice For All and commented:
Here is Mike’s take on today’s following, “Interesting Times”, indeed.
boricuafudd said:
Great article Mike, I need to mention that the it is reported in the Orlando Sentinel that the first part of the deposition was not videotaped. Is is unclear whether the Judge was involved in the decision to go ahead without the taping, or just that MOM decided to go ahead anyhow.
ejarra said:
“As a result, the deposition was delayed more than five hours. O’Mara does not specify this, but it appears de la Rionda was finally forced to give in by order of Judge Nelson.”
Like bori stated, the OS said that that hour of the interview was NOT taped. I believe she did allow it on the 22nd, based on his motion to get compensated for those five hours. Reaction?
pinecone (minpin) said:
Was it in the motion, or posted anywhere that the second deposition was in fact completed? In Blackwell’s filing today re Crump, he refers to a partial deposition. If Nelson did allow videotaping for a second deposition, wouldn’t she have had to put that order in writing, even after the fact? Were any of the other depositions done and videotaped?
ejarra said:
Sorry for the late response. To answer your questions.
Was it in the motion, or posted anywhere that the second deposition was in fact completed?
No and no. I only went by what Mike here had stated that the 2nd interview was done on Friday the 22nd. It made sense to me, so I believed him.
In Blackwell’s filing today re Crump, he refers to a partial deposition. If Nelson did allow videotaping for a second deposition, wouldn’t she have had to put that order in writing, even after the fact?
I’m no lawyer but seeing the time restraints, an oral order should suffice; maybe a written one will follow. If she told BLDR to allow it, I doubt he would tell her that he won’t unless it’s in writing.
Were any of the other depositions done and videotaped?
Hard to say without looking at the summons. In DD’s summons it stated that hers would be taped, part of MOM’s argument was that BLDR should have objected earlier and NOT on the 13th wasting time and money. I’ll bet he get’s the almost 5 grand he’s asking for.
myopiafree said:
Hi – I thought that Bernie managed to get the video-taping of the DeeDee deposition blocked – and that Nelson supported that blocking. Is that correct?
Nettles18 said:
Another great post Mike. Thank you! I agree, the Judge has to do something here or there will be no confidence in the Florida Justice System.
I think that FDLE and BDLR really did think they were dealing with a minor when they interviewed W8 on April 2nd. Look at the bottom of the FDLE reports explaining the need to “escort” W8 to Sybrina’s home. The box refers to dealing with a juvenile.
I believe BDLR also thought he was interviewing a 16 year old and if so, he had to have taken permission from her parent(s), yet that has never been provided in discovery that I am aware. I think BDLR stumbled onto the fact that this witness was actually 18 years old at this point of the interview:
BDLR: And for the record, today is April the 2nd, 2012, and it’s about 7:05 PM. Uh, what I wanna kinda do is ask you some background questions, and then I also want to ask you some questions about something that happened back on February 26th of this year. And for the record, you knew a person named Trayvon Martin, is that correct?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: OK…now, you live [Redacted]…
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: OK, how long have you lived there?
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: Your whole life?
Dee Dee: Hmmm…[mumbling]
BDLR: OK, where did you live before that?
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
At this point I think it hits him, she’s older than 16 and he stalls for time.
BDLR: OK, the reason I am asking you is because I am from Jacksonville, so I want to make sure the record’s clear…that we’re here in uh [redacted] Umm…
Dee Dee: A year or two…or eleven…[mumbling]
BDLR: What?
Dee Dee: Ten years…or 11.
BDLR: I’m sorry, what?
Dee Dee: Eleven…or 10 years
What possible reason could there be for the State to redact how many years she lived there? When she gives her answer, BDLR asks “Your whole life?” That’s when he knew!
It speaks volumes to me about the State’s motivation to seek the truth and justice in this case when BDLR doesn’t ask right then and there, why did you tell Mr. Crump you were 16 years old when you just told me you’ve lived there 17, 18 years?
I can’t for the life of my come up with a good reason why a girl of 18 would want to project herself as a 16 year old to the Martin family and Mr. Crump. I can think of reasons why they would want her to be 16 but not why she and she alone would lie about her age. Can anyone give me a reason why she wanted to deceive the family with that?
When FDLE did their reports in August indicating the pick up and drop off of W8 to the airport where she met with prosecutors, you will note the box at the bottom referring to juvenile’s is no longer on reports relating to W8. In August before her trip they knew they were dealing with an adult. http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/1112/discovery9/fdle_reports_august.pdf
Nettles18 said:
Sorry I neglected to post the link with the FDLE reports on “escorting” the witness to the interview and the box at the bottom that tells us the officers thought she was a juvenile. Here’s the link. http://www.scribd.com/doc/115550303/Bernie-De-La-Rionda
ackbarsays said:
That document also says she volunteered to be escorted to Sabrina’s residence, so the revelation that the interview took place in Sabrina’s home isn’t really “new” evidence.
Joel said:
Interesting times indeed. I count at least three lawyers who might face disbarment after all is said and done with this case. BDLR, Corey and Crump should be figuratively taken to the back of the woodshed and beaten to an inch of their professional lives. Note I said figuratively, not literally. I don’t want anyone to think I condone violence.
Nettles18 said:
It’s quite suspicious BDLR’s efforts to avoid having W8 on video-tape.
boricuafudd said:
The lengths that the prosecutor has gone to keep DD’s identity secret from the Defense brings up many questions. Actual threats have been issued against GZ, yet when the Defense asks for permission to leave Seminole County, BDLR downplayed and mocked them.
As far as I know nobody has threatened DD, yet she is as anonymous today as she was on the day of the secret phone interview to Crump.
We now know that she is not a fragile minor at all, yet the prosecutor’s office maintains the need to keep her secret.
I am suspecting that if the Defense where to get a picture and address of Witness 8 some skeletons will fall out of her closet.
boutis said:
With the manner in which she was “minded” by Fulton and the Crump team as well as the prosecution something is very off. It seems as though as soon as she was out of Fulton’s presence she started owning up to her deceptions. Why?
boricuafudd said:
Now look how they are distancing themselves, Crump in his Affidavit says “I only spoke to that lady once, and did not know her name or address”. The rest don’t mention here. Why is right.
jordan2222 said:
Mike: Thanks for once again writing an informative analysis about the case.
I remained unconvinced that DeeDee’s statements about the lies are truthful. In other words, I think it is possible that she lied about lying.. More on that later after I see some comments.
There is one significant issue which has never been resolved as far as I know and it’s about the rules of discovery. The rules have been posted and debated many times on different sites, including exceptions that may apply in this case. .There has been no clear cut agreement that I know of.
I wish I had kept the link to this and hopefully others will remember it and perhaps they know where it can be found.
I am certain that I read a discussion about the defense and the state making some kind of “deal” about discovery rules.
If they did, I have never seen a document about that nor have I ever heard confirmation of it. So I do not know what changes they would have made.
But, it makes sense that time limits would have been an issue. Did they agree to waive the 15 day rule and other rules regarding the time to disclose discovery?
I say this because I have never seen any specific rules mentioned in any of the defense complaints. What rules have been violated?
Now the defense files a motion for sanctions and still no mention of rules violations except to say that they have been dragging their feet, so to speak. Again: What rules have been violated?
In a nutshell, the basis is for lying, not time violations.
So.. was a deal made and what was the deal?
I hope I have made sense.
pinecone (minpin) said:
I remember some discussion back before any discovery was released, that the state would provide discovery in segments so that the state could go through smaller amounts of evidence and make their arguments against what they objected to as they went along. It was something like that, but nothing was likely ever put in writing. That was long before the defense found out that the state had an agenda. Having said that, I am sure that the defense was not bargaining nor agreed to it taking almost a year to get some of the most basic and elemental discovery, such as information about the state’s star witness. There has also been missing evidence, such as all of the investigation information done by the FDLE. If the defense didn’t go to the FDLE on their own, some reports, such as some of the cell phone forensic information, would never have been sent to the defense. Reasonable time has not been the only problem, but the defense has been stumbling on discovery which would never have been turned over if they didn’t find things by sheer luck. The defense has also provided proof of numerous requests for information which has never been tuned over, or was turned over by court order, such as the Crump interview recording. They had to fight for the bios also.
jordan2222 said:
I hear and agree with all you have said but I do believe that if the State had violated specific times to turn over discovery, we would have seen something about it in the form of a motion. If a deal was made, then maybe it was so vague as to give the State a pass in being “on time.” I am implying than a deal was made and it favored the state. MOM had no idea that any of this would happen so he made a bad deal that gave the state lots of leeway. IDK.. just my thoughts.
Chip Bennett said:
IIRC, the discovery-in-doses agreement was only to ensure that the discovery was properly redacted, and that which should not be publicly disclosed was not publicly disclosed.
That takes perhaps a matter of weeks, not seven months.
jordan2222 said:
A specific time limit should have been included.
jello333 said:
I’m way late on this, so you might not see it. But I think MOM and West’s claims that the State has failed to turn over “Brady” material covers it. I don’t recall exactly how it’s worded, but that rule says that any exculpatory evidence the State has must be turned over to the Defense within a certain amount of time (it might say “reasonable” or something). I’m pretty sure than any “deal” MOM and Bernie may have made at the beginning of this case was just to cover the first month or two, so that Brady, etc. wouldn’t kick in immediately. Nobody wanted to be dumped with tons of stuff all at once, so they were OK with getting it little by little. AT FIRST. But after that, MOM quickly started asking for more stuff, and the State was like, NOPE. From that point forward, they were violating Brady and other rules, no matter what “deal” they may have made early on.
pinecone (minpin) said:
That is exactly how I remember it Jello. They wanted to get the discovery in smaller doses, but would never have agreed to waiting for some things for more than a year. And yes, they have had to beg for information that has been critical. How many times did it take to beg for the original photo of George’s head wounds for example. They originally only got a grainy black and white photo.
They can provide a long list of Brady violations I have no doubt. I think you and I believe that this is definitely headed for a Richardson hearing. The judge doesn’t have a choice. She is obligated to hold a Richardson just based on the first motion for sanctions.
jordan2222 said:
IDK
pinecone (minpin) said:
“for Judge Nelson to do nothing in this set of circumstances would destroy her credibility and tarnish the Florida bench for years to come.”
IMHO, the Florida bench has already been more than tarnished for years to come beginning when the local prosecutor Norm Wolfinger, was forced to step aside from this case, just after he announced that he would take the case before a Grand Jury. I don’t know if anyone else remembers a public statement made by the Fla. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, a day or so before Wolfinger agreed to step down, Bondi said something to the effect that the state wanted to take over the case and assign a special prosecutor to prosecute the case, but the local prosecutor had to agree to step aside. I have no doubt that he didn’t agree to step aside, but was forced out. I believe it was the same day that it was announced that Wolfinger was out that Bondi announced Angela Corey as the greatest prosecutor known to man, and that she would take over the prosecution. Bondi gushed over Corey, said she was her mentor, and that she wouldn’t be where she was without Corey’s help. Al Sharpton was also demanding that a special prosecutor be assigned to the case, that GZ must be arrested immediately, or he was going to gather up his brothers and create mayhem in Sanford and elsewhere. Sharpton said he was satisfied with the Corey decision, but that he was going to keep a close eye on what happened. The Black Panthers put out a bounty on GZ’s head, wanted dead or alive. They were never arrested, punished, or reprimanded in any way from anyone in the state or anywhere. Gov. Scott had been more than sufficiently warned that he would do as he was told by the Black Grievance Industry, with their local affiliate being Benjamin Crump in the lead, a good friend of Pam Bondi’s, or he would see his state go up in flames, literally, with major rioting if GZ’s head was not delivered up on a silver platter, innocent or not. There never was any intention of real justice, and providing an American citizen his due process rights, and to have his day in court was never intended. George Zimmerman was as expendable as the Navy Seals were when they were abandoned by the US State Dept. on the roof of the annex in Benghazi. The state never gave GZ the first thought of protection from the Black Panther terrorists, if they happened to get him, dead or alive, so be it. Everything else has gone according to plan. The Black mafia lives, George Zimmerman won’t be the last victim.
I agree. Bernie will be put on the time out chair for five minutes, and told to be a good boy in the future. The farce will continue. Perry Mason couldn’t change the direction that has been preset and predetermined. MOM/West have been fighting 100mph winds in their faces with no calming in sight. I pray that I am wrong.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Ugh… it is the end of a long day. I don’t have the energy to read that one looooooooooooooooooooooong paragraph. Sorry. :)
I do agree with your final point, the Judge will finger wag in Bernie’s direction and deny the sanctions motion.
But MOM West know that. Like most lawyers in the U.S., they did not file the motion to get money sanctions because Judges rarely give them. There’s an ulterior motive here, which Mike explains.
Good night all. It is Ambien time here in San Francisco.
Comments not genuine without this seal:
____
(o o)___________
(o) ___________ )……..
||–|| ||–||
jordan2222 said:
When was the last time anyone heard from Sharpton on this case? I think he knew irreversible mistakes were made and took the last train for the coast. All of the “big shots” went silent.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Even Sharpton knows a loser when he sees one. Besides, he got his hands bit good and hard in March-April when he was proven wrong on so many fronts.
IMO he abandoned this sinking ship long ago.
jordan2222 said:
Yup.. even Jesse went silent.
maddog1 said:
The state has a perfect way out , they should send it to a grand jury with all the information they have and let a grand jury free george of this nightmare . Grand jury member our not named to the public .
I will remeber in november of the millions of dollars Gov Scott is spending to buy the black vote ! This is the type of thing that makes business want to relocate to florida , because we have such a great court system!!
pinecone (minpin) said:
Is it too late to go to a Grand Jury once someone has already been charged and arrested?
jordan2222 said:
You are obviously new so welcome. I suggest that you start at the beginning and catch up . Dman has some time lines over at this place.
freddyleatherheadd said:
It’s no wonder Thugvon and Demarquise supporters find the middle finger acceptable….president Obama does as well http://imgur.com/lFeoYuv
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
MOM West’s Motion is once again vague. It does not mention how the Judge ruled on the depo being videotaped.
I would assume the Judge allowed it, for a number of reasons:
A) The law seems clear, if MOM followed the rules on giving notice, etc. he was right, Bernie was wrong. So I don’t see how the Judge could rule contrary to what the law clearly says.
B) The law is not complex, it did not require the Judge to think much about it.
And the facts are not complex. MOM West wanted to videotape the DeeDee depo, they complied with the law’s notice requirements, Bernie refused for the depo to proceed if MOM West videotaped it.
C) Did Bernie support his objection with citation to law? MOM West did not mention that in their papers, so I have to assume Bernie did not present to the Judge a legal argument to support his objection. While some say Judge Nelson favors the State, I don’t see her showing her bias with a ruling on this in Bernie’s favor.
Assuming the Judge ruled in Bernie’s favor, that would be serious because the Judge would be saying that Bernie did not have to provide legal citation to support of his objection.
D) Lastly, I don’t think MOM West would have filed the sanctions motion (based on Bernie’s conduct at the deposition) if Judge ruled in Bernie’s favor. Think about that.
Bernie objects to the videotaping. It takes five hours for the Judge to get back to MOM West on their phone call for a ruling. If the Judge ruled MOM West could NOT videotape the deposition, that would be saying MOM West were legally and factually wrong, Bernie was right.
I’m not sure how they do things in Florida, but AFAIK MOM West can’t then file a motion saying that Bernie wrongfully obstructed and delayed the deposition with his frivolous objection, mainly because in the Judge ruling in his favor all Bernie would have to say in opposition to the sanctions motion is “Your Honor will recall that after five hours Your Honor ruled in the State’s favor, so the State was correct in its objection.”
Seems to me that since the law was clear, MOM West complied with the law on taking videotape depositions, that Bernie did not cite to any law to support his objection, and that MOM West filed a motion for sanctions alleging Bernie wasted five hours of everyone’s time, that the Judge did indeed order that the videotape depo could proceed.
That’s my take on the chatter that Judge Nelson did not allow MOM West to videotape the depo.
jordan2222 said:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/rules_we_make_em_up_as_we_go_a.html
The short vid fits perfectly.
jello333 said:
I think you’re right… makes sense to me.
jordan2222 said:
:D
Joel said:
Michael,
This is such a farce and yet most of the politicians won’t do much to stop this. I think they are afraid of the Black Grievance Industry, but, this is just spit-balling, could some of the politicians are staying their hand in order for Angela Corey to fail and fail spectacularly? If not the politicians, most of the Judges who oversee court proceedings?
The reason for the questions is that I have read a little about Corey and her blatant misuse of her office. So far she has the conviction rate, but her ways of doing things are definitely suspect.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Well Bernie’s machinations at the DeeDee depo can best be summed up as NOT aw, gee, shucks stupidity, Bernie is just as corrupt as Angela Corey-Nifong.
I used to give him the benefit of the doubt, figuring he was just a stooge doing Angela Corey-Nifong’s bidding. Nope, this guy is as evil as they come.
Don’t get me wrong, Bernie at times acts like many overzealous prosecutors, but when in a murder trial these lawyers engage in serious misconduct, they have no business being prosecutors.
Maybe Bernie is stuck in his fantasies. He thinks he is a prosecutor in Italy and George is really Amanda Knox in disguise.
hooson1st said:
I have given BDLR the benefit of the doubt, i.e. chalking it up to prosecutorial hardball. But if there is a rational explanation for BDLR to provide to justify his conduct,at this stage it escapes me. Nifong #2?
Joel said:
I double checked Dee Dee’s earlier transcript. I don’t see anything where she affirmatively states that she is 16. I think the age was concocted by Crump to limit access to Dee Dee, and BLDR went along with it. The media went along with it.
Also, I think Crump and Company never ever thought it would get to this point. They probably thought that George would have collapsed by now and plead out.
Chip Bennett said:
As I see it, the issue with Witness 8’s age is only partially that she lied about her age (whether by commission or omission), but moreso that the State, while knowing she was not a minor, used the lie about her age to surround Witness 8 in a “black hole”, and prevented the defense from their rights, under the constitution, Florida statutes, and Florida rules of discovery, from obtaining basic information about her, including identity and address.
Thus, the State actively obstructed justice using a facade of protecting a minor.
Joel said:
Chip,
I agree. The thing is it doesn’t make sense for Dee Dee to say she is 16 and not 18. It makes sense for Crump to say it and make sure everyone is observing the legal limitations. I don’t think it was written down. Dee Dee may have only lied about going to the hospital and that was to avoid a conflict with Fulton who just happened to be sitting right beside Dee Dee.
Still, “may have only lied” is pretty bad.
jello333 said:
I think the main reason the State tried to prevent the Defense from finding out details about Dee Dee (address in particular) was so MOM/West couldn’t dig into phone records. Now ask yourself WHY they might wanna block such info.
Joel said:
jello,
Which is the part where DD is called a minor and gets limited protection. It was a calculated bet. Still, if you read the Michael McDaniel’s earlier update, you would see that DD is not the best Star witness alive without MOM West deposition. This was a bet that George would cave well before MOM West got around to deposing DD.
I think MOM West are very happy about this turn of events. It totally destroys the credibility of the Star Witness, puts a crimp on Crump’s activities and Corey and BDLR might face what Nifong experienced. That is along with the added bonus of getting George Zimmerman vindicated. Sweet!
Chip Bennett said:
This case is going to achieve Landmark status once the 5th DCA gets done with it.
I am quite curious to see Nelson’s response to the motions for sanctions. Not only should both obviously be granted, but under the rules of discovery, the mere existence of the first motions, with its allegations of discovery violations, Nelson is required to hold a Richardson hearing in order to determine and to assess the impact of any discovery violations by the State.
myopiafree said:
Hi Chip – Excellent assessment. I think Nelson will ignore the Richard requirement. I also think she will allow Bernie do DENY Omara the right to video-tape the deposition of DeeDee.
jello333 said:
Then the DCA will slap her down. Actually I’m certain they’ve been paying close attention, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they stepped in even without a formal appeal by MOM/West.
jello333 said:
We have been SO on the same page about that over the past couple months. I see that while I’ve been screaming about it at the Treehouse recently, you’re holding down the fort here in that regard. Onward!
jordan2222 said:
There are indeed several of us with like minds .
knuckledragingwino said:
BDLR objected to the taping of the interview with the Second Double Dee Dee because he didn’t want those images compared to images taken of the First Doublr Dee Dee during her interview with Guttman. Once it is proven that Crump switched Double Dee Dees, this case really implodes.
knuckledragingwino said:
In case anyone is wondering why I refer to the Double Dee Dees as Double Dee Dees, check out this thread at TCH:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/21/update-10-part-2-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-deedee-reveals-the-false-truths/daisha-brianne-twitter-screen-grab/
cassandra said:
That photo is of a girl wearing a typical padded push up bra, 90% of the market is made up of this style. If you want to be accurate, she is not a double D size. Not sure what her breast have to do with anything. Breasts are for feeding babies.
I dislike hiphop/rap/thug culture, but I also dislike any objectification of women’s bodies.
liesel409 said:
cassandra,W8 is also known as “Dee Dee” or “DD” which is a nickname not related to her appearance in any way. Sometimes when referring to “Double D” commenters mean the nickname “Dee Dee” and sometimes they refer to a mostly discarded now theory held by some that there were two girls who answered to the nickname “Dee Dee”. For a while, some speculated there may be a 16 year old “Dee Dee” who was on the telephone who was later replaced by an 18 year old brought in by the scheme team.
cassandra said:
Liesel, I read the Treehouse site since last March. Dee Dee become Double DeeDee to a handful of male posters at the CTH after the photos from her facebook were revealed, later on the speculation about two Dee Dee was discussed.
I got told off at the CTH for commenting on the hypocrisy and indulgences in bashing female Democratic politicians looks not their ideas and actions. There is plenty of that there, as if Judge Nelson stringing hair is relevant to either the case or the racial politics driving this madness. I realize I will be categorized as some looney feminist, but really, do any of you men really want your daughters treated this way.
jordan2222 said:
No
liesel409 said:
cassandra, this isn’t CTH. I’m not seeing anyone here bashing anyone based on their looks.
The CTH’s claimed Dee Dee and who they posted all kinds of information about was debunked. There are a lot of reasons to distrust information from CTH, some details included in various responses on a few different McDanielManor threads.
However, back to your complaint: It is human nature to mock and ridicule others, including based on their looks, and to mock both males and females. I can’t honestly say I’ve never done it, but I agree it’s a cheap way to attack someone with whom one disagrees. But that’s a discussion for a thread or website about that topic, not a discussion of this particular McDaniel article or this case discussion.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
The CTH personal attacks against anyone they feel are not members of that small club diminishes the good work they have done on that Site. I personally believe that but for that Site, George Zimmerman’s plight would not have been addressed, and he would probably have fled the country or be in prison by now.
For example, I give the CTH full credit for being the first site (at least that I am aware of) to discuss “DeeDee” and that she would be the person who exposes Crump’s, et al. corruption, deceit, and con.
Then something happened and the CTH focused efforts on bizarre subjects and appeared to take personal pleasure banning anyone and everyone not paying homage to the blog owner. When the CTH commenced repeated personal attacks against attorney MOM, and viciously attacked anyone on the blogger’s list, IMO that’s when the Site became irrelevant.
knuckledragingwino said:
Sorry for offending so many by being amused by the congruence between the name “Dee Dee” then the intentional appearance of the girl that the CTH speculated was “Dee Dee.”. Leaving aside the fact that I may have misoverestimated her, she is a very attractive young lady. IMHO, I suspect that this girl isn’t the Dee Dee that was on the phone with TM because those hours of alleged phone conversations are fabrications. No girl who is that smoking hot would waste 500 minutes talking to a looser thugette such as TM unless she was running a 900 number.
I will continue to refer to Crump’s alleged ear witness as the “Double Dee Dee” because I remain convinced that there are at least two women who have been represented as the girl who last spoke to TM. There is simply to many differences in their manner od speaking unless there were drugs involved. Performing for Crump in his phone interview would have posed minimal less risk to a woman offering false, unsworn testimony in a case she was assured would never go to trial. The prospect of having to offer a sworn deposition in person to law enforcement subjected her to far greater risk. If the first Double Dee Dee refused to be deposed, Crump would have had to recruit a new Double Dee Dee.
I wonder if MoM deposed yet a third Double Dee Dee?
jordan2222 said:
she is a very attractive young lady
Where is a picture of that girl?
Are you implying that MOM is going to have a depo with “another” DeeDee?
Nice changes BTW in the format of email notifications.
jello333 said:
CASSANDRA
Sorry, I’m just trying to get your attention since there is no “Reply” button under your comment that I’m trying to reply to. Anyway, unless I totally missed something at the Treehouse (and I’ve been there since early May), “Double Dee Dee” has never referred to the girl’s looks. I’ve used the term for a long time, and have used it just today both here and at the Treehouse. The Double Dee Dee theory. It’s exactly what KDW says… the theory that there are TWO girls. One who Crump interviewed, one who Bernie interviewed. Double Dee Dees. That’s all that amounts to.
(By the way, I’m fine with people who get upset with others “objectifying women’s bodies”, as long as they also get upset when the same is done to men’s bodies.)
Knuckledraggingwino said:
I don’t consider expressing an appreciation of a woman’s appearance to be derogatory. I for one had been a fan of Governor Palin’s policies during her years as Governor and on the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission even though I had no idea what she looked like, at least from the neck down. (Petroleum Engineering journals don’t normally publish many photos of people.). It was only when Sen McCain selected her for VP did I get to see her in her entirety. Even in her post partum condition, she was smoking hot.
N contrast, Hillary Clinton is so esthetically disadvantaged that Dick Morris suggested that her lack of sexual appeal excused Bill Clinton’s philandering. (this observation coincides with him being fired by the Clintons so closely that I can not determine which was cause and effect). I seldom comment on Mrs Clinton’s looks because it is her policies that I detest.
Commenting positively or even enthusiastically on a woman’s appearance is wrong only if the comments are in a context that suggests that their appeal somehow negates their qualifications and accomplishments.
jello333 said:
The case implodes, and a cell will start to be readied at the prison of Crump’s (and others?) choice.
pinecone (minpin) said:
Jello- As to your comment above, I completely agree that the defense never would have agreed to waiting for more than a year to get some of the state discovery. There are many Brady violations, and I think we agree that this is going to a Richardson hearing. The judge is obligated to hold one based on the defense motion for sanctions of a week or so ago.
Can you imagine Bernie sitting next to DD when she told MOM/West that she told Bernie months ago that she lied, and who knows what else. Bernie is very expressive with his arms and facial expressions. I wonder what he looked like when he fell off his chair, and started pounding on the floor with his fists, screaming God please exorcize this demon DD from my life.
jello333 said:
;) The power of Christ compels you!
Marijuris said:
Is obvious that the prosecution wants to force the defense to go to trial by limiting their access to evidence that can be use effectivily in an inmmunity hearing. What worries me is that seems that the judiciary and the prosecution are in some kind of agreement? The prosecution and Crump are behaving like if they know that there are not going to be punish for what they are doing.
Marijuris said:
When you have to make a judgement in a case an you as a judge have any doubt how to rule, your ruling has to be in favor of the deffendant.
jordan2222 said:
This tickled the hell out of me
What worries me is that seems that the judiciary and the prosecution are in some kind of agreement?
partyof0 said:
Indeed Marijuris…I believe everyone…that is prosecution and judiciary, has been given carte-blanche for everything in this case…INAL and even I can see the difference between mud and crap. The whole thing is so juvenile…it has got to be that they are immune from any back-lash…
Marijuris said:
Some people call it “Public Policy.”
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I agree that the State’s gross misconduct is from believing they operate with impunity. After all, when the POTUS says “If I had a son…” and he sends 12 FBI agents to Florida to try and nail George Zimmerman, that would instill feelings of impunity in anyone.
Looking at the prosecutors’ misconduct from day one, back when Angela Corey-Nifong gave her self-serving presser announcing (with a smile on her face) that George Zimmerman is facing murder charges, to Bernie’s DeeDee depo misconduct, I can’t attribute the usual reasons why these prosecutors have acted the way they have. IMO it has to be feelings of impunity, that they will never be called on the carpet for their bad acts. It must be feelings of impunity because:
-This Case Is NOT Complicated-
Prosecuting criminal cases is not that complicated. Yeah, sometimes the facts get messy and/or the defense puts on a BIG defense, but criminal law is easy to understand and the facts are easy to apply to the law. Yes, sometimes there’s experts on the stand talking about DNA, ballistics, or forensics, but all in all that’s the exception, not the rule, and those subjects are not difficult to understand and present to the jury.
The reality is that a prosecutor has to try really hard to be a moron. While one might be tempted to attribute the State’s conduct as the occasional mistake on a complex prosecution, the case is simple in concept. Therefore, Angela Corey-Nifong’s and Bernie’s actions are not mistakes.
-These Prosecutors Are NOT Stupid, They Are Corrupt and Dishonest-
Simply put, Angela Corey-Nifong and Bernie are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. For example:
When Bernie obstructed the DeeDee deposition he knew the law, he knew MOM West were right, and he knew he did not have a legal leg to stand on. How do I know this? Permit me to discuss my reasoning:
Bernie had notice beforehand that the DeeDee deposition was going to be videotaped. As a prosecutor with 30 years experience (as Bernie likes to repeatedly point out in open court) Bernie knew full well that if he was going to oppose the depo being videotaped lawful procedure and the correct thing to do would include:
– Before the depo file a motion for protective order; and/or,
– Before the depo file a motion to quash the deposition NOTICE because he believed it facially defective (e.g., he would say videotape depositions are not allowed); and/or,
– Before the depo to “meet and confer” with opposing counsel to discuss the issue and work toward a solution (in fact in many jurisdictions rules mandate that counsel meet and confer before filing most motions, this in an attempt to work out differences); and or,
– Before the depo to formally object to the deposition notice via e-mail or letter.
– While lawyers are sometimes allowed to register objection the FIRST time AT THE DEPOSITION (say, for example, to the demand the witness bring specified documents to the depo) some legal experts opine that such is at your peril because a Judge might strike the objections, and even worse, impose sanctions for engaging in obstructionist tactics. (In federal court the sanctions can be quite severe. I read about an opposing counsel in one of my cases on a later case being sanctioned $25,000 by a federal Judge, for counsel playing discovery games, similar to what prosecutors have done in the Zimmerman prosecution. What goes around comes around tidbit: That lawyer soon thereafter got fired from the big firm where she was employed at the time.)
– In any event, none of these procedures dispense with the requirement that Bernie have a legal authority to support his motion, objection, or State’s position.
Sidenote: My head spins off my shoulders when wondering if Bernie even had standing to object to the conditions of a non-party witness’s deposition, especially one where Bernie injected himself as a witness in the case.
(Long pause while I try to find my head. It rolled somewhere under my desk.)
– Another example that these prosecutors know exactly what they are doing is Angela Corey-Nifong calling Harvard Law School and threatening critic Alan Dershowitz with employment termination, civil lawsuits, criminal prosecution, and disbarment (if he continued to criticize her performance on the Zimmerman case).
Angela Corey-Nifong’s conduct in that regard was not stupidity or lapse in good judgment. It was Angela Corey-Nifong thinking she could do no wrong and that she would never be called on the carpet for doing that. (There appeared to me good reason for her feelings of impunity. Apparently in the past on other cases under her charge she has threatened critics of her actions as prosecutor. Nothing happened to her then, she had no reason to think this time around things would be different. And remember, when she threatened Dershowitz – May-June 2012 – that was at the height of the “get Zimmerman” fervor.)
-No One Steals From The Office Fridge If They Know People Are Watching-
(Unless they think they are immune from consequences for their actions)
– This case is being prosecuted under the glare of the media. Thousands of bloggers, lawyers, pundits, and legal experts register opinions. Many are obsessed with legal analysis. Thousands are scrutinizing the State’s every move.
Relevant to this point, Angela Corey-Nifong and crew know they are being watched and scrutinized. This necessarily begs the question, if they know we are watching, why would they nevertheless continue with the gross misconduct?
It has to be feelings of impunity.
(I have to bolt, please excuse misspellings, poor grammar, and lack of organization. I was faced with posting this comment as-is, or saving it to later edit and post. With reckless abandon I chose the former. Take the pain, I did.)
Marijuris said:
You put it perfectly.
liesel409 said:
Great to read you again, ItsMichaelNotMike! Your analysis is always appreciated. ☺
partyof0 said:
Excellent post….wish I could write that well….
jordan2222 said:
Thanks for your usual informative analysis. At the end of the day, however, NOTHING will ever happen to Corey. She is immune. “Someone” at the TH said she cannot even be rebuked by the legislature.. same with Bondi.
IDK about Bernie. I have read various legal opinions. They vary but all of them agree that it could take a long time. but he is not immune.
jordan2222 said:
I do not understand why DeeDee would make up the lie about her age with no coaching. Why would she do that?
liesel409 said:
jordan2222, the age lie is the easiest for me to understand. I could easily see, for example, after explaining how beneficial it would be to W8 if she were a minor (such as keeping the press at a distance and reducing her responsibility), Crump followed up with, “So you’re, um, what? About 16?” She may have answered something like, “About that.”
jordan2222 said:
You are implying that she was coached. That is my point. She did not personally originate the lie .. big difference
liesel409 said:
jordan2222, it would not surprise me in the least to discover that her whole version of events was supplied to her with the promise that they only needed her to do this “one little thing” to effectuate an arrest. You know, all the parents wanted was just an arrest… That’s all. Consider that some of points she parroted had been reported in the press but were later found to be untrue. It could be that she read that information and adopted it herself, but she really didn’t seem that interested to me. She didn’t even go to the funeral.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
After watching Crump’s March 20, 2012, presser (about 30 times) I continue to opine that DeeDee did not directly lie about her age. At worst for her (meaning “DeeDee is a LIAR!”), Crump advised or suggested the benefits to her if she was a minor, and she did not correct his con about her age.
Others will obviously differ on opinion, but IMO Crump’s presser clearly proves his motive to repeatedly say “she is a minor child.” He wanted to keep DeeDee under wraps and for no one to test the accuracy of what she was COACHED and COERCED to day. The only way to shield this witness from public scrutiny was to assert she was a minor. Even inquisitive media back off when a minor is involved in the story.
Did Crump tell DeeDee and her parents the benefits of lying about her age and they green lighted the lie? I dunno. But judging by Crump’s words, tone, demeanor in the presser, and his repeated WARNINGS to media present that “this is a minor child,” I think DeeDee’s age is Crump’s lie. And I contend Crump’s words show a conspiracy to defraud between himself and the attorneys he names in his presser (at the minimum they round-tabled steps in the con) .
In the video minute marker 22:48 forward Crump says:
22:48: We just literally took it (made the recording) last night. (March 19, 2012).
(Unintelligible question by media present)
22:53 Uhm, her parents are gravely concerned about her health and her safety, as well as uh her general well being of trying not ta have her life dessert turbed any father than it is.
And ah my leadership team (aka The Scheme Team; co-conspirators) and uh we, we, ah assured her that they, we would not have her identity revealed and that we will respect their wishes as it relates to their MINOR CHILD.
23:20 Ah, my co-counsels attorney Natalie Jackson, attorney Patricia Jones, attorney Jasmine Rand, attorney Darryl Parks, it was a hard decision to even talk to you. But we wanted to let America know, we wanted to make sure that you all connected the dots…
If this was DeeDee’s lie, I go back to the question, what would be DeeDee’s motive for lying about her age? I don’t see where it benefits her. Looks to me the BIG benefits go to Crump.
Sure, DeeDee could be simply saying what she thinks staring-down-Sybrina Fulton wants to hear, but if that’s true then it shows the breadth of the conspiracy by the State and The Scheme Team. After all, everyone knows why the conspirators made sure to have Fulton hovering (I like that word, uttered by someone else in here) over DeeDee as she making her statements and answering craftily worded questions.
As Mike says, at the minimum in handling the DeeDee interviews State Attorney Bernie’s conduct was unprofessional and incompetent. I no longer give him that much credit.
Bernie is a corrupt, scheming, conspiring prosecutor, in cahoots with Crump and his crew. He is a common criminal who has brought national disgrace to prosecutors, officers of the court, and to Florida’s justice system.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Pardon my scathing words about State Attorney Bernie. But I’m not bound by the rules of professional decorum MOM West must adhere to, lest they suffer the wrath of Judge Nelson who warned the two they better be nice, or she will sic a rabid wombie on them.
jordan2222 said:
Nice to hear you agree with me. Thanks for your reasoning. There is simply no way that I believe she decided to say she was a minor on her own. Why would she ever do that? What teenage girls say they are younger than they are?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear ItsMichaelNotMike:
As always, fine points. Would you do me one small service? I don’t mind folks posting links, but posting videos, particularly larger ones, is a bit of a strain on my limited capacity for such things.
Thanks in advance.
jello333 said:
“not ta have her life dessert turbed any father than it is.”
No wonder Dee Dee is so scare! ;)
pinecone (minpin) said:
I think many would agree that for some there is no bigger motivator than money. I have no doubt in my mind that Sybrina had some private conversations with DD from the beginning, and likely promised DD that she would share in the wealth and riches Crump could win for them in civil lawsuits against GZ and everyone else even remotely involved. Tracy called his attorney sister in law Patricia Jones?, who immediately put him in touch with a wrongful death attorney Crump, who had already been successful in shaking down the state for millions with the Martin Anderson case. Crump has never been shy about broadcasting that they had to cross hurdles, an arrest being the first hurdle, in order to get to the pot of gold at the end of their rainbow. DD has watched Tracy and Sybrina travel the country with trashcans in hand, and all kinds of fancy new duds. What 18 year old, who obviously isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, and who may not even have a job or promising future, not be enamored by the thoughts of easy big bucks in exchange for lying or allowing herself to be used. Tracy and/or Sybrina likely told her that none of that could happen without her doing her part.
DD is now seeing herself splashed across national news headlines as a liar, and possibly open to perjury charges. She may now be rethinking her agreement to be a part of the scheme team, as orange jumpsuits aren’t the height of the fashion industry, nor what she planned on spending those big bucks on. As some have opined, the scheme team has openly tried to distance themselves from her. Imagine her reading Crump’s affidavit claiming that he knew nothing about her when doing his interview, which has proven to be a coordinated effort on the part of all of them. For DD it is not going as planned on the original blueprint.
freddyleatherhead said:
Nasty Nat rides again refering to defense motions as “silly” Natalie Jackson@NatJackEsq10h
Response to Defense’s 2nd SILLY Motion to Depose @attorneycrump (after they have already been told to have a seat): http://tmwarriors.wordpress.com
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Well we can’t really expect her to say:
“Oh man, this is devastating. I told Bernie not to play games at the DeeDee depo, but he would not listen. Well, I’m not paying any of that money. Bernie can dig into his own pocket and pay the fine.”
freddyleatherhead said:
I am really not sure what planet the Traynuts live on: BigBoi@BigBoithedog51m
Zimmerman defense team’s latest actions show fear and desperation http://wp.me/p1Wtu6-oZ via @wordpressdotcom
View mediaReply
Retweet
Favorite
More
freddyleatherhead said:
ROFLMAO…..Leatherturd finishes his article attacking the defense saying this is an attempt at donations by asking his idiots for donations: Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work. If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.
Your donations are appreciated
partyof0 said:
I’ve been itchin to post this one…
Here is an example of the mindset of one of the “rational” individuals who write to the extinguished gentleman known as Fred Leatherham, a “get” Zimmerman supporter. On his blog of “Why are so many people irrational”…malisha writes…
“I think the problem is that repetition makes people remember. Irrational people spread their ridiculous ideas far and wide, repeating them over and over, sometimes twice in one sentence! And then they even say, “YEAH!” at the end. So they reinforce the irrationality and it gets irrationaller and irrationaller and irrationaller.”
Marijuris said:
That site works like a propaganda machine for the scheme team.
freddyleatherhead said:
Dont know if you are aware but Malicious Malisha’s linkedin account lists her as an employee of Crump Parks LLC
freddyleatherhead said:
be no surprise to any of us who has closely followed the case of Trayvon Martin.
It turns out that according to Florida voter registration documents that
George Michael Zimmerman, born Oct. 5, 1983, registered as a Republican in Seminole County, Fla., in August 2002, according to state voter registration documents.
http://freebeacon.com/…
Well well well… turns out that teabagging gun-toting white racist George Zimmerman is a Republican.
I guess to kill somebody for walking while black IOKIYAR according to Fux News’ viewership. Why is it that it’s only an obscure website reporting white racist Zimmerman’s political affiliation, and meanwhile the white-owned media fails to tell us about this? Hmmmm…..
But anyway, this information will certainly make the rethugs cower in shame.
Repukes inconsolable!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/30/1078252/-BREAKING-White-Racist-George-Zimmerman-is-a-Registered-Republican-Repukes-INCONSOLABLE#
freddyleatherhead said:
Washington Post imbecile Jonathan Capehart asserts race was the primary motive for requesting TM’s facebook and twitter: While the lawyer for George Zimmerman doesn’t believe this case is a prime example of the treatment and plight of young black males by the criminal justice system, he has said in previous interviews that a conversation on said plight needs to happen. He even said that he would gladly join Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump in leading one. But Robert Zimmerman’s tweet “does the opposite of trying to have that conversation. That is the antithesis of everything we’ve been saying.” In fact, O’Mara has tried mightily to squeeze race out of his second-degree murder case. Nevermind that some of his actions (i.e. seeking access to Trayvon’s Facebook and Twitter accounts) and the words of some of Zimmerman’s and Trayvon’s supporters help to keep race at the forefront of this case. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/03/27/about-that-absurd-zimmerman-tweet/
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I USED TO like listening to what Capehart had to say (for example, on politics). But the Trayvon Martin shooting caused him to flip out. He turned into just another angry black man using the Trayvon Martin case to blow off steam and as a foundation for a discussion about racism. (My belief is that Trayvon Martin is not a good vehicle to talk about race issues.)
Actually, there’s a lot of black people whom I have always enjoyed for their work, artistry, intelligence, and contributions to society in whatever their craft is. (For example, I really like Jamie Foxx. He is one of the finest actors on the planet. And he is a hard worker and gets into whatever role he is assuming in a movie. I still don’t know what to think about him when I heard that he attended the recent Trayvon Martin fundraising banquet and sang Happy Birthday Trayvon Martin to the crowd.)
I am very dismayed when the people I used to respect and admired chose to aggressively support Trayvon Martin.
I duly note that being “white” I will never know what it is like to live in a society that still fosters racism and discrimination (for example, in a case I had where I was representing AA in a discrimination case, I said to the defendants in client’s affidavit that “none of us will know what it is like to cross the street in the crosswalk and hear drivers double checking that their car doors are locked”).
And I know it is impossible for us to understand why black citizens feel the way they do about the Trayvon Martin situation. It is a tall order to expect blacks to accept and adopt our thinking and reasoning in defending George Zimmerman.
Oh well, I know my reasons for supporting George Zimmerman and it has nothing to do with anyone’s race or skin color. (To be sure, I have been slaying Angela Corey-Nifong, Bernie, and critical of some things MOM West have done. I also have at times been unkind to George Zimmerman, because of his actions. Last I checked, these people are not black.)
I also have a bone to pick with Trayvon’s lawyers. But this is because I hold lawyers to a high standard in ethics and behavior. This is because they are, well… for lack of a better term, lawyers. That Crump and crew happen to be black is irrelevant.
freddyleatherhead said:
defense has replied to blackwell’s latest smoke screen attempt http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/defendant_rep.pdf
jordan2222 said:
thank you
freddyleatherhead said:
“BDLR: Did he describe the man…” “DD: Yeah, he said white.” 6:24 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k …
freddyleatherhead said:
You guys wont believe this…….the Traynuts are seriously saying the mom shot her own baby for the insurance money and blamed demarquise elkins and his accomplice. Linda McCormick Imagine the mom killed the sweet little baby for insurance money? Why she asking if the check is ready? 2 sons dead so sad……….Linda McCormick ava i know but she is bi-polar and schizophrenia
freddyleatherhead said:
Obama’s sons are at it again http://www.tulsaworld.com/specialprojects/news/crimewatch/article.aspx?subjectid=450&articleid=20130326_11_A9_CUTLIN807022
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Sometimes I have to spray a little levity and irreverence on this case, to relax.
Someone over at the Orlando Sentinel site mentioned Bernie’s and West’s lack of hair. I couldn’t resist making this comment.
____________________
Speaking of hair, when I see Don West and Bernie in court I have pondered they could make some extra coin endorsing Hair Club For Men. I can envision the TV ad:
(Scene: Don and Bernie arguing in court. They stop fighting and look into the camera)
Don: Bernie and I may be fighting in court, but even Judge Nelson’s rulings, that are akin to gale force winds, don’t effect how we feel about our Club rugs.
Bernie: I object Don! (both laugh). These are not “rugs,” they are monuments to our good taste.
Don: Right again my friend. I would be remiss in not mentioning how easily my rug, doh… my bad Bern, I mean hair, stores in my suit coat pocket. I duck under counsel table, slip it on and I’m ready to dazzle the jury or party down after court.
Bernie: There’s many styles too. My “Comb Over” look really fools people, the ladies thinking this is my real hair. I always hear them whispering “Check out Bernie’s comb over.”
Don: I’m partial to the possum look.
Bernie: Yeah, I find myself drooling all over my keyboard when browsing online in the “Fur Bearing Creature” section.
Don: Well guys, Bernie and I could go on and on about these wonderful Hair Club For Men products, but we have to get back to the Trayvon Martin slug festa.
(Camera zooms in, Bernie removes a bottle of blue pills from his briefcase)
Bernie: But wait, there’s more! Are you a man in name only? Do you wish the ladies would write on the bathroom wall about you? Well the Club has you covered.
With your purchase the Club is including 30 Viagra pills. And if you order in the next 10 minutes we will toss in a FREE Sharpie marker. How cool is that guys!
Don: Very Bernie, very.
(Camera fades, lawyers go back to fighting.)
Fine print appears for five seconds: “We cannot assert if the Viagra is a ten day or ten year supply. Your experience wearing our rugs may differ from the lawyers providing testimonials. For example, some people on the jury may laugh at you.
Warning: Writing on bathroom walls may be a crime in your locale. Hair Club For Men is not responsible if the bailiff catches you writing about yourself in the courthouse women’s restroom.”
jordan2222 said:
Funny stuff. Have you written professionally?
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Yes I do. I have a national audience but that is attorney/client privileged information. And I ain’t like Crump, do all that waving stuff, or is it waiving? Hell, I dunno.
jordan2222 said:
Do you remember this song?
Bernie won a high school dance contest in 1963 doing the Bird. He is still showing off.
boricuafudd said:
Michael that was funny, you have to much time on your hands!!!LOL
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
As a writer I have to keep the engines tuned up. Writers, like anyone, can get stale. I’m sure Mike understands about which I speak.
boricuafudd said:
Write brother, I love you musings.
jordan2222 said:
Some men use their sexual hormones to grow hair while others.. LOL
boricuafudd said:
Jordan I am glad you did not finish that. LOL
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
IMO what’s significant in Crump’s opposition is that Blackwell did not address the waiver argument.
Generally, the rule is that if a party does not address an issue argued in moving papers the party charged with addressing the point is deemed to have conceded the correctness of the moving party’s point.
Think of it similar to winning a baseball by default because the opposing team failed to show.
Now there may be no burden on the issue because this is a reconsideration motion and as such the burden of proof is on MOM West to convince the Judge to reverse her Order. Notwithstanding that general principle, wise counsel in an abundance of caution would address the point.
For example, Blackwell might write:
“Although Mr. Crump has no burden of proof on defendant’s reconsideration motion, the motion is between Your Honor and Zimmerman, and although there’s no merit to counsel’s waiver argument, Mr. Crump nevertheless addresses the waiver issue as follow…”
A Bit About Waiver
Preliminarily a couple of definitions:
Attorney/client privileged communications can be any discussion (regardless of form, such as e-mail, phone calls or in-person meetings) that take place between you and your attorney. It is important to note that the holder of the attorney/client privilege is the client, NOT the attorney. (I’ll explain below why this matters in regards to DeeDee.)
Attorney “work product” is stuff like notes an attorney might keep in a file on a case. It can be the attorney’s thoughts, impressions, conclusions, research, notes to file, case preparation, or strategy. The work product doctrine is NOT a privilege and it is not as protective nor sacred as the attorney/client privilege.
It is “attorney/client privilege and attorney work product doctrine 101” that the protections afforded by either can be waived.
One way to waive the privilege can be waived is for the attorney or holder of the privilege (presumably DeeDee) discloses or reveals whole or substantially part of the confidences sought to be protected from disclosure.
It is obvious that Crump revealed the content of purported attorney/client privileged communications (I contend there was no such thing), and he revealed his work product.
For example, consider the DeeDee recordings. In the March 20, 2012, presser Crump obviously revealed the content of any purported privileged communications Crump had with DeeDee or her parents and that he disclosed his work product (which I contend did not exist).
About The Privilege and Doctrine
As I commented before, while Crump’s privilege and work product arguments have superficial appeal, they break down on closer examination. (And it is too bad the Court denied Zimmerman the right to depose Crump on the basis that the privilege or doctrine applied.)
IMO the attorney/client privilege argument fails for the fundamental, foundational reason that Crump is NOT DeeDee’s lawyer. The attorney/client privilege does not apply if the attorney client relationship does not exist!
For the same reasons the privilege does not apply, Crump cannot invoke the work product doctrine.
As a factual matter, Zimmerman is not seeking Crump’s work product as it relates to his representation of Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton. Zimmerman seeks to depose Crump in his capacity as a witness, the man who made the DeeDee recording, who had non-privileged conversations with the witness, and otherwise performed a workup and follow-up to the recordings.
Who Is Making What Argument Here?
Noticeably absent from Crump’s original papers and his opposition to the reconsideration motion is affidavit from DeeDee, Tracy Martin or Sybrina Fulton expressing concern about disclosure of privileged communications.
In regards to DeeDee, absent from the pleadings is EVIDENCE that Crump and DeeDee have an attorney/client relationship, the statement that as holder of the privilege DeeDee does not want to reveal attorney/client confidences, and that she is concerned about waiver of the privilege.
Also missing from the pleadings is EVIDENCE from Crump that DeeDee is his client, an identification of what he considers protected communications and work product, and that he has endeavored to protect the that information.
Conclusion
IMO Crump has no standing to argue that he can’t be deposed.This is because if anyone should be making that argument, it is DeeDee. Blackwell knows this, that’s why he passed on addressing the waiver issue. He seems an intelligent lawyer. He knows there’s no way to argue about privileges and waiver if Crump is not DeeDee’s lawyer.
IMO there was no basis whatsoever for the Judge to block Crump’s deposition, unless things were as the Judge said in her original order that neither party submitted evidence in support or opposition to the motions.
If that is what happened, the parties were asking the Judge to rule as a matter of law, NOT the facts of the case. Arguably, there was a basis to deny deposition of an attorney, assuming what Zimmerman was looking for was information from Crump’s representation of Fulton and Martin.
In the reconsideration motion Zimmerman has submitted hard evidence to support deposing Crump. Judge Nelson should allow the deposition to go forward.
Hope that helps.
boricuafudd said:
Michael, what is your take on Blackwell opinion that Motion for Reconsideration in the wrong vehicle to present the matter. That perhaps a motion for a rehearing is more appropriate.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I have to read his pleading. There MIGHT be merit to that argument, but only because I thought at the time that MOM West perhaps just file a new motion instead of fighting the Judge’s earlier decision.
I didn’t see where the Judge’s original Order was “with prejudice” meaning that Zimmerman was prohibited from filing another motion to compel Crump’s deposition.
On the new motion MOM West could make all the arguments (similar to what I posted above) and submit massive amounts of evidence to support each point.
There’s all kinds of tactics lawyers can use when they anticipate the Judge is going to rule against them, or have so ruled.
For example: One time I had a case in federal court where the defendants argued the case did not belong in that particular Judge’s court or district, and that it belonged in Luxembourg. Based on the Judge’s questions at the hearing i could tell he was going to rule in the defendant’s favor. So while we were waiting for the Judge’s ruling and before he issued it, we simply dismissed the case and refiled in Virginia, where the case belonged in the first place.
My impression of this motion at issue is that it exhibits there’s mountains of work that needs to be done, both in discovery and trial prep. And since the Judge said words to the effect “If you want to depose Crump, file a motion” this was a rush job. So it got cursory treatment.
Adding to the problem, my understanding is that MOM West have not seen a dime in attorneys fees. All our money in donations has gone to paying case costs and support for Zimmerman and his family. (Which I said was fine for my donations to be used, for support and whatever).
Anyway, it is very difficult for a small law office to work on cases like this where they are not getting paid. The lawyers have overhead and families to feed. And lawyers are like anyone else. They like having a nice car, being able to eat at nice restaurants from time to time, and go on the occasional vacation. Then there’s kids who want to go to college.
So I understand if some of these pleadings are rush jobs. (My hope is that MOM West interns harvest what we say and find some of it useful for their work.)
Well it is time for me to watch a movie online. Besides, I’m tired of “working” on he Zimmerman case, for today. Maybe I’ll donate to myself so I can feel like I’m getting paid.
P.s. I don’t know what the rules are in Florida criminal courts, but in most civil courts a moving party can withdraw a motion before the Judge rules on it. Maybe MOM West should consider withdrawing the reconsideration motion and simply file another motion to compel Crump’s depo, except this time with mountains of supporting EVIDENCE.
I’ve noticed something about Judge Nelson, she correctly, like many Judges, demands that lawyers submit EVIDENCE to support what they are arguing. She has made a lot of rulings “on the fly” based on whether the issue is “ripe,” meaning that there’s actually an issue requiring her involvement, and that the moving party has submitted admissible evidence to support a proposition.
The Net is filled with 5 GB of data showing Crump clearly made himself a witness in the case. Heck, my Zimmerman files are about 15 GB now.
IMO that evidence will later be used to prosecute Crump. But for now, I’d gather up and archive all those videos, web pages, and writings to prove his deposition is warranted, and to later prove that the State Attorney used Crump to get around the rule that prosecutors are prohibited from “trying the case in the court of public opinion.”
Side note: Some day we are going to get to see all the communications between the State Attorney’s office and Crump. I bet that is an interesting stack of material.
boricuafudd said:
Thanks, for your response, I read MOM rebuttal, but it seem that Blackwell may have a point. Look forward to your next post. Thanks, enjoy your movie.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Pardon spelling and grammar errors. I don’t proofread most of my stuff. I get lazy, what can I say.
jordan2222 said:
Thanks again for excellent commentary.
I suspect that folks have read more legal stuff in this case than in any other.
I also think they become quite confused when they actually read the supporting statutes and laws since they appear to not apply here.
Marijuris said:
Everithing in this case is so unfare, I keep remembering what I read in Hobbes LEVIATHAN.
Marijuris said:
I mean “unfair.”
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I thought maybe you were speaking olde English. :)
Marijuris said:
You are very nice.😊
Marijuris said:
You are very nice. 😊
John McLachlan said:
The theory that there were actually two Dee Dees was not so much discredited by new evidence as discarded, since it was not required to invoke two Dee Dees to explain the initial actions by the defence, following the recent deposition of Dee Dee.
The first defence motions gave no indication that there were revelations indicating that there may be two Dee Dees and the defence lawyers are respected as being competent at cross-examination.
Most who subscribed to the theory probably believed that if there were two Dee Dees, that this would be revealed during deposition of the Dee Dee who was interviewed by BDLR, or the depositions of Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton.
The more recent revelations that BDLR objected to the videotaping of this deposition of Dee Dee, however, has restored credence to the theory that there are two Dee Dees.
ABC is reputed to possess images and possibly video of the girl who was interviewed over the phone by B. Crump, in the presence of M. Guttman.
Additionally, ABC must have documents which give written permission for ABC to record and broadcast this interview. If the interview was with a minor, her parents written permission would be required.
If the images and documentation in the possession of ABC pertain to a different person from the woman who was interviewed by BDLR and more recently was deposed by the defence, then the difference in identity would be revealed, immediately, when ABC releases their documentation and images to the defence.
It is unlikely that ABC will be able to refuse to submit all documents and images in their possession, pertaining to the Dee Dee, whom B Crump interviewed in their broadcast.
Failure of ABC to divulge these documents would place ABC in further jeopardy, should they pertain to a different person than the woman recently deposed.
Regardless of whether the deposition of Dee Dee is videotaped, the existence of two Dee Dees would inevitably be revealed at some time, prior to or during the trial of George Zimmerman.
If there are two Dee Dees, then preventing the video recording of her deposition can only delay, but not prevent the discovery of this fact.
Consequently, I do not think publicly available revelations resulting from the recent deposition of Dee Dee, provide strong additional evidence that there are two Dee Dees, although neither do they preclude the possibility.
I believe that the reasons for objecting to the videotaping of the deposition of Dee Dee are as easily explained as being intended to prevent the creation of a permanent visual record, showing her body language, as she reacts to questions, and reducing the impact of any inadvertent statements which she makes during her deposition.
In addition to the admitted lies within her testimony, there are also the errors of fact which were released by the police to the Martin family and their lawyers, as well as falsehoods created by the Martin family and their lawyers.
Some of these errors of fact were presented by Dee Dee as being information acquired during her conversations by phone, with Trayvon Martin, yet could not have been. They were as much deliberate lies on her part, resulting from coaching, as her already admitted lies regarding her age and her alleged hospital visit. In total, a substantial proportion of her testimony is revealed to be deliberately dishonest. Her credibility, as a witness, is already severely compromised.
Whatever the reasons for the objections to videotaping her deposition, some significant questions which arise in my mind are these:
Is it routine practice or is it unusual, to videotape deposition of witnesses, by defence lawyers?
If it is routine, what are the usual reasons for objection to this practice and how often does this occur?
Has the prosecution objected to videotaping the depositions of any other adult witnesses?
Do judges normally uphold any objection, raised toward videotaping the deposition of an adult witness?
How frequently does a judge order that there be a deposition of a particular witness, but no video recording of the deposition of that particular adult witness?
The cell-phone call records and cell tower ping logs, when examined by the defence experts, would provide strong circumstantial evidence regarding the existence of either one or two Dee Dees, although this is by no means the only possible explanation for the prosecutions refusal to release them.
If the alleged phone connection between Trayvon Martin and Dee Dee did take place at the times claimed by the prosecution, then there is no apparent reason for the prosecution to refuse to release these records.
The refusal of the prosecution to release these records, in accordance with the law, thereby risking the charge of prosecutorial misconduct, must be deliberate and for a perfectly rational reason.
The only reasons which I can think of are that these records, in some way, impeach the prosecutions principal witness or indicate that Trayvon Martin intended to commit an assault from the outset of his encounter with George Zimmerman or at the very least, do not impeach George Zimmermans testimony about the events surrounding his fatal encounter with Trayvon Martin.
Perhaps they reveal that there was no actual phone connection at the relevant time.
If this is the case, then someone must have submitted false phone account records into the state evidence and the state should have been aware of this from an early stage of the police investigation.
Perhaps they reveal that the phone, now claimed to belong to Dee Dee, actually belonged to someone else, at the time of the confrontation between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.
Perhaps the cell-tower ping logs or possibly GPS records provide sufficient information to indicate that Trayvon Martin deliberately sought and confronted George Zimmerman and was not actively profiled, stalked, chased, hunted down like a rabid dog and shot.
Perhaps, the cell-phones include incriminating texts: suppose that Trayvon sent a text indicating his intent to commit an assault.
Perhaps the cell-phone contains video of previous violent encounters.
If there are two Dee Dees, perhaps Trayvon Martins cell phone contains video of one, but not the other.
I am totally unable to think of any reason why the prosecution would refuse to release this material, if it did not seriously damage the prosecution case, in some manner.
The possibility that there may have been a substitution of the phone card, in one of the phones, whilst it was in the custody of the state is also very suspicious.
In such a high profile case, this is much more likely to be deliberate, rather than accidental.
The resources which the state has devoted to preventing proper investigation of Dee Dee and the efforts the state has made to prevent her being videotaped at her deposition, suggest very strongly, that the state recognizes that Dee Dee is potentially very dangerous, either to the prosecution case against George Zimmerman or, possibly, is dangerous to them, personally, insofar as she may incriminate them and expose them to having to face criminal charges, themselves.
I believe that the states efforts to prevent proper investigation of Dee Dee and the states similar efforts to prevent the defence from properly investigating the forensic evidence relating to the phones are inextricably linked and are not separate, in any way, regardless of whether there are one or two Dee Dees.
The attempt at the last minute by BDLR to prevent the videotaping of the deposition of Dee Dee, even after being confronted with the legal right of the defence to do so, together with his inability to support his objection by reference to law, suggests that he has become possessed by blind panic.
Otherwise, surely, he would have responded to the defence, by informing them of his objection to the deposition being recorded on video, in the proper legal manner, citing legal justification.
Did BDLR object to the video recording of other adult witnesses?
If not, then surely this indicates that the focus of the prosecution is entirely upon Dee Dee, to the exclusion of rational thought.
Surely, this indicates that the prosecution team is fully aware that their case was always so weak that the prosecution was not supported by legitimate evidence and was instead, a malicious prosecution, conducted by the state, in collusion with other parties who had strong financial interests vested in this particular prosecution.
The seemingly irrational actions of BDLR, in his effort to prevent the videotaping the deposition of Dee Dee, suggests that the prosecution team is fully aware that their case is close to collapse.
The fact that the Martin family are represented by a lawyer, who himself has now taken councel, may suggest that the individual members of the Martin family should consider seeking alternative legal councel, who should not have a potential conflict of interest with his clients.
It may also be appropriate for Dee Dee to seek proper legal representation, who is independent of any other parties involved in what appears to be a criminal conspiracy, which is slowly becoming more and more difficult to sustain and whose repercussions upon its members could be much more severe than they initially anticipated.
Angela Corey is noted for her practice of over-charging and then accepting a plea deal.
If it had not been for the generosity of so many people, who recognized that he was being subjected to a severe injustice, then perhaps he may have felt forced to accept a plea deal, such as pleading guilty to manslaughter, since he lacked the resources to properly defend himself and prove his innocence.
Little or none of the revelations about the corruption of the state prosecution and its collusion with private vested interests would have been exposed, if George Zimmerman had accepted any plea deal which perhaps would have been offered.
It remains my opinion that this is exactly what the Martin family, their lawyers and the state prosecution expected George Zimmerman to do.
Now, these same people are confronted with the possibility of facing justice, themselves.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Lots of good commentary, but it is bedtime for Bonzo here in San Francisco (I watch online movie and shows for two hours :)
In regards to videotaping depositions, that’s often done if the client has lots of money. This is because the videographer charges $2000 a day! That increases the total cost of one day depo to about $3,500.
The main reason to videotape a deposition is if the lawyer anticipates the witness is lying or will lie. The attorney wants the jury to SEE the lies.
And yes, it is as Mike says. If prosecutors have a great case they don’t hide the ball, they don’t engage in delay tactics, they don’t lie or misrepresent. At the minimum, they do a far better job at preparing for trial than these clowns have done.
True Fact: If this was a trial in federal court, where federal Judges don’t put up with any nonsense, this case would have been dismissed last summer. And the Judge would have fined the prosecutors and reported their misconduct to the State Bar.
My suspicions are that the appellate courts in Florida are aghast at what’s been going on in this case. I also agree with Mike that Judge Nelson is in a tough spot. IMO she knows the case should be tossed and the prosecutors taken to the woodshed. But she can’t act on those feelings. I don’t necessarily think she wants it to end anyway.
This is a career making case for Judge Nelson. It is her path to the appellate bench to which she aspires. IMO she is kinda close to running the case as a federal Judge would. She is controlling events in the courtroom, slapping the attorneys when needed, and she rules based on what the evidence supports.
I digress. Goodnight from the west coast.
Nettles18 said:
The Judge has set a tight deadline to prepare for trial and without consulting with at least the defense canceled the next scheduled hearing. The defense has several motions before the court that need addressed. It was the State who advised a reporter at the Sentinel that April 2nd was canceled. What do you make of that?
http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/131-regarding-the-next-hearing-date-in-the-zimmerman-case
Nettles18 said:
The Judge has denied the motion to depose Crump without allowing the lawyers a hearing. http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/132-order-denying-defendant-s-motion-for-reconsideration-and-clarification-of-the-court-s-order-dated-march-4-2013
Chip Bennett said:
Due process? Zimmerman don’t need no stinkin’ due process…
Marijuris said:
They want the chance for a civil suit. The LAW or the TRUE are just an inconvinience.
Marijuris said:
Once again I made a mistake. I mean “TRUTH.” I am very sorry, but I am so restless with the way things are going. I really like the american justice system but right now I am very disappointed. Any way thanks for let me vent a little.
boricuafudd said:
The actions of BDLR on the day of the deposition do raise a lot of question. BDLR was afforded the opportunity to remove and the destroy the tape is the Judge ruled against MOM, but he did not want to take the chance of being overruled.
As to whether videotaping of deposition is common or not, I will say that videotaping of depositions is required in some jurisdictions and only an order of protection from the judge is needed to prevent the videotaping.
In Florida, advance notice is required as well as utilization of approved videographers. MOM submitted two notice detailing that the deposition would be videotape and BDLR had ample opportunity to seek an order of protection
Something is definite rotten in Denmark.
jordan2222 said:
Yet we still do not know if she had a lawyer. Why?
jello333 said:
Wow. Really, really good stuff there. Thanks. I’m reading your and Michael’s comments very closely…
ejarra said:
Are you in my head doing research then writing? This is the third time you’ve done this. You are rapidly become one of my favorite commenters.
You wrote, “I believe that the reasons for objecting to the videotaping of the deposition of Dee Dee are as easily explained as being intended to prevent the creation of a permanent visual record, showing her body language, as she reacts to questions, and reducing the impact of any inadvertent statements which she makes during her deposition.”
That is essentially what I had alluded to earlier as to why he didn’t want her video taped. BLDR probably knew that she has very bad body language and when shown to a jury, it could have a negative affect. The comparison to another DD would come out, if she existed, whether she was videoed or not once she entered the courtroom. Her face would then be all over the internet and every tabloid and media presence would be all over her. So, the reason for her not being taped that day because of a DD1 doesn’t work for me.
jello333 said:
Well, I’m late to the party. Anyway…. this:
“I’ve little doubt O’Mara has a great deal more evidence about Crump’s involvement, but he is wisely releasing only what he needs to prove specific, narrowly tailored points at the appropriate times.”
I think that’s exactly what’s going on. When this motion was first released, a lot of people were thinking, “Hmm… Dee Dee lied about her age and hospital, but apparently didn’t admit to a lot more than that.” Not so fast! We do NOT know that. Could be that MOM and West thoroughly destroyed every bit of her story, and buried Crump and others in the process. Could be that Dee Dee even admitted she wasn’t on the phone at all with Trayvon, and that Crump or others made up the whole thing. And of course there’s always that slim possibility that Dee Dee admitted that she is actually #2 in a long line of Dee Dees. Who knows? But no matter what, I have a feeling there is gonna be MUCH more fine, fun, impressive details to come from the Dee Dee Depo.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Yes, MOM West play litigation poker holding their cards close to the vest, and they wear very dark sunglasses. :)
boricuafudd said:
Michael now that the Judge has denied the Reconsideration motion, in one word
“Denied” what do you feel is the next step.
Chip Bennett said:
Again I defer to John Galt: submit a motion to sanction Crump for lying in an affidavit.
boricuafudd said:
Chip said:
Again I defer to John Galt: submit a motion to sanction Crump for lying in an affidavit.
According to the Judge, it is of no importance, she just Denied the motion, so she has given tacit approval of the Affidavit, or found truthful. Nothing to sanction a non-party for.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Actually, a Judge cannot sanction non-parties. The Court’s power over you and I is with her contempt powers. For example, if Crump refused to obey a subpoena, the Court has the power to have him arrested, pay a fine, or to sit in jail until he agrees to sit for a depo.
In any event, this Judge, or any Judge for that matter, is not going to exercise her contempt powers on someone she just ordered could not be deposed.
The correct vehicle to address Crump’s untruthful evidentiary submission is for the State Attorney to file perjury charges against Crump, as was done to Shellie Zimmerman.
We all know what the likelihood of THAT happening… zero.
So for now, Crump has dodged the bullet. Emphasis on “for now.”
Bonus Comment: I have to get some work done. I may later post my impressions of why Judge Nelson may appear to some to be favoring the State. (I don’t think she is. After all, she has made many rulings in Zimmerman’s favor. For example, ruling that Zimmerman gets access to Trayvon Martin’s school records; ordering that the FBI must turn over its files to the defense; ruling in Zimmerman’s favor on many discovery disputes; trying to help the defense get to the bottom of the recording, who said what to whom; blocking the State’s access to certain information about Zimmerman.)
jordan2222 said:
Damn … I lost my entire posts here .
Aussie said:
Reblogged this on A world at war and commented:
Mike Daniels makes a great summary of the latest issues. I am shocked that BDLR thought he could get away with such obstruction when W8 is an adult.
jordan2222 said:
I will wait until I see more evidence
pinecone (minpin) said:
According to gzlegal website, the judge has denied their motion for reconsideration to depose Crump. No explanation given by the judge other than the court read all of the back and forth motions by all parties, and the court was apprised of all of the information. Order denied.
So even though there is now absolute proof that Crump lied in his affidavit, that no conversation took place when he had the recorder turned off (illegal to begin with) she just slapped the defense and said forget about it. Most believed her to be partial to the state, and ruling in a manner to benefit the state, but she has now, IMHO acting in a manner that is literally hostile to the defense, and even more so than Lester was. She may not be required to give reasons for her decisions, but an appellate court, I would hope would look much more closely at the details that Nelson is purposely ignoring. Only in the Fla. judiciary system can a judge completely ignore proven documented/recorded false evidence, but can elevate to credibility proven outright lies and manipulations on the part of the state.
This has got to be one of the most disgusting travisties to the guaranteed due process laws for all American citizens in memory. No wonder Richard Jewel wound up committing suicide, even after he proved that the government defines laws according to whatever they want them to be, rather than what they are in the legal textbooks. Be very afraid, anyone of us could find ourselves in the same shoes as George Zimmerman, and with no way out.
pinecone (minpin) said:
Their is also a post at the gzlegal website claiming that the judge just cancelled the April 2 court date without any prior notice to them. They are apparently going to try to get before her for another hearing prior to April 30. Good luck with that MOM/West. Nelson has proven not to be incompetent and asleep at the wheel as some claimed, she is now openly hostile to the defense.
Because the defense got Lester booted because of prejudice to the defense, and Nelson was the only judge left in that circuit, and has taken up where Lester left off, can the defense move to have the case moved out of that circuit?
I had little doubt that the judge would do anything in the defense’s favor as they all but said in their motion that she had no legal reasoning for her actions in protecting Crump.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
In most jurisdictions a Judge is not required to explain his or her reasoning behind an order. (The exception to this is when there’s a summary judgment motion, because of the finality of such motions to (usually) the plaintiff, most jurisdictions require a Judge to explain the decision to grant the summary judgment motion and kick the case out of court.)
I don’t read too much into the Judge denying this motion. As I wrote before, reconsideration motions are very difficult to win. To recap in a nutshell:
– There has to be new, substantial evidence that the Judge did not have available to her before when deciding the original motion.
– Counsel has to get into evidence (via a declaration) showing the Court that the new evidence was not available to counsel BEFORE filing the original motion.
– The new evidence must be so substantial that it warrants the Judge changing her mind.
– Another reason to justify a reconsideration motion is that there has been a change in law, to where the Judge’s ruling would have a different outcome. As with new evidence, counsel has to show that there was a change in law AFTER the Judge had ruled on the motion.
I had read in the Judge’s original Order that the parties did not submit evidence in opposition or support of the motions. As I said before, if this was accurate it was a fatal omission by MOM West because they had the burden of proof in a motion to compel deposition of Crump.
As near as I can tell, MOM West were asking Judge Nelson “as a matter of law” to allow the Crump deposition. In other words, MOM West were arguing the law, and NOT the evidentiary facts related to Crump’s actions over time, permitted Crump’s deposition.
IMO MOM West should have made BOTH arguments, not only that the law by itself permitted the deposition, but so did the unique facts of this case (Crump’s actions).
Also, IMO the “new evidence” that MOM West submitted in support of the reconsideration motion was possibly “cumulative.” In other words, the Judge could have considered it NOT not to meet the requirement that there be new evidence, it was simply evidence similar to evidence MOM West could have submitted with their original motion to compel.
Since the Judge did not explain her Order, that’s what I’m going with.
Note: I did NOT see where the Judge denied the motion WITH PREJUDICE. If the Judge had done that it would mean MOM West could not file another motion to compel Crump’s deposition.
If I were MOM West I’d simply file another motion to compel Crump’s depo (as I outlined in my earlier comment). For all I know, that is what Judge Nelson was signaling to MOM West, file a new motion, except this time include reams of evidence to support it.
Chip Bennett said:
Except that, under discovery rule 3.220, the defense can depose any material witness they want, without leave of court. Thus, if Crump didn’t want to be deposed, Crump bore the burden to prove why he should not be deposed.
The entire burden-of-proof was flipped on its head from the moment Boss Tweed Blackwell pranced into Nelson’s courtroom.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Yes, as I understood matters, Crump was made a witness by Judge Nelson in open court. And then she said to take his deposition as he is now a witness.
The Judge also said words to the effect “I am not going to allow you to depose him (Crump) here in Court, so set the deposition and you can go from there.”
When West at some point said Crump was avoiding depo the Judge said “well file a motion.” (Which would have been the motion to compel compliance with a subpoena or depo notice).
Later Crump lawyered up and separately filed a motion for protective order, that was in response to the defendant’s depo notice. This was an independent reason to block the depo.
So there were two motions, each side having the burden of proof on their separate motions.
The net effect was Crump had two ways to block his depo, by the Court denying Zimmerman’s motion to compel Crump’s depo, or by the Court granting Crump’s motion for protective order.
Notwithstanding all this, at the end of the day I don’t know that deposing Crump is all that important (and maybe that’s why MOM West did not put a massive amount of work into it). To be sure, there’s far more important things to do than deposing a lawyer whom we know is a con artist and liar.
From everything that’s out there it is obvious Crump manufactured DeeDee’s testimony. So grilling him in a deposition would not elicit testimony that much different than what’s already known.
More significantly, DeeDee is what’s important, not whether or not Crump is a fraud and a liar. IMO at her depo she has confirmed Crump’s manipulation and witness tampering.
Most relevant for the case, the State’s star witness has cast doubt on the truthfulness of everything she has said, to Crump, and the prosecutors. (If she lied about some things, what else did she lie about, so not to hurt Sybrina’s feelings or to please the lawyers and media who were hovering over her).
In other words, Crump’s deposition might not add much to what DeeDee’s testimony has already established.
Joel said:
True besides, since Crump is a witness, he can be called to testify in court. That is so much nicer. Get it live so to speak.
ejarra said:
Besides that, can’t Crump just repeat, ” I tak da fif.” “I take da fif.” “I take da fif.” on every question? He’s not FORCED to answer, is he?
Personally, I agree with you. It’s a waste of time except that publically MOM/West makes it look like Crump’s hiding something. Much like BLDR’s stupid rant about the video .In the end, most of the public that sees that will wonder what he’s trying to hide. Very bad PR for the state for the case.
boricuafudd said:
Michael, you forget that the Judge blocked MOM and West from introducing evidence, saying it was not neccesary. Then in her order denying the deposition she claimed that the Defense failed to meet the 3 prong test as no evidence was submitted. In the Reconsideration, MOM provided the evidence that they were blocked from submitting and they are still being denied.
The Judge, as with the deposition of Crump, flip then flop, then flip again only to flop when MOM followed her instructions. I do think that at this point deposing Crump would not yield much. But, the actions of the Judge are more troubling.
jordan2222 said:
What an interesting observation. Do you really think Nelson wants them to do that? I would think she would be pissed off if they did that.
If I were MOM West I’d simply file another motion to compel Crump’s depo (as I outlined in my earlier comment). For all I know, that is what Judge Nelson was signaling to MOM West, file a new motion, except this time include reams of evidence to support it.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Lawyers always have to be cognizant that they do NOT do anything to piss off a Judge. Lawyers have to be respectful, never finger wag, and always fall on the sword even if the Judge clearly made a mistake.
See for example where in the Reply MOM West seem to be telling the Judge what is important for her to do on a motion to reconsider. They also imply that the Judge’s original Order was flawed because she FAILED to do her job.
Judge Nelson like all Judges takes offense when lawyers show disrespect. In fact, I recall reading some transcript of a hearing in this case. As I recall Judge Nelson made a statement about what she understood the issue to be. MOM responded something like “No, no, no, no” to indicate that was not the issue. Judge Nelson retorted “Please don’t tell me no, no, no no.”
Despite all his bumbling in the courtroom, even Crump is aware of that concept that you always show proper respect to the Court, whether personally appearing or in filed pleadings. He may have sounded moronic when he said “Yes ma’am, your honor” (you don’t address Judges as “sir” or “ma’am”) but Crump was showing the Court proper respect, which is all that counted.
That’s far better than, for example, addressing the Court as “Judge.” A lawyer never is supposed to say, for example, “Yes Judge, we filed that paper yesterday.” Referring the the Court as “Judge” is considered an insult. The proper form is “Yes Your Honor, we filed the paper yesterday.” Or “If the Court will allow me additional time I can…”
The point is, IMO Judge Nelson might be slightly angered at MOM West disrespecting the Court. In other words, she might already be pissed off at MOM West, so what the hell, they might as well file any papers they want. :)
jello333 said:
If this woman is offended and feels “disrespected” by what MOM and West have said to her, she’s in the wrong business. Nearly everything they’ve said to her, including in this last motion, was perfectly polite and respectful. TOO polite, if you ask me. Where’s Bill Kunstler when we need him?…
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Actually Jello, I suspect Judge Nelson would take offense at the statement “if this WOMAN is offended and feels disrespected she’s in the wrong business.” IMO Judge Nelson would be correct in taking offense, because she is a Judge who happens to be a woman, not the other way around. She is NOT a Judge whose female sex should be a consideration when determining the reasonableness of her actions.
I mention this only to illustrate how easy it is to get on a Judge’s wrong side by saying something personally offensive to that Judge.
Besides, from personal experience and watching many Judges hold court, I can tell you that all Judges, whether male or female, have feelings, big egos, sensitivities, and they all demand lawyers show the proper respect, not only to the Judge, but to the court, the process, and participants.
jello333 said:
Umm… you seriously think if I was a lawyer that I’d be addressing a judge like that? ;) But I’m not a lawyer, so I’m showing her the respect she deserves. And it’s not about whether she’s a woman or a man…. it was just a literal descriptive that I sometimes use when I’m really unhappy with a certain individual. I don’t know how to search for them, but I guarantee you I made some comments when Lester was still on the case where I addressed him as “this guy” or “this dude”, and even “this idiot”.
jordan2222 said:
You nailed it. Judges are humans .
david said:
Has Judge Nelson opened the door for a Federal lawsuit for 6th and 14th ammendment violations. BDLR and Judge Nelson seem tohave incredible difficulty comprehending the term “without leave of court”
david said:
Let me see if I have the full picture, George exercises his 5th ammendment right to be a “potted palm” and does 30 days in jail and gets a million dollar bond. Crump on the otherhand directly lies to judge nelson in October about that mangeled recording being the only and highest quality recording and also files a sworn affadavit with the court filled with overt lies and half truths and Crump enjoys the protection of the Judge TWICE without Nelson even batting an eye?
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
IMO the defense and our efforts need to stay focused on getting ready for trial. I did enjoy the discussion on this motion.
In regards to Crump I have always believed in that maxim “what goes around, comes around.”
I hope Crump thinks he is off the hook on all this. Maybe he will become complacent, you know, a false sense of security.
At times like this I reminisce and find solace by looking at the BIG picture. The fact is, 13 months after Crump got involved in this controversy and rubbed his hands in greedy anticipation over the riches he would realize, he has not made a profit off Trayvon Martin.
Crump has been outed as a moron.
Each day that passes he gets further away from the Trayvon Martin brass ring.
I suspect his law partners are livid because he gummed up this case and it has cost the firm a lot of money.
In regards to money, from what I heard only about 150 people showed up to the 2013 Trayvon Martin fundraiser, many of them there for the party, not to donate big sums of money. And there’s few donations to the Trayvon Martin foundation. So there’s not much money that Crump and crew can tap into.
And talk about wins, the Dept. of Justice cleared Zimmerman on Crump’s racism accusations.
NBC done got themselves sued.
Last, but not least, major media and AA big shots have disassociated with Crump. They realize they have been had.
If Crump wants to celebrate today’s “win,” I’m fine with that. His is the classic definition of a Pyrrhic victory.
david said:
someone on Piers blog is using a fake CTH accoun (no doubt the dog pound yet again)t: The Conservative Treehouse
The Piers and Junior bromance continues with another softball interview with the underlying message of “Donate money to me because I’m a failed “trained” musician/singer who uses my brothers murder case as a stairway to fame.” Too late unemployed loser, your racist mentality has been exposed to the masses. Now you are trying to backpedal off your racist remarks because you are a coward. What were you saying about the publics perception again?
March 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse | Reply http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/27/tonight-
david said:
Question for our legal minds….although shocking, today’s denial could be a “good thing” if the defense takes this to the appellate court. It would put Pam Bondi in the the position of having to write the legal brief defending Crump and could further expose just how far the corruption in this hoax goes!
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
I don’t know the law in Florida, but generally there’s two avenues to “complain” to an appellate court, one is “appeals” the other is a “writ.”
Again, very generally, appeals can only be pursued AFTER a case has concluded.
In contrast, writs are something you can rush to the appeals court to obtain relief.
As you might suspect, appeals are common, writs are NOT. This is because writs are asking an appeals court to drop everything, so to speak, review your papers and make an immediate decision on your “complaint” seeking relief.
Because writs are an extraordinary request for relief, a party has to show the matter is serious, that the party will suffer irreparable harm if relief is not granted, and that the normal appellate process is not a suitable remedy.
Anyway, IMO Zimmerman would be hard pressed to obtain a writ on this issue, deposing Crump. IMO the issue is not compelling enough to warrant an appeals court issuing a writ reversing Judge Nelson’s Order and “suggesting” to her that Zimmerman be allowed to depose Crump.
A great example of the writ process in action coincidentally happened in this case. Recall Judge Lester refusing to bow out of the case. Zimmerman “appealed” Judge Lester’s decision by filing a writ of prohibition, where the appeals court ended up kicking Judge Lester off the case.
That was an example of Zimmerman properly seeking extraordinary relief. The contention was that if Judge Lester stayed on the case Zimmerman would not be able to get a fair trial. The only solution to getting a Judge removed from the case when the Judge refuses to do so is to seek a writ.
If Zimmerman had to go through the snails-paced appellate process the damage would have been done. Judge Lester would have continued to deny Zimmerman due process and most likely aided in Zimmerman being convicted.
Far more than you wanted to know.
Bonus Comment: If appealing this issue, Zimmerman would have to show that had Zimmerman been allowed to depose Crump that such would have made a difference in the outcome of the case. That’s a high hurdle to surmount. Even if the appeals court said Judge Nelson’s Order was in error, the appeals court might well say it was “harmless error.” So an appeal on this basis would be a waste of time.
For this reason, the Order might never be appealed. And of course, Zimmerman has to lose the case before he considers issues to appeal. If he wins, there’s nothing to appeal.
Joel said:
itsMichaelnotMike,
If George is found innocent, look to the prosecution to appeal the verdict.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Oh, forgot to mention, I was not “shocked” by the Judge’s denial. As I said before, motions to reconsider are very difficult to win.
Moreover, given the tone and words in Zimmerman’s Reply (implying to the Judge FAILED to do something; telling the Judge HOW to do her job), well that just made things worse because MOM West offended the Judge.
Judge Nelson strikes me as the type who does not like lawyers finger wagging at her, nor lawyers suggesting what are her duties and obligations.
ackbarsays said:
The motions are being written with the appeals court in mind. That’s why they appear to tell the judge what her job is and what the law is.
jordan2222 said:
When the motion was filed by the Defense, I made posts somewhere that IMO it would anger Nelson. I am following 6 blogs so “somewhere” could be any of them. It is hard to keep up.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Crump blocking his deposition does not matter. The world is asking “What has Crump got to hide?” Can you imagine the scurrilous talk about George Zimmerman if HE did not cooperate with police and that he lawyered up. The Net would be screaming and asking “What is George hiding?”
The entire world knows that Crump is a liar and that he advanced a false, fraudulent narrative, starting from the day Tracy Martin retained him, less than 48 hours after the shooting.
Just how bereaved is Tracy Martin that he retains a personal injury lawyer hours after the shooting and before his son is even buried. An attorney who admitted in his recent sworn statement to the court that he was retained to pursue civil lawsuits, in other words, make money for his firm, Tracy Martin, and Fulton.
This all proves that his statements back then about his raison d’être were another Crump lie. Crump said that he was retained so he could address police corruption, a failure to investigate the crime, address SPD racism, and a cover-up (including at the State Attorney’s office).
That was back when Crump lied that the police made no effort to ID Trayvon Martin; that the medical examiner let Trayvon Martin’s body rot on the medical examiner’s table for three days, as a John Doe; that Zimmerman had no manifestations of injury whatsoever; and that he heard Zimmerman fire two shots on the 911 audio.
Check out this March 21, 2012, MSNBC video. They got their FALSE information from Crump and crew. It is stuff like this that renders Crump’s deposition as unnecessary at this juncture.
Note: This is why I stopped watching MSNBC.
SMM NOTE: I’ve deleted the embedded video, not because I disagree with it or the point, but I have limited space for such things, and when people–with perfectly good will–start posting 5 minutes of video here, 9 minutes there, well, it really builds up quickly. Sorry, and thanks for helping me out!
liesel409 said:
BDLR filed a (meltdown) response to the defense’s Motion For Sanctions. Apologies if someone has already posted it here. Quote from article partially quoting response: “In a sarcastic, insult-laden pleading, the lead prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case on Thursday called defense attorney Mark O’Mara a “craven” duplicitous grandstander who “courts anything resembling a microphone or camera.”
Pleading: http://tmwarriors.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/states-response-to-ds-motion-for-sanctions-against-state-attorneys-office-for-discovery-violations-3-28-13.pdf
Orlando Sentinel article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-zimmerman-sanction-response-20130328,0,4684144.story
h/t Rumpole’s site: http://www.randomtopics.org
liesel409 said:
Too many links in prior post so it’s hung up in moderation. BDLR had a meltdown and filed it in response to the defense’s Motion for Sanctions. The Orlando Sentinel says, “In a sarcastic, insult-laden pleading, the lead prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case on Thursday called defense attorney Mark O’Mara a “craven” duplicitous grandstander who “courts anything resembling a microphone or camera.”
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-zimmerman-sanction-response-20130328,0,4684144.story
h/t randomtopics.org
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Man, I was getting ready to walk my dogs, now I have to delay that because I just gotta read Bernie’s going postal.
I have only three words on why I am quivering in anticipation:
De lic ious.
P.s. Sounds like MOM West struck a nerve.
jello333 said:
I thought there were ethics rules for lawyers in how they’re supposed to “conduct themselves”. I think Bernie has violated every one of them in that motion. It’s unbelievable. He libels MOM and Bobby up and down. And even George’s supporters! Refers to us as his “minions” and as “trolls”. Is this freak for real?
jordan2222 said:
What is meant by the term apologist?
liesel409 said:
Oh, it’s even better than you imagine. Seriously, if this wasn’t a farce to begin with, one could imagine an impartial jurist taking offense to the tone and content and one would even not be surprised by a sua sponte smack on the wrist. Unfortunately, this is a farce, and BDLR will totally get away without so much as a disapproving look from the bench.
liesel409 said:
jordan2222: An apologist is someone who goes around making excuses for, or generally taking the side of or taking up for the object person, or defensive of the object person, in this case, GZ. It’s meant to be derogatory, as in the apologist is just trying to cover up the wrongdoing of the object person.
jordan2222 said:
I know the meaning but wondered what these people meant by it. You gave me the answer so thanks for that.
I can think of much more hostile words. Strange that both sides use these derogatory names. It’s really childish. Doncha think so?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear ItsMichaelNotMike:
Well, I hoped to avoid having to post on this case for a little while, but after reading de la Rionda’s berserk diatribe–he imagines himself quite literate, apparently–I’ll have to post again, and soon. This may sound hyperbolic, but in all my years, I’ve never seen a legal document quite like it. Suffice it to say my opinion of the prosecution in this case has not improved.
liesel409 said:
Sorry, jordan2222 — I misunderstood and thought you were being literal instead of rhetorical. I’m drawing a blank on O’Mara using derogatory names or ad hominem toward the prosecution, so can’t comment on that. The defense has made serious allegations against the prosecution but from where I sit, they’re factual and the defense has good reason to be pretty upset. On the other hand, the prosecution was called out on their unethical behavior and went waaaaaaaay over the top in what I see as fairly baseless personal attacks on the defense. Again, a lot of judges wouldn’t allow that type of pleading. Locally, once in a while someone will start practicing that doesn’t play well with others but they never last long.
jordan2222 said:
I was actually referring to people like us using names, not the lawyers.
liesel409 said:
Hi, Mike Mc. I hope the extra writing is an indication that your recovery is going better and more quickly than expected. Does this mean we can also look forward to an update in the Erik Scott case within the next few weeks or months? You got me hooked on that case too.
Thanks for all of the information and wit. I also enjoy the stories from your former police days. I laughed out loud at some.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Liesel409:
Hi there and thanks for your concern about my health, and your kind comments. I’m just fine. I had the “little” stroke on a Saturday night and was back in school on Tuesday. I would have been there Monday, but they wouldn’t let me out of the hospital until about 1300 on Monday. I’ve been fully functional since, though with a bit more medication than before. It does take a little time to feel completely normal–or as normal as I get–but I’m just fine.
There will be more Scott case posts and a new one on the Guerena case from Tucson as well in the not too distant future, but I’m getting caught up in the Martin case these days. And I was just thinking about posting a few new stories. Great minds obviously think alike.
Thanks again!
Walter Smith said:
Who is Trayvon Martine? What does he want?
LittleLaughter said:
If I am correct from the info I’ve read, the judge must now hold a Richardson hearing. If that is true, could it have some bearing on why she canceled the next hearing? Why then did she not include the defense in the decision making? I am puzzled.
david said:
Well i guess posters are not allowed to criticize almighty sundances postings on CTH. He is starting to sound more and more like ” the professor”
canadacan says:
March 28, 2013 at 8:18 pm
And as for David Don’t let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out
Reply
justfactsplz says:
March 28, 2013 at 8:48 pm
Yes, David and the others don’t have to read here. I hope the screen door does hit em.
Reply
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Well I got done reading the most bizarre paper I have ever seen. I have to sleep on this. Besides, I have to jack my jaw back into place, it fell to the floor.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Maybe my Hair Club For Men bit sent Bernie over the edge?
david said:
Natalie Jackson@NatJackEsq14h
@LLMSPapa I just wanted thank you for all of your attention to detail.
Details
Nettles18 said:
The defense has posted the State’s 13th Supplemental Discovery.
http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/court-documents/134-state-s-redacted-13th-supplemental-discovery-redacted
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Bernie is an insulter extraordinaire! Here’s why:
Bernie said: “Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.”
Well done sir! Bernie insults, shows off perceived intelligence, and slaps “anonymous internet trolls” because few AITs, if any, will know the specifics of his insult nor look it up. Sure sounds fancy, dern’t it.
Anyway, it is most impressive that point blank Bernie has killed three little birds with one 10 gauge shotgun blast.
Update: Not so fast Bern. He apparently is echoing words from a cartoon, specifically, The Bullwinkle TV Show in a segment called “Aesop and Son.” That cartoon within a cartoon (query, is that double hearsay?) that spoofed and punned Aesop’s Fables to convey “the moral of the story” to riveted viewers like Bernie.
This particular Aesop and Son segment warned viewer’s about “speech that promises much, but delivers little.”
Now I see why Bernie did not cite the source for his regurgitated Aesop’s Fable. The Bullwinkle Show (cartoons featuring a dimwitted moose and nutty squirrel) is not legal authority.
Joel said:
Ah, but you didn’t go deeper, it is from a Latin poet, known as Horace. It is about a mountain that after a mighty labor produces a mouse. Bernie shouldn’t talk too much though. It seems his prosecution has produced a mountain of evidence that shows George defended himself.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Curiousity got the better of me and I went over to that Leatherman Blog because people in here mentioned him.
Ah, his words say it all. I teach advanced legal writing, have filed perhaps 2000 pleadings to the courts, written or read 10,000 communications, seen hundreds of Judges react to our writing, and attended many lawyer seminars on legal writing.
I am not aware of anyone in above-described settings or situations of anyone who would agree with what this blogger posted. (If anything, I will find Bernie’s pleading useful as a teaching tool. It is littered with examples of what never to do.)
I’ll not discuss the blogger’s comment in detail, simply feast your eyes. It is almost as entertaining as Bernie’s stuff. (I have edited the writing into separate paragraphs and sentences to highlight what’s said.)
____________________
Bernie’s epic smackdown of Mark O’Mara – March 29, 2013
Good morning, everyone!
I bow down in absolute awe of Bernie de la Rionda’s epic Shakespear-style smackdown late yesterday of the defense team, their internet troll advisers, and the reporters at the Orlando Sentinel who labor so diligently to spread the defense message.
I have never read anything like it and it’s so perfect that I think I would only diminish its impact were I to cut and paste bits and pieces of it into a new post.
It’s as close to perfection as I think is humanly possible and Bernie de la Rionda deserves all of the credit for producing this gem.
Make no mistake. Bernie de la Rionda’s masterpiece is so superior to any other formal written legal argument that I have read or heard about that I believe it will achieve immortality as an example of the elegant smackdown.
____________________
As close to perfection as humanly possible; elegant smackdown?! Oy vey! Mr. Fred, oy vey!
Oh… I do agree where you say Bernie deserves all the credit for producing the document. I’m sure Judge Nelson knows to give Bernie all the credit for giving her this fool’s gold document.
Mark Martinson said:
I’ve checked Leatherman’s blog and it is just bizarre. There is no intelligent (or even unintelligent) conservation about the case. It’s just weird stuff like this, stupid videos and all that.
jello333 said:
Ok, I know Freddy is a freak, and isn’t nearly as smart as he thinks he is, but he’s not bad at satire. Just read that again… it’s actually pretty good. Umm… it IS satire, right?
liesel409 said:
Defense posted a response to BDLR’s epic freak out:
http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/135-with-respect-to-the-state-s-response-to-defendant-s-motion-for-sanctions-against-state-attorney-s-office-for-discovery-violations
Marijuris said:
Are those the best weapons that the prosecution have? The stereotype letter thats supposedly Dee Dee wrote and the infamous Pay Pal account that not even the experience judge knows how to handle. WOW!!!
A message for George and his family:
Bienaventurados los pobres en espíritu,
porque de ellos es el reino de los cielos.
Bienaventurados los que lloran,
porque ellos recibirán consolación.
Bienaventurados los mansos,
porque ellos recibirán la tierra por heredad.
Bienaventurados los que tienen hambre y sed de justicia,
porque ellos serán saciados.
Bienaventurados los misericordiosos,
porque ellos alcanzarán misericordia.
Bienaventurados los de limpio corazón,
porque ellos verán a Dios.
Bienaventurados los pacificadores,
porque ellos serán llamados hijos de Dios.
Bienaventurados los que padecen persecución por causa de la justicia,
porque de ellos es el reino de los cielos.
AMEN
Mateo 5:3-10
Marijuris said:
If I remember correctly Lester did not knew how to handle the Pay Pal account. So I do not understand why the prosecution is exploiting to death the issue.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Here’s the 18th Judicial Circuit Court’s Administrative Order 09-06. (Yes, this is an ORDER of the Court, including from Judge Nelson).
____________________
WHEREAS, certain basic principles of conduct and decorum enhance the dignity of the court.
…
1. When appearing in any Court, all counsel shall abide by the following:
…
h) Avoid disparaging personal remarks or acrimony toward opposing counsel. Do not participate in, or accommodate any ill feeling between the litigants or witnesses, but remain wholly detached therefrom.
…
3. The requirements stated in this rule are minimal, not all inclusive. They are intended to emphasize and supplement, not supplant or limit, the ethical obligations of counsel under the Code of Professional Responsibility or time honored customs of experienced trial counsel.
____________________
All federal courts, and I assume most state courts, have rules similar to this. And every federal Judge I have appeared before would immediately sanction the offending attorney, that is, for conduct similar to Bernie’s. (That’s why I use a program that automatically flags words I type that are offensive, unprofessional, mean, or controversial. And it also changes words that I might have misspelled to where the word is crude, rude, or nasty.)
There’s some blogs that criticize MOM West because they don’t verbally pummel Bernie when in court, or that MOM talks nice when appearing in the media.
The reason MOM West behave like they do is because they are professionals and fully aware of their obligations under this Rule, and Code of Professional Responsibility.
liesel409 said:
In Zimmerman case, rhetoric heats up between prosecutor, defense “De la Rionda’s pleading, said Orlando attorney Diana Tennis, read as if it were crafted by someone who “writes it drunk at 2 a.m.” Pretty strong statement coming from Tennis who has engaged in strong rhetoric in pleadings herself in the past, iirc.
h/t cboldt at TalkLeft.com
david said:
ROFLMAO…Leatherturd calls Bernie rant an epic smackdown on Omara http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/03/29/bernies-epic-smackdown-of-mark-omara/
david said:
Direct quote from the deluded windbag professor Leatherturd ” Make no mistake. Bernie de la Rionda’s masterpiece is so superior to any other formal written legal argument that I have read or heard about that I believe it will achieve immortality as an example of the elegant smackdown.”
pinecone (minpin) said:
David- I have a question for you. I don’t want to use the word obsessed, so I’ll use the term interested. Why are you so interested in what the Travonites have to say? Are you a tabloid junkie?
david said:
No, but i’m fascinated by the total absence of critical thinking/ reasoning skills ny the Trayvonites
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Until and unless Mike posts a separate article on Bernie’s gasbag pleading, I’ll continue to post in here. Here is what I posted at the Orlando Sentinel, in the hopes MOM West see it.
Heck, I can supply them with the objections and motion to strike if they need it. I can do that stuff in my sleep.
____________________
What’s with these Florida attorneys not submitting EVIDENCE to support arguments. Don’t Florida attorneys file formal evidentiary objections to the opponent’s arguments and purported evidence?
The carved-in-granite rule in all U.S. courts is that “attorney ARGUMENT does NOT constitute evidence.”
Applying that rule of law to Bernie’s papers, just about everything he says in his papers can be stricken (disregarded) by Judge Nelson, because Bernie failed to even attach a supporting affidavit (declaration).
The two exhibits he attaches can be stricken as irrelevant, lacking foundation, hearsay, and double hearsay.
The Judge should rule that Bernie’s filing is the equivalent having NOT filed an opposition. In other words, Zimmerman’s sanctions Motion is UNOPPOSED.
I do hope that MOM West intend to file evidentiary objections (and for good measure to include at the beginning, a brief Motion to Strike the entire pleading, on the grounds it has no evidentiary support).
The second prong of Zimmerman’s reply brief can “in the alternative” argue that Bernie completely failed to substantively address Zimmerman’s arguments, and that Bernie misstates the law (e.g. the law is that the State must give Zimmerman information it reasonably SHOULD KNOW is relevant to the case. It is NOT a defense to argue Zimmerman has not shown how he was prejudiced by the State’s concealment and dilatory actions).
liesel409 said:
ItsMichaelNotMike, if you’re up to doing the research, MOM and West would probably appreciate it. If you’re concerned about putting in the time to just have your work lost in the flood of spam in their public email inbox, you could print it out and send it USPS. Even without drafting the text, just doing the research would likely be a great help.
I’ve never seen anything like BDLR’s screed pleading. It truly defies description in a legal context. Anyone complimenting it just shows how little they know about such things; courtroom procedure, decorum, etc. There are ways (in which I’m confident you are well versed) to slap your opponent so hard their great grandchildren will be born blushing but this isn’t it. Even the “how stupid can you be” appellate opinions dressing down a frequently overturned lower court aren’t anything like what BDLR wrote.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Well I have to put an end of this for the day. Here is something else I posted at the OS:
In addition to Bernie’s pleading violating the 18th Circuit’s Administrative Order, MOM West may want to point out to the Court in Zimmerman’s reply brief that Bernie violated other provisions of law.
State Bar Rule 4-3.4
A lawyer shall not:
(a) Unlawfully OBSTRUCT another party’s access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully CONCEAL a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is RELEVANT to a pending proceeding…
(b) Fabricate evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness (this applies to Crump too).
(d) Fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.
Rule 4-3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor:
(c) Shall make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense… (aka “exculpatory facts or evidence”).
(d) Shall not intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.
Rule 4-4.4 Respect for Rights of Third Persons
A lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person. (e.g., you should not have trashed Robert Zimmerman, Jr. in your pleading. Since you did not name the “anonymous internet trolls,” you might be off the hook on that one).
boricuafudd said:
Michael I have a blog, sort of like the one Txantimedia, had I would welcome any guess posts from you if you so desire. Btw I am always stealing your insights anyway it would save me on the cut and pasting. Check it out at boricuafudd.wordpress.com your thoughts would be most welcome.
jordan2222 said:
You had me confused with Justice For All
boricuafudd said:
That is the name of my blog Justice For All, the address is boricuafudd.wordpress.com. You are welcome to post there too, Jordan.
jordan2222 said:
I visit your site, often, but do not want to post duplicate stuff.. same with Aussie’s place.
boricuafudd said:
I do write my own posts, I try to do a different take on things, but when big news comes everyone is doing the same thing.
ejarra said:
And if Nelson tells MOM/West to quit their whining and STFU (not exactly that, but you get what I’m saying). Then what?
What if BLDR, seeing that she’s not going to do anything about their motion, continues doing what he has been doing for the past year (approx.)? Then what can they do? Suck it up? Do they have a recourse? Or do they just have to hope for the best? IDK.
I think that whole system needs to be reworked with severe sanctions and penalties or it will just get worse. The odd thing here is that it will affect to poor the most if this were to go on this way. And what group is associated the most as being poor? Black and hispanics. Half of which are rallying behind BLRD and a judicial system run amuck. In an odd way they should be on George’s side, but they don’t see it. It is also costing the Florida taxpayers money, too. Cases like this where prosecutors can stretch it out to wear down the finances of the defense cost EVERYONE money.
I’m done ranting for now.
hooson1st said:
ejarra
MOM/West just continue running the plays. Stay cool, stay focused. This is just the preliminary round. Keep tightening the evidentiary noose. Let’s see what the PING LOGS say. Let’s see if that cellphone had a dead battery. There is lot more to come.
jordan2222 said:
Nice rant.. We are all frustrated.
david said:
Shakespeare was FRENCH? He insulted O’Mara’s intelligence, ethics, legal strategy and personal integrity in a wide-ranging eight-page rant that quoted William Shakespeare; an arcane 16th century French writer; Shellie Zimmerman and a pair of angry Twitter post by her brother-in-law, Robert Zimmerman Jr. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-fight-20130329,0,5792497.story
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Strictly from a legal writing perspective, Bernardo violated many, many rules.
From what I can remember about the pleading:
– He quoted Shakespeare,
– Threw in an Aesop Fable, and
– Included something from his desktop book of maxims, and a quote from old Dickinson’s Official Rules.
(I assure you, Judges don’t like any of the above JUNK. None of it is legal authority, citation, or evidence.)
– He insults, derides, belittles, and attacks – not only opposing counsel, but strangers on the Net, his critics, the defendant, and defendant’s family members.
– He has contorted as improper, lacking merit, and complained about many of counsel’s actions that were in fact proper. For example, he says MOM “accused a Judge of being biased and prejudiced.” Well, the appeals court agreed and kicked Judge Lester off the case. Bernie says Zimmerman has accused the media (of what, Bernie does not say) and that Zimmerman has sued some. (What has that got to do with a motion for sanctions?)
– He misstates the law (e.g. that counsel cannot be sanctioned for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence unless the defendant can show prejudice or additional cost from the prosecutor’s admitted failure to disclose material).
– He used highfalutin words and phrases.
– He violated the unwritten rule that as a writer a lawyer should put things in a way that a stranger off the street (or very busy Judge) can understand the issues and what counsel is arguing.
– He violated the writer’s rule that words and sentences should be in plain English, “so a sixth grader can understand things.”
– He incorporated a huge block of copy and paste text. (21 lines!) That’s just lazy and signifies one lacks intelligence.
– He has a 12-line footnote. (Judges do not like footnotes. Footnotes break the flow of writing, requiring the reader to go back and forth. Judges say that if it is in a footnote then whatever it says either belonged in the body of the writing or not in the paper.)
– The writing is disorganized and does not flow.
– He violates the rule that counsel should never engage in personal attacks, against opposing counsel or third parties.
– Most of his writing is irrelevant to the issues presented in the Motion for Sanctions.
– He uses mostly ad hominem arguments (ad hominem = “appealing to personal considerations or emotions, rather than facts, evidence or legal reasoning”).
jello333 said:
And on top of all that, the original document was probably covered with little dots of spit from all the frothing he was doing…
waltherppk said:
On page 6 of BDLR’s drunken rant he asserts alleged “facts” about W8 and how the phone records allegedly prove the alleged facts, yet BDLR does not elaborate on what phone records specifically it is that allegedly prove his assertion of alleged “facts”. This is not a trivial over generalization and lack of specificity of language to appear in a legal document. Some very specific language should have been used with regards to what it is about the forensic evidence involving the phones for example the ping logs and GPS data and SIM card information about the phones have been confirmed by experts to be consistent with phone billing records and the timeline of events as described by W8, which would tend to prove the veracity of W8’s testimony. It seems to be a glaring omission that BDLR would not make such a more specific claim having any legal weight, but would be very vague about exactly what “phone records” are being claimed prove anything. Personally I find this to be suspicious that such a vague statement would be made about the phone records, and it leaves many good questions as to what BDLR is claiming as proof of anything at all.
Mark Martinson said:
What is a ping log? How precise is the GPS info (if any) from a phone?
The Leatherheads seems to think that there will be some forensic evidence that refutes Z’s story.
waltherppk said:
The GPS data is very precise from an android phone and the phone of the deceased is a model notorious for its GPS accuracy, better than a motorola. Every few seconds a very brief automatic signal exchange is made between the cell phone and cell towers within range, timestamped precisely to the second, identifying the phone by a unique embedded manufacturer’s IMEI number, the GPS location for the phone within a 10 foot radius to possible accuracy of less than 1 foot radius by a 7 decimal place latitude and longitude position fix sensed in the phone’s onboard GPS chip. The android phone is inernet capable and also has a unique MAC address for its modem capability, also embedded and unique to the phone. The SIM card provides user account billing data associated with the IMEI and MAC hardware codes hardwired into the phone integrated circuitry as a unique identifier. The network servers maintain a log of the ping activity and the connectivity status of the phone accurate to the second, and derive the less accurate billing statements from those ping logs which contain the more precisely accurate and comprehensive raw data about the operation of the phone itself. The ping logs are kept in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format on the network service provider servers and the servers of any “roaming partners” servers which records tower to phone connectivity during all calls for the duration of those calls, especially at the beginning and ending of those calls, but having the information updated every few seconds. Even when no call is in progress the phone periodically pings the towers within range and is connected with the best signal usually nearest tower when a call is made or an incoming call is received. The only time the phone is not pinging is when the battery is dead or removed, or possibly is in some kind of software shutdown due to a low battery. If that phone of the deceased was in use the ping logs will show to the second accuracy when and to the foot accuracy where it was moment by moment during use. Likewise for the other phones. And any playing of musical chairs with SIM cards or any tampering with the phones themselves will be exposed also by the ping logs showing data that differs from the altered SIM association with the earlier associated embedded hardware codes. It is 100% forensically reliable.
waltherppk said:
Or in other words, if the State has such a strong case then why not provide the forensic analysis for the phones? Certainly the FBI reviewed all of the forensic evidence including the phone evidence and the FBI is very thorough about the investigations in which the FBI participates. The FBI did not just ramble about talking to people and asking if George Zimmerman was a racist. The FBI examined and reviewed everything and then added more by investigating things the State never thought about, like the roaming partners ping logs. Assuredly the FBI generated reports of its review and analysis of all the forensic evidence gotten by both the state and by the FBI in its own investigation. Where is that FBI report? Everybody knows it exists so where is it? Another discovery violation is where it is, and it must be exculpatory or else the State would not be hiding it.
jello333 said:
When people started saying that the FBI investigation was “ongoing”, I got some of the JQer types mad at me. They thought it was great that the investigation was still going on, since that must mean they were still trying to find stuff against George. I told them that it was more likely just the opposite… that they were now digging into people on the OTHER side of the case, to maybe see if they had been violating some of George’s rights. The JQers didn’t EVEN like hearing that. ;)
waltherppk said:
RICO investigations of “Black Grievance Industry” related conspiracy and corruption could take awhile and there is no telling where it might lead in discovery of criminal and even treasonous seditious un-American activities. Investigating the No_Limit_Nigga Collective could involve a lot of work and may even require some prison expansions or use of FEMA camps having “affordable family housing”.
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Back in May 2012 I drafted a 250-page civil RICO complaint (just for fun :) Won’t say more than that.
If you are bored waiting for your flight, this makes for some great reading and tells you all you need to know to have an understanding RICO claims.
Both fed and state RICO acts are wonderful laws. RICO has put a lot of bad people and business entities out of business, while at the same time providing quantifiable justice for victims like Zimmerman:
tinyurl[dot]com/RICOManualFedLawyers
Back to the subject at hand, dealing with Bernie. I am mad again. I made the mistake of watching on YouTube Angela Corey-Nifong’s April 11, 2012, presser where she announced charging Zimmerman, with a sheet eating smile on her mug.
youtube[dot].com/watch?v=1r-idmJTK3I
Mark Martinson said:
Well, do we know they haven’t been provided?
waltherppk said:
Yes to a reasonable certainty we know the most relevant FBI reports have not been provided, and we further know that Judge Nelson is complicit in the obstruction of discovery seeking those FBI files by virtue of her unlawful order to the FBI which was made knowing such order would be refused, and such order non-responsive to the actual motion of the defense that the State (not the FBI) be ordered by the Court to disclose all FBI reports of which the State had knowledge access or copies, as consistent with FRCP 3.220. The Court unlawfully ordered the FBI to itself produce the files when the Court knows very well a State circuit court has no jurisdiction to “order” any federal agency to do anything. Nelson made a false representation that her unlawful order was going above and beyond required response to the defense motion for specific discovery, which was in fact a ruse ro unlawfully deny that discovery. Nelson should be removed from this case based upon that unlawful order alone.
captainlongschlongsilver said:
Ahoy Matey!
waltherppk said:
Arrrrrrrrrrr :D
captainlongschlongsilver said:
First time I have seen this Mike Tyson on George Zimmerman: ‘It’s a disgrace he hasn’t been shot yet’ http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mike-tyson-trayvon-martin-case-disgrace-george-zimmerman-221115400.html
ItsMichaelNotMike said:
Pre-Ambien Notes to File:
Bottom Line First, Before I Forget: Bernardo is a lying sack of sheet and conniving evildoer.
I have additional bases for MOM West to argue in Zimmerman’s reply brief on why Judge Nelson must sanction the prosecutors. I will explain tomorrow, Sunday.
It has to do with Bernie cavalierly refusing to tell MOM West when he got DeeDee’s March 19, 2012, “letter” and for how long he has had it. See Orlando Sentinel:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-trayvon-martin-girlfriend-letter-20130329,0,5093198.story
Note where the author says:
“In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel on Friday (March 29), defense attorney Mark O’Mara said he received the new letter March 13, the day he deposed Witness 8 in South Florida.
‘I’m glad I have it now. I don’t know when (the state) received it,’ O’Mara said, adding prosecutors would not say when they did.”
____________________
Why did Bernie at the March 13 DeeDee depo refuse to answer MOM West’s questions seeking information about DeeDee’s letter, dated a year earlier?
– Bernie did not want to incriminate himself. (Yep, that’s right, on March 13, 2013, Bernie “took the Fifth” on the grounds that his answer to MOM West’s questions about the DeeDee letter would incriminate him and constitute an admission that he violated Florida Bar Rules.
– Did not want to give Judge Nelson evidence of an independent violation of law (see below). Bernie was fearful about the repercussions from Judge Nelson Bernie knew would be forthcoming if he told MOM West “Oh, I have had that letter since March-April 2012.”
– Did not want to provide an independent basis for imposition of sanctions;
– Did not want to provide independent grounds that prosecutors have hiding the ball and otherwise playing games.
If Bernie told MOM West that he had the letter for almost a year, Bernie would have ended up admitting his violation of these Rules:
State Bar Rule 4-3.4
A lawyer shall not:
(a) Unlawfully OBSTRUCT another party’s access to evidence or otherwise unlawfully CONCEAL a document or other material that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is RELEVANT to a pending proceeding…
Rule 4-3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
The prosecutor:
…
(c) Shall make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense… (aka “exculpatory facts or evidence”).
(d) Shall not intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party.
ejarra said:
And if Sybrina told MOM she gave BLDR the letter or a copt of the letter sometime in March or April ’12, then what?
captainlongschlongsilver said:
Reblogged this on captainlongschlongsilver.
Pingback: Laverne Adekunle C.E.O of LaExpose | Speak Loud Magazine