“Oh yeah? Well, O’Mara is a poopy-face and he’s done wrong stuff too! Look! Squirrels! And lookit this: I’m so smart I can quote Shakespeare, and he can’t! Nyaaah, nyaaah!”
Thus is the substance of Special Prosecutor Bernard de la Rionda’s reply to Mark O’Mara’s motion for sanctions against de la Rionda for violation of his legal obligations.
In this series of articles I have often commented on the upside down nature of virtually everything about this case. It began before George’s Zimmerman’s arrest, when, bowing to the racial grievance industry and political pressure, Florida’s Governor and Attorney General appointed a special prosecutor. At that point, there was only one reason for that appointment: to arrest and prosecute Zimmerman regardless of the evidence. The Sanford Police Department had already conducted a competent investigation and had presented the facts to the local prosecutor who made an entirely reasonable and professional decision based on the evidence: there were no grounds to prosecute Zimmerman; he acted in self-defense under Florida law.
In the first article relating to this case (04-04-12), I wrote:
* The involvement of Florida state agencies in this case can be a valid and just exercise of executive authority. I worry that in the current climate that it will be anything but. State involvement may make the arrest and overzealous–perhaps even unwarranted–prosecution of George Zimmerman a foregone conclusion.
* The rare and extraordinarily rapid involvement of the Department of Justice and FBI in this case—under the direction of what is surely the racially biased leadership of Eric Holder–makes the federal prosecution and persecution of George Zimmerman a virtual certainty, regardless of the facts and for blatantly political and racial reasons.
* In most respects, the shooting of Trayvon Martin is unremarkable. Similar cases occur all the time and garner not a tiny fraction of the media attention focused on this case. The Martin case is all about slanting, hiding–even manufacturing–the “facts” to fit the preferred Media and progressive (but I repeat myself) narrative.
* The case, without a doubt, is now being manipulated for racial reasons and with the most base political motives.
* Mr. Obama, by once again injecting himself into a local police matter about which he knows less than nothing, has greatly complicated things. By posthumously rhetorically adopting Martin, Mr. Obama has handed Mr. Zimmerman’s future defense attorneys a powerful issue: he has essentially prejudiced the jury pool—all of America—to a degree that might make it impossible for Zimmerman to receive a fair trial. He has also stirred up racial animus and tensions rather than serving to calm them. Surely he couldn’t have intended that?
* Regardless of the eventual outcome of this case, it is likely that the ultimate victim will be justice.
I had no idea how accurate those predictions would turn out to be. At that point in the case, The Narrative was already nearly fully developed and the Legacy Media was in full-throated battle cry, disseminating a variety of falsehoods they would quickly have to walk back. Even Michelle Obama jumped on the racial bandwagon.
In Update 2 I documented the absolutely inadequate and bizarre charging affidavit, which not only failed to fulfill the elements of the second degree murder charge, but was plainly a political document, aimed at fulfilling The Narrative and inflaming those buying into it.
Without knowing of their work, I soon discovered that Mark Levin, Alan Dershowitz, John R. Lott Jr. and John Hinderaker of PowerLine held the same negative opinion of the affidavit. It was abundantly clear that the prosecution would try this case, first and foremost, in the court of public opinion rather than in the court of law.
In that update, I also commented on Prosecutor Angela Corey’s bizarre press conference announcing the charging of Zimmerman. Corey’s demeanor was akin to a politician thanking supporters for handing her an election victory. She praised Martin’s parents, calling them “those sweet parents,” and admitted she had been in daily contact with them, also thanking Scheme Team attorneys Crump and Parks for “their daily assistance in communicating with our victim’s family.”
I was to learn only later that daily assistance went far beyond communication with Martin’s parents into direct collusion with the prosecution, even potentially manufacturing false “evidence” against Zimmerman.
In Update 3 I wrote of the April 20, 2012 bond hearing where the first obvious signs of the crumbling of the prosecution came to the attention of the public (I’m not counting the affidavit, of course). Under direct examination by O’Mara, prosecution investigator Dale Gilbreath gave a surprising and disturbing look into the mindset and lack of ethics of the prosecution. Rather than answering directly, he dodged and weaved, claiming to have no idea who put certain phrases in the affidavit in quotation, despite admitting that it was only he, fellow investigator T.C. O’Steen and de la Rionda who completed the document. He also claimed to have no idea who put the term “profiled” into the document, and avoided defining the term.
Gilbreath also could not justify the use of “confrontation,” and looked very evasive in trying to avoid speaking of it. He admitted he had no idea who was calling for help, that he had no idea who started the “confrontation,” and that he had no evidence that conflicted with Zimmerman’s account. He also admitted that he never requested a copy of Zimmerman’s medical records and had never read them.
Any investigator responsible for a case of this magnitude must be intimately familiar with every facet of the case. That Gilbreath was not, that he–and of course, the entire prosecution team–had not even seen or tried to see evidence as important as Zimmerman’s medical records prior to charging him with second degree murder speaks to an incredible lack of competence, an utter disregard for due process, incredible arrogance, and likely, a prosecution driven by political conviction and confidence that they would have unassailable political cover regardless of what they did. Could they have firmly believed that the fix was in, and they could dispense with the usual safeguards that rightfully and reasonably constrain prosecutors?
In Update 6 I wrote:
We find ourselves in a bizarre sort of role reversal, a backward universe where day is night, up is down, and white is black is Hispanic or some combination of those three as it best serves the evolving narrative. On one hand we have the narrative where Trayvon Martin was an innocent child, a virtual nascent Rhodes scholar, “profiled” and wantonly murdered for being black and perhaps wearing a hoodie, by a huge, hulking cop-wanna-be brute many times his size, who relentlessly chased him down and murdered him as he ran for his life, wanting nothing more than to reach the safety of his temporary home. The senseless horror of the premeditated murder was made even more poignant by the fact that Martin, like all innocent child victims of profiling, was carrying tea and Skittles, an utterly irrelevant fact elevated to near-mythic status.
As the evidence has consistently revealed, the narrative, politically useful to those who seek to divide and inflame America, is almost entirely false. However, this narrative will never die, for there are those who need this particularly decomposed zombie to shamble along for as long as it is politically and financially profitable. It might be a new age truism that fact and evidence have little effect on the walking dead.
The role reversal was even deeper. In normal cases, prosecutors do not leak or otherwise release information to the press. They certainly do not coordinate with private attorneys with a financial interest in civil suits to line up witnesses and obtain perjured testimony, as we now know they did. They absolutely do not interview witnesses themselves, and they do not allow said attorneys to sit in on those interviews. And they absolutely never place the victim’s parents in the same room–to say nothing of sitting next to–witnesses while they are being interviewed. Anyone of normal intelligence can understand how this can and will influence the testimony of such witnesses.
Prosecutors are normally careful to avoid inflammatory statements, and in fact, commonly refuse to say anything about their cases to the press. They do not, in any way, try their cases in the court of public opinion. That’s commonly left for the less professional and ethical members of the defense bar.
Professional prosecutors also are delighted to turn over every bit of exculpatory evidence to the defense as soon as they have it. If they have a strong case–and professionals virtually never file weak cases–turning over all discovery is not only to their advantage, it is their duty under the law. To do less subverts justice. Ethical prosecutors let the defense make fools of themselves in public and in court. They let the facts and the evidence speak for them and only at the proper places and times.
But in this case, everything is reversed. There is now no doubt that the prosecution has been politically motivated and utterly unethical, even potentially criminal, from the start. It has been the prosecution that has leaked information and floated false rumors about Zimmerman, that has repeatedly violated its discovery obligations, that has actually lied to the court, and that has directed its efforts to winning the case in the court of public opinion rather than in the court of law. Of course, they hope for a conviction, but in important ways, that’s secondary.
To date, they have mostly gotten away with it, and if they do in fact have a belief that they are being politically protected and therefore have no obligation to uphold legal ethics or to obey the law, their behavior and rulings of the court to date would surely lead the reasonable observer to believe they have, thus far, been justified in that belief. The Narrative lives, and nowhere burns more fervently than in the hearts of the prosecutors and their supporters, or should I say, potential future co-conspirators?
With this background, let’s proceed to the matters at hand.
In Update 24 I reported on O’Mara’s motion for sanctions against de la Rionda, and his motion for related attorney’s fees. As this article is posted, Judge Debra Nelson has not ruled on these related motions (though she has denied, without providing any reasons, O’mara’s motion for reconsideration of her denial of a deposition of Benjamin Crump).
A quick review of the substance of the motion for sanctions is appropriate. It is based primarily on the fact that de la Rionda knew, as early as April 2, 2012, that DeeDee lied about her age and about being hospitalized because of emotional distress emanating from Martin’s death. Despite being asked multiple times, in court, personally, by e-mail and in writing about these issues, de la Rionda improperly withheld that exculpatory information until about 7:00 PM on March 4, 2013, the night before he would have been forced to reveal it in court at a scheduled hearing.
There is no question that de la Rionda violated Florida rules and potentially the law in purposely withholding exculpatory evidence. He even lied, in open court, to Judge Nelson in claiming that it was the defense that was causing delays, and that he was fully complying with his discovery obligations.
The tone and content of O’Mara’s motion is entirely factual and unemotional. He does not call de la Rionda–or anyone else–names, nor does he stoop to personal attacks. He does not refer to plays or use aphorisms to attack his opponents. Rather, he cites facts and evidence, and makes appropriate reference to related rules, cases and statutes.
O’Mara’s related motion for attorney fees explains, again in a factual, professional tone, how de la Rionda needlessly–and contrary to the law–delayed the videotaping of Dee Dee’s deposition on March 13, 2013 for more than five hours. Again, O’Mara supported his contentions with appropriate references to the applicable rules and laws.
De la Ronda’s response is, without a doubt, the most bizarre, emotional, counter-factual, and juvenile legal document I’ve ever seen. Consider the first sentence:
The only thing more inflated than Defense Counsel’s rhetoric is perhaps the alleged hourly fees cited in a second motion for payment of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Not only does de la Rionda mischaracterize the content and tone of O’Mara’s motions, this opening sentence sets the tone for his commentary. In a lengthy first page note, de la Rionda writes:
In a prime example of the calumny of Defendant’s Motion, the court should note that it was filed at essentially the same time as a motion containing an agreement from the state to extend the deadline to list witnesses (which Defense Counsel was requesting) in this case. When Defense Counsel was discussing this request with the undersigned, it is no apparent that at least one of the reasons he needed said extension was that he wasted considerable time preparing a request for sanctions against the very attorneys from which he was courting favor) never mentioned, of course, the fact that he was about to accuse them of misconduct). Such craven conduct exemplifies the lack of merit with respect to both the Motion, and its author.
Well. Let’s consider two definitions:
Calumny (n): A misrepresentation maliciously calculated to harm another’s reputation.
Craven (adj): lacking the least bit of courage: contemptibly fainthearted
Condensing this dense bit of rhetoric, we discover that de la Rionda, rather than addressing the direct and specific substance of O’Mara’s contentions, is claiming that O’Mara is lying about him to damage his reputation. And the evidence presented to sustain this charge? De la Rionda claims that while conducting the normal business of preparing for the trial, the mere fact that O’Mara was simultaneously preparing the motion for sanctions without telling de la Rionda first is somehow underhanded, contemptible and cowardly. And because O’Mara is cowardly, the judge ought to ignore him and his stupid motions.
It is interesting to note that de la Rionda is claiming that by daring to prepare a motion, which he claims took considerable time, O’Mara is being hypocritical and is himself causing the delay that de la Rionda is actually causing. Oh yes, and by asking de la Rionda for an agreement on extension for a witness list–de la Rionda uses the royal “we,” in writing “he was courting favor”–O’Mara was also somehow doing wrong. He was actually doing the daily business of a defense attorney.
De la Rionda begins, not by defending himself based on the evidence and the merits, but by attacking O’Mara’s motives, his character, and trying to deflect blame by accusing O’Mara of vague, unrelated ethical lapses.
Mr. de la Rionda, in the same note, then demonstrated his apparent lack of understanding of irony by snidely accusing O’Mara of filing the motions to line his pockets.
It gets worse. Much worse.
NOTE: Legal writing is supposed to be to the point, factual and easy to follow. Insults, asides, unfounded accusations, and avoiding the topic are unacceptable. Notes are acceptable only when they refer to such things as statute numbers and cases directly related to the points being made in the text.
On page two, de la Rionda misrepresents and misquotes O’Mara’s motion, claiming that O’Mara alleged that de la Rionda:
a) fail[ed] to disavow’ a media report made by a civil attorney ‘in various public forums.
and claimed that O’Mara was:
…demanding that the Court order the State to reimburse him and his colleague an amount to be disclosed at a later time.
O’Mara, in fact, wrote:
6. It is interesting to note that Mr. Crump has also contended in various public appearances that witness 8 was a juvenile, suggesting that she should, therefore, be entitled to even greater protection. The State Attorney’s Office, particularly Mr. de la Rionda, never disavowed, or corrected Mr. Crump’s statements that Witness 8 was a juvenile…
Language, particularly in the law, matters. O’Mara did not allege this to be a violation on the level of failing to provide exculpatory evidence for nearly a year, but included it merely as information supportive of his actual, primary charge. It also indicates the prosecution’s close relationship with Crump and the Scheme Team, but to claim it is one of two charges is a clear misrepresentation of O’Mara’s motion.
De la Rionda also misrepresented a matter of fact. In his motion for reimbursement, O’Mara provided a specific amount to be reimbursed, an amount de la Rionda admits he knows by his comments mocking O’Mara’s request for reimbursement on the first page of his reply.
NOTE: Attorneys are ethically bound not to misrepresent the arguments of others, and the law.
De la Rionda then spends more than a page of text talking about the straw man he erected, again claiming O’Mara wasted his own time, and writing:
Presumably he is seeking compensation now for time he spent following bad legal strategy and advice from anonymous internet trolls.
De la Rionda also departs even more completely from anything relating to the matter at hand by bringing up recent statements by Zimmerman’s brother, and noting that O’Mara responded to those comments:
Defense Counsel has stated with respect to such remarks that ‘He has his own opinions about things. He does not represent the defense.
Apparently when asked by a ravenous press to comment on Robert Zimmerman’s statements, by replying that Zimmerman did not speak for the defense (in effect, doing due deference to Zimmerman’s First Amendment rights), O’Mara was somehow doing wrong. De la Rionda then delivers what he apparently imagines to be an astute and telling literary admonition:
Counsel would do well to remember that concept in the context of claims like that in his Motion. “The world is full of pots jeering at kettles.’ LeRouchefoucald, Maxims #507.
De la Rionda misrepresents O’Mara, attacks a claim O’Mara never made, attacks Zimmerman’s brother, and accuses O’Mara of hypocrisy for neutrally and unemotionally disavowing Zimmerman’s brother’s comments. Thus far, apart from one very brief initial denial of any wrongdoing, de la Rionda has not addressed the real substance of O’Mara’s motions, and has used nearly two and one half pages not to address it. He does not address O’Mara’s second motion that explains his outrageous delaying tactics in obstructing the deposition of Dee Dee at all.
De la Rionda appears to be about to address O’Mara’s real charge, but side steps. He writes:
Initially, the state notes that Defense counsel contends that the supposedly ‘exculpatory’ material was a witness’s statement that she went to a hospital instead of going to the funeral of the Victim, Trayvon Martin, who had been murdered by counsel’s client; in fact, the witness has now admitted that she did not actually go to the hospital. This, of course, is not exculpatory; whether the witness attended the victim’s funeral has nothing to do with defendant being the person who caused the funeral to happen.
Employing the same ethical sense and professional demeanor he has thus far employed, de la Rionda continues:
What becomes clear, then, is that Defense Counsel either does not know what ‘exculpatory’ means, or he is willfully misrepresenting the same to this Court.
The only misrepresentations are on the part of Mr. de la Rionda. What matters is not the fact that Dee Dee did not go to the hospital, but that in making that statement, under oath, she arguably committed perjury. She certainly lied, which the prosecution has admitted, but not here. That, and the fact that she is plainly the prosecution’s star witness, is indeed exculpatory as it goes entirely and directly to her credibility. Without her, the prosecution has virtually nothing. Related is her lie, also under oath, about her age, which has had the effect of keeping her hidden behind a veil of juvenile secrecy, which has had a very direct effect on O’Mara’s ability to efficiently prepare his case. It has substantially delayed and obstructed his work, and thus, the defense of George Zimmerman. This is why prosecutors have an obligation to provide exculpatory discovery. It is these two factors, and de la Rionda’s repeated refusal to tell the truth about these two lies directly impacting the credibility of his most important witness that are without question exculpatory.
De la Rionda cites a case from 1998 that he claims is related to his argument, but he is beating a straw man of his own creation. He spends the next several pages dancing around the real points, admitting that he did inform O’Mara on March 4 “before any hearing on the matter,” “that the witness had not gone to the hospital, ” but again ignoring any mention of Dee Dee’s lie about her age and any reference to his withholding of both of those lies for nearly a year.
Notice too that de la Rionda accuses Zimmerman of “murdering” Martin. He knows better. Zimmerman is innocent of any crime until proved guilty. He certainly shot Martin, but the small matter of murder is why we are going to all the bother of a trial in a court of law rather than in the court of public opinion. In addition, de La Rionda again misrepresents O’Mara, writing:
…counsel appears to be grandstanding in an attempt to repeat as many times as possible what the Court already knows: the witness made an incorrect statement about a matter having nothing to do with Defendant’s culpability. ‘Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
O’Mara is not grandstanding. It is de la Rionda who is carefully avoiding addressing the real substance of the motion. Dee Dee did not make “an incorrect statement;” she lied, repeatedly and on at least two occasions (at least once under oath) about the hospital issue and about her age. It is not these lies that are at issue, but de la Rionda’s knowledge of them and his knowing and unethical refusal, for nearly a year, to divulge information that essentially destroys the credibility of his most important witness. Notice too that he is apparently claiming that he willingly divulged that information “before any hearing on the matter,” conveniently leaving out the fact that he would have been forced to do it in court in less than 24 hours.
De la Rionda also mocks O’Mara for making a charge he did not make with a bit of Latin, which translates as: “Mountains will be in labour, and an absurd mouse will be born.” In more idiomatic English, he is saying that O’Mara did a great deal of work for nothing, but it is de la Rionda who is constructing a mountain to obscure O’Mara’s actual charge.
De la Rionda then spends several pages talking about Zimmerman’s passport–an issue that was disregarded by the previous judge who was removed from the case due to his obvious prejudice toward Zimmerman. He also reminds the court that Shellie Zimmerman was charged with perjury (a charge that has no more validity and substance than that lodged against George Zimmerman, as I outlined in Update 12).
Notice that five pages into his response, de la Rionda has not acknowledged or addressed O’Mara’s real claim and basis for sanctions. Page six is essentially a defense of Dee Dee, a lame assertion that she somehow has something approaching a right never to be identified, and a recitation of Narrative talking points (and the charging affidavit):
* Defendant observed Trayvon Martin (incorrectly profiled him as a criminal)
* Defendant called police
* Defendant followed Trayvon Martin (and continue [sic] to do so after being told not to)
* Defendant confronted Trayvon Martin.
The call was interrupted…….. and she never spoke to the Victim again.
Again, de la Rionda is trying to distract the judge and lead her as far from the substance of the motions as possible. Not only that, he again engages in misrepresentation, in this instance, the facts of the case. Martin was never “profiled,” by anyone. Zimmerman was merely suspicious of his behavior, thus the call to the police. In fact, because he had marijuana in his blood and urine, Martin was in violation of the law (hence, a criminal), but of course, Zimmerman could not have known that, though he correctly suspected it. The evidence, including the tape of Zimmerman’s call, indicates that when the dispatcher asked him not to follow Martin, he replied “OK,” and did just that, despite being under no obligation whatsoever to obey the dispatcher. The evidence also indicates that he was not actually following Martin, but merely trying to keep him in sight for the police he believed would arrive at any minute. In addition, the evidence, including Dee Dee’s testimony, indicates that it was Martin that “confronted” Zimmerman. De la Rionda’s investigator admitted he had no idea who started the “confrontation.” Apparently Mr. de la Rionda knows something his own investigators do not.
Noting that the call was interrupted and Dee Dee never spoke to Martin again can be nothing other than a crude play on the emotions of the judge and those reading the document. Apparently de la Rionda thinks the mega ellipsis somehow enhances the pathos of the statement. Such emotional pandering has no place in a legal document. I’m surprised only that de la Rionda did not repeat that Martin was carrying tea and Skittles, as he did in the charging affidavit.
Not once, in the entire reply to the motion, does de la Rionda address the substance of O’Mara’s motion: his willing and knowing refusal, for nearly a year, to tell the defense of Dee Dee’s multiple acts of perjury. This is truly exculpatory evidence that any ethical prosecutor would have immediately provided the Defense, regardless of the effect on his case. This is the test of prosecutorial ethics and willingness to uphold justice, a test de la Rionda won’t even acknowledge exists, let alone address in any substantive way. I’ll leave it to readers to render his grade on this particularly revealing test.
The seventh, and final, page of de la Rionda’s reply is a masterpiece of sarcastic, hypocritical and juvenile commentary. It also contains perhaps the most egregious misrepresentations in the whole document. De la Rionda, accuses O’Mara have not having the law or facts on his side and of calling de la Rionda and others names, which again, has nothing to do with the substance of the motion.
He writes:
-he has accused attorneys who represent members of the family of Victim in this case, of a wide variety of misstatements, misconduct, and misbehavior; he has on several occasions referred to them as ‘the handlers’;
-he has accused the Victim’s mother, in the instant Motion of ‘potential influence’ of a witness;
-he has accused at least on judge of being biased and prejudiced;
-he has accused various members of the media, going so far as to sue some.
It is no surprise then that Defense counsel finally got around to targeting the prosecutors as well. No misconduct has occurred, nor should sanctions be awarded to compensate counsel. Indeed, the instant Motion appears to be a product of
[A] walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale. . .
Full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing.
William Shakespeare (1564-1616), ‘Macbeth’, Act 5 scene 5.
Notice that de la Rionda provides no specifics or context. This is important if he is to avoid dealing with facts.
The attorneys for the family members, the Scheme Team, have indeed made a wide variety of misstatements and behaved badly, inflaming racial tensions, but without specifics and context, one can’t really address this charge.
O’Mara did not accuse Martin’s mother of anything. He merely observed that Dee Dee herself said that having Fulton sitting beside her during her statement changed her testimony. This is surely an “influence” on her statement. De la Rionda should have known better than to put her in the same room with Dee Dee during her interview–the least experienced street cop would know better–but of course, he does not own up to this either.
O’Mara did indeed accuse a judge of being biased and prejudiced–against his client–which is his job. An appeals court, reviewing the evidence, agreed and removed him from the case. Strange that de la Rionda did not mention this.
O’Mara, on behalf of Zimmerman has not sued “some” media, he has sued NBC News which has already admitted slandering Zimmerman with doctored news in obvious support of The Narrative, and has fired several lower ranking employees involved. Strange that de la Rionda did not mention this.
And the quote from Shakespeare is yet another example of de la Rionda’s contempt for the conventions of ethical and effective legal writing. This is not an undergraduate literary criticism course. George Zimmerman is on trial for second degree murder. The particular quote he chose is also best understood as commentary on the ephemeral, transitory nature of man, not a directed insult at the supposed ineffectiveness and insignificance of Mark O’Mara–a man–whose response to de la Rionda’s excursion into evasion, misrepresentation and unwarranted and unprofessional insults was characteristically restrained, appropriate and ethical.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
O’Mara’s motions were specific, narrowly tailored and supported with fact and appropriate citation of relevant law. De la Rionda’s response entirely avoided the substance of the motion, erected multiple straw men, misrepresented fact and avoided appropriate and necessary context. It took the tone of a narcissistic and arrogant professor lecturing a class of underclassmen he mistakenly believes to be dull.
Any professional jurist would find de la Rionda’s missive not only unethical and inadequate as a legal document, but would be angered and insulted by it, by the mere fact that any attorney would submit such an unprofessional, juvenile document in a case of the utmost seriousness. Such a jurist would also not look kindly on the prosecutor in charge who allowed one of her subordinates to submit such an unprofessional diatribe.
This document can probably best be understood not as a legal document, but as a political, cultural document. It is red meat for the faithful. It uses the tactics of the far left, such as evasion, erecting and pummeling straw men, accusing opponents of one’s own failings, distraction and misstatement, even lying so boldly and blatantly that the reader is almost tempted to believe it. It is part and parcel of The Narrative, a narrative that is clearly in deep trouble. This is propaganda for the court of public opinion, not a professional filing in a court of law.
This may be why de la Rionda kept Dee Dee’s lies concealed for so long: he had to have known how damaging they were to her credibility, and thus, to The Narrative, which is actually his case.
An undercurrent of desperation underlies de la Rionda’s comments, as well it should. Perhaps he is no longer certain the fix is in. Perhaps he is beginning to fear that yelling “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” is no longer working and that facts and the law just might actually matter in this case. Perhaps he’s beginning to fear that if facts and the law matter, he and his compatriots are in real trouble.
Perhaps it would be best, under the circumstances, to invoke another of Shakespeare’s plays in analyzing Mr. de la Rionda’s reponse: “The Merchant of Venice.” As readers may recall, Shylock–thinking himself very smart indeed– did not, after all, get his pound of flesh.
May justice be equally well served in this case.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
A few other things:
p.2, section I — the prosecution refers to “public statements by civilians”. I have read quite a few pleadings, and I have NEVER seen the word “civilians” used outside of a military context. Unless de la Rionda is a JAG officer on loan to the state of Florida, that speaks of a horribly corrupted mindset. CITIZENS (the proper term, not “civilians”) have the very same rights attorneys do. The only difference between the two is the ability of an attorney to stand in the shoes of a citizen he represents. de la Rionda seems to have forgotten that his job is to stand in the shoes of the citizens of Florida, and seems to believe that he is somehow about them.
p.3 — “Maxims” is not a learned treatise, which is the only sort of literature that should be quoted in a legal pleading other than legal opinions.
p.7 — “The Official Rules”, a book of HUMOR, is most certainly NOT a learned treatise. (I will allow that Macbeth would be widely considered a learned treatise for limited purposes.)
All in all, there are about two pages of actual, proper argument, centered around the single case cite (Rutherford, which is somewhat persuasive). I think it is likely insufficient to defend against the motion in an impartial court, but I have little confidence in that. This wasn’t a motion directed at the court — this was a motion directed at the the compliant media.
Unfortunately, the facts of Buenoano (which is what is actually being referred to) don’t read on the situation here. The potentially impeached witness was an FBI agent presenting collateral crime evidence (evidence of a crime committed OTHER than the accused crime), not the primary eyewitness. The two, I believe, cannot be fairly compared.
“p.2, section I — the prosecution refers to “public statements by civilians”. I have read quite a few pleadings, and I have NEVER seen the word “civilians” used outside of a military context. Unless de la Rionda is a JAG officer on loan to the state of Florida, that speaks of a horribly corrupted mindset.”
You mean it sounds like something that Natalie Jackson would write?
After reading that comment about “civilians”, I would tend to agree that Nasty Natalie had something to do with writing that comment.
I have a military background of sorts, being a military wife for close to 20 years, and so I am quite familiar with the difference in language.
Phelps and deb that is a good pick up.
He used the term civilian repeatedly in his latest rant/response to the motion for sanctions.
I would also point out that the ellipsis in the Macbeth quote represents “Told by an idiot,”. I suspect that De la Rionda may have thought this “hidden” insult to be quite brilliant on his part.
P.S. In your sentence “Zimmerman was never “profiled,” by anyone, and Zimmerman was merely suspicious of his behavior, thus the call to the police.” did you mean Martin in place of the first “Zimmerman”?
Trayvon PROFILED Zimmerman as someone he could easily beat the crap out of with impunity! Blacks profile people all the time even thoguht the media prefer to ignore it.
(Thanks Mike for your efforts the lame stream media can no longer be counted on to provide)
Dear Sue:
Thanks for reading and proofreading as well. You’re correct, and I’ve corrected the error. It’s sooo hard to be perfect!
As to the ellipsis, I can’t imagine why he left out such an obvious insult, unless you’re correct and de la Rionda thought himself oh so clever.
You are about as close to perfect as I have come across. Law, guns, literature. A renaissance man. Love me some McDaniel.
What bothers me about BDLR’s diatribe is the mere fact that he turns it into the court knowing it is flawed. If the judge does not admonish him, then it exposes her far more than BLDR realizes. If accepted and acted on by Judge Nelson, it will tarnish her as in collusion with the Prosecution. She will be as guilty as Judge Lester.
Judge Nelson’s reaction to this is definitely going to be in my opinion a further indication that she is in the pocket of the Obama administration I’m not kidding.
So far in my opinion Judge Nelson has been running a kangaroo court. well written motions by the defense been completely brushed aside.
This article that you have written mike is probably the most brilliant summing up of the Zimmerman case so far. I have been following this case like a hawk over at CT H. this is a refreshing professional analysis of the railroading of George Zimmerman.
I’m a big fan of his brother Robert Zimmerman’s efforts in social media and on public television to defend his brother.
George Zimmerman nickname of his friends with tugboat
That should read George Zimmerman ‘s nickname given to him by his friends is “tugboat”. George was always a good friend to his friends and was always taking them to safety. well right now Robert Zimmerman is playing the role for his brother as a tugboat. A very devoted family are the Zimmermans.
I’m going to recommend your article to a number of people. I think this a writing is a particularly appropriate at Easter time. It gives one hope. This case had become a political football and has been horribly distorted by the liberal media
Hi Joel – Even worse – her next action was to cancel further hearings – with out ANY explanations of why she would do that. Time is running out for the defense.
“Curiouser and Curiouser ” said Alice. Judge Nelson doesn’t have to give any reason. Still, it would have been polite of her to give some reason. Doing her hair, having a mole removed, maybe even research on the new kennel her dog is going to be staying at when she goes to Hawaii with Obama after the trial. Something.
BDLR’s diatribe is a perfect example of the slang term “butthurt” used by young people. The definition is something like described in Urban Dictionary as “An inappropriately strong negative emotional response from a perceived personal insult. Characterized by strong feelings of shame. Frequently associated with a cessation of communication and overt hostility towards the “aggressor.” Projection, manipulation, and a childish temper tantrum are for all to see. BDLR has been caught and he doesn’t like it.
I subscribe to a couple historical newspaper websites. I tried to locate cases in which de la Rionda was the prosecutor to determine the circumstances and perhaps measure whether he is indeed “successful” in the sens of someone capable of arguing and winning against a competent defense in which the defendant pleads “Not Guilty”. I am sure there are more cases out there than the few I was able to find, but I would suspect that the ones I DID find about de la Rionda are probably indicative of his true worth as a prosecutor.
In 1988, de la Rionda prosecuted a mother accused of manslaughter for allegedly leaving her son in a car, causing his death from heat injuries. He won a conviction, but the Florida Court of Appeals overturned it, pointing out that de la Rionda hadn’t even proven a prima facia case for a “Guilty” finding. They overturned the conviction – meaning, the mother was set free and couldn’t be prosecuted again. Just one prime example of someone being charged with a crime for which the evidence didn’t support a conviction.
In 1996, serial killer Gary Bowles pleaded guilty and received the death penalty for murder – not really a challenge, since de la Rionda didn’t have to argue the defendant’s guilt.
In 2009, de la Rionda prosecuted a pretty open-and-shut case of attempted murder in a situation where the shooter was actually recorded taking about his involvement in the case. Hardly a difficult win.
In an April, 2012 Florida Sentinel article, de la Rionda was quoted after having taken the case: “We are gatekeepers,” he said. “The bottom line is we are there for everybody, including the defendant, to ensure that they get a fair trial.”
What a JOKE!!
I do not believe Mr. de la Rionda has often (if ever) actually had to face a competent defense team in open court and argue a case from start to finish. He has CERTAINLY never argued a case where his every move will be under the microscope. I don’t beieve he realizes that tactics he has used in the past will be looked upon with VERY critical eyes. He’s in over his head on this one, and he can be as sarcastic as he wishes…if he argues his case with the incompetence he did during the first bond hearing, his career will likely be over. NO WAY Corey wil retain him if Zimmerman is acquitted. He will be like a cancer to her office and she will definitely throw him under the bus to save herself.
Your research on bernie de la nifong is spot on.
He looks like he has never had to face a competent defense attorney in his life and he looks like he is very upset he might have to do his job for once (he is so upset, he may just wave his arms).
I wonder how mike nifong earns his living now that he has been caught trying to prepetrate a race hoax of international dimensions.
Hi Juggler – It is my understanding that most of these cases are “won” by over-charging the defendant. Thus the person his charged with 2nd degree murder, with 20 to life – and they negotiate. There was a 13 year-old boy charged with killing a 2 year-old sister – who was so charged. He “accepted” being held in “Juvie” until he was 19 years-old. You are correct – in this case, Bernie will have to start to act as a professional. Instead – he tries to “win” by obstructing “Discovery” – as every means at this disposal. We have yet to see any fair-minded “Ping-Computer” logs of ANY OF THE HEART PHONE. Bernie is a “joke” as a lawyer.
Click to access 12-568_Petition.pdf
See FN 3
Evidence of secret meeting with key witness suppressed. Sound familiar?
I can follow plain English and I understand some legalese. What I don’t understand is FN3.? Does that mean Full New 3 or what? It would also help when you show a PDF that you highlight relevant portions. It does not help anyone and causes me to go through a largely irrelevant case that I have absolutely no interest in just to find what you are trying to say.
Another way of doing this would be to state your premise in a large reply and then use the PDF as a supporting document saying something more along the lines of File Note 3. It would help us non-legal people enormously. Especially since there is no FN3 in the file.
In Smith’s post-conviction proceedings, the state acknowledged
secret meetings with Smith occurred,
In attendance at these meetings with Smith were assistant state attorney Bernie
De la Rionda, Officer Farhat, and state attorney investigator Welch. (14 App)
This is the relevant portion of what you are saying. Which is Bernie De la Rionda likes to conduct secret meetings.
FN# is a common abbreviation for “footnote #”. He is referring to footnote 3 on page 24.
It might be common to you, but this is the first time I have encountered it as calling it a foot note # in my 53 years being on this Earth. FN is also used in computers as FuNction #, it is also used in Math. I did figure it out, but I pulled the relevant sentences out so no one has to go to the PDF and search through over 24 pages of a totally separate case.
As an aside, I think it was said here on this blog that foot notes are a big NO NO for courtroom motions. Judges generally don’t like them because it causes them to flip back and forth. Strange that we keep finding them right and left. It makes me wonder if judges really don’t like them, or counsels seek to annotate and foot note their tomes in order to appear erudite. Something to ponder.
If someone said that about footnotes, they were wrong. They are exceedingly common. They are generally used for asides that don’t bear directly on the argument, but are useful in providing context.
Or it could be used to hide things in plain sight. Most people don’t bother with reading foot notes because they don’t have the time or inclination.
Has anyone ever thought that perhaps de la Rionda is trying to get this case thrown out or (should a conviction occur) overturned on appeal? He’s not a stupid man, he MUST know that Zimmerman is not guilty of murder, but at the same time, the pressures on him are intense. He can’t simply drop the case, a case that should be dropped with a sincere apology to the accused, because the racial grievance machine would swing back into action immediately, and their ire would be directed at him and Corey if he did so. Instead, he has to plod ahead, knowing that he’s trying to convict an innocent man of murder. So, what is he to do? Perhaps his answer – the only answer he could find – was to be so marvelously over the top in his failure to perform his duties in terms of discovery that either (a) Judge Nelson might be required to throw out the entire statement of witness 8, which was the very BASIS for the charging affadavit (and possibly requiring the charging affadavit to be thrown out and the charges dismissed, or (2) the DCA would overturn any potential conviction and order a new trial, which could be handed off to another prosecutor or dropped altogether.
Was no mention made of the DeeDee deposition delay caused by dlR’s not allowing videotape? That is the action from which attorneys fees were calculated. Should be the easiest to prove or disprove.
Mike, brilliant job, as always.
Dear bullnuke:
Thanks so much for reading and for your kind comment.
agreed
but edit Richard Zimmerman to Robert Z
I am IMPRESSED! You have done an incredible and accurate analysis of this case.
When your though process is clouded…..blogs like this is worthless! Have a Happy Easter.
“thought”
Mike, I thanks God for people like you.
It was because of DD that Zimmerman was arrested and charged with second degree murder. Ironically it will also be because of DD that Zimmerman will walk free and will be exonerated of those charges.
In one of the first discovery dumps, recorded testimony, and written statements were included of the witnesses that may have seen or heard any parts of the incident that night. Yet with DD, in both of her recorded interviews, she is being asked questions by both Crump and BDLR. To my knowledge, there has been no recording where DD is simply asked to tell whatever she heard, and in her own words. She never starts at the beginning and relays her recollections of the phone conversation from TM leaving to go to the store, and ending when the phone hung up. The so-called letter she supposedly wrote to Sybrina is less than worthless as to an accounting of what she heard that night, if she in fact heard anything. The only benefit to the current appearance of the so-called letter is just another piece of proof that the prosecution has been keeping evidence from the defense, and for lengthy periods of time.
The defense can request that the judge remove DD from the case all together, as she has impeached herself. The defense has it on a recorded statement from DD that she lied about the hospital visit and/or her age. She admitted, again on a recorded statement that she told BDLR way back when that she had lied, yet BDLR refused to release that information. With the recording of DD admitting that she lied, on at least two occasions, doesn’t give the judge any wiggle room with removing a non-credible witness from the case. In impeaching any witness, it doesn’t matter what she lied about, or what her testimony is for the prosecution, she is no longer a credible witness to support the state’s case. Can you imagine O’Mara crossing her in a trial. DD, do you remember when I took your deposition on March 13, 2013? Do you remember telling me that you had lied about your hospital visit because you felt intimidared with the victim’s mother sitting next to you when you recorded your statements to the prosecution and Atty. Crump. Blah, blah blah.
The way I see Bernie’s last writing escapade is that of a dying man releasing his last gasps so to speak. From the first bond hearing, Bernie portrayed a very arrogant, obnoxious and proud peacock strutting demeanor. It was as though he was shouting to look at him, he is a big deal prosecutor after all. His wild flailing arms, and emotional outbursts in subsequent hearings hasn’t exactly endeared him to many. I have no doubt that jurors do develop an opinion about the personalities of the prosecutors and/or defense attorney’s which can play a role in their final decisions. Bernie belongs in Hollywood, not in a courtroom.
Bye bye Bernie. I heard the screen door at the prosecutor’s office is made of iron.
Mike,
You outdid yourself on this update!!!
Dear Angel:
Thanks. You’re very kind. I’m glad to have you here.
Mike,
I have been here many times, but just have not posted before. However, this update warranted me giving you your a shout out! :-) And thank you for your kind words. Being mean is overrated. :-)
When I first read the response, I realized that this case had just gone over the boundary from “sleazy” to “deeply shameful”. I don’t understand how it is that people like de la Rionda can even bear to walk around in the fresh air and sunshine, knowing what they know about themselves.
It is funny that he would bring up the passport issue, though. If anyone ever wondered WHY Zimmerman might decide that fleeing to Peru was a better option than standing trial, here is Exhibit A.
I’m still amazed that he didn’t. I would have. He’s going to have to move there anyway once this trial is over, so that another of Obama’s sons doesn’t decide to carry out some “community justice”.
I’m glad that he didn’t, of course. If he had, we wouldn’t get to see the case implode in the cataclysmic fashion we’re getting to now. But jeez. Can you imagine being George the first time he read that response? And knowing that THESE are the kind of people who are basically going to be in charge of your life from this point forward?
Pilate had more decency than these people. I’m sure the fact that the response was filed just before Good Friday wasn’t lost on George.
Shorter BDLR: I am unfit to prosecute so much as a parking ticket.
Great recap Mike! Thank you.
Ironic that BDLR attached another piece of evidence that has existed since March 2012 in his response which was just given to the defense.
In an interview for the Orlando Sentinel on Good Friday, Mr. O’Mara stated he got the letter on March 13th the day of W8’s deposition. “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.” http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-03-29/news/os-trayvon-martin-girlfriend-letter-20130329_1_trayvon-martin-de-la-rionda-george-zimmerman
Mr. de la Rionda in his filing of the 13 Supplemental tells the court the defense got it on March 15, 2013. http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/states_13_redacted.pdf which would be after W8 was deposed and the day Sybrina Fulton was deposed.
Is that thumbing your nose at the discovery process or what? Until and unless the defense finds out about evidence, it appears the State will hide it until forced.
The year-old letter being attached to a response about not being forthcoming with evidence is bizarre.
This response certainly confirms that BDLR’s refusal to accept Shelly Zimmermann’s suggestion that she call Robert Zimmermann to get accurate information about the PayPal account was intended to be a pretext to charge her with perjury and thus impugn Omara. BDLR realizes that even if Judge Nelson is corrupt enough to not sanction him for his repeated discovery violations, he will beep feces creek without a manual propulsive device when this is appealed.
BDLR should be disbarred and imprisoned.
What does it sound like when someone beeps feces creek? Is that like a personal ringtone?
Spell checker problem.
“beeps feces creek” = “be up feces creek”
That’s absolutely correct. The SAO had a goal, in concert with Crump, create so much pressure on George Zimmerman that he pleads to a death-related crime.
And it should not be forgotten that the perjury charge was filed AFTER Judge Lester expressed ON THE RECORD that he was surprised Bernie was not filing a perjury charge when Bernie appeared in court on some matter.
In other words, Judge Lester sent Bernie a signal that he had the Judge’s blessing to file a charge.
P.s. I would love to see the communications between the SAO and Crump where they discussed charging Shellie with perjury.
I think that you are on to something. It has always bothered me that Shellie was ignored on that point.
What is more important is that the Persecutor’s Office then edited the transcript so that this was deleted when the charges were laid.
Well I sent a motion to strike and some objections to MOM West’s “last known address.” Hopefully they will get them.
Here’s a little summary that I posted at the OS.
(Note: this is the professional way to say Bernie is nuttier than squirrel droppings :)
MOTION TO STRIKE
Pursuant to Florida law allowing motions to strike in response and reply pleadings, George Zimmerman should move to strike in that:
– The State Attorney’s entire Response reduced to its essence is the legal equivalent of not filing a response.
– The State does NOT support purported relevant argument with citation to legal authority or admissible evidence.
– The State’s Pts. & Auth. in that such constitute inadmissible attorney argument.
OBJECTIONS
– The State’s Points and Authorities reduced to its essence the State’s purported factual presentation is an improper attempt to have the Court weigh its purported evidence, and deem the State’s “facts” as true, and established.
(Bernie is asking the Court to DENY George Zimmerman’s Motion for Sanctions, without the State providing evidence or authority.)
– The State’s papers improperly represents that the State’s version of the facts are undisputed (the purported facts uttered by the State are disputed.
– Even if the State’s facts are accepted as true (they are not), the purported evidence is not relevant to George Zimmerman’s Motion for Sanctions.
-The State’s purported factual statements are unfounded and inadmissible attorney argument. Attorney argument contained in points and authorities are not evidence. (Citations omitted.)
– The State’s individual should be disregarded on the basis of: Relevance; lacks personal knowledge; lacks foundation; hearsay, or double-hearsay.
Mike,
You sir, are doing an amazing job.
I thought it was an entirely different law firm handling GZ’s civil suit against the liars in the media, not Mr OMara?I think the name begins witha B?
Thanks & Happy Easter to you & your readers.
Dear Libby:
Thank you! As I understand it, O’Mara’s firm is working with the Beasley firm of Philadelphia in the NBC suit.
Happy Easter to you as well!
Reblogged this on Justice For All and commented:
Mike, breaks down the temper tantrum that the Bernie had in response to the motions for sanctions due to his actions. Another great article by our favorite English Professor.
Happy Easter Everyone.
A Big Thank You great Blog Mike. Just wanted to pass along my thought on the Dee Dee letter. The placement of the thank you. They don’t teach that in schools anymore so that’s kinda proof to me at-least she was “helped” by someone 40+.
I have some last minute Sunday night musings:
I want to talk about “the letter” because IMO this might be the explosive part of Bernie’s March 28 filing.
– IMO the DeeDee March 19, 2012, letter (that’s the purported date) was a STATEMENT that Crump, et al. had DeeDee prepare.
– The “letter” was anything but. It is a statement. So to the extent that Bernie contends or implies it was an emotional, sympathetic or expression of concern to Sybrina, obviously it was no such thing.
– I assume MOM West asked her details about the “letter” (even though first getting the letter from Bernie the DAY OF DeeDee’s March 13 depo). I assume they asked: whose idea it was, did anyone communicate to her on WHAT to write, if so, who and what did they tell her, , did they go over multiple drafts, provide or ask for corrections, review the finished product, did she know how to spell Trayvon’s name, if not, why not, and HOW it was delivered Sybrina Fulton.
– As I said on Friday, this letter asks more questions than it answered. This letter has Watergate tones to it. I know that’s overused, but here’s what I mean:
I believe that this March 19 DeeDee letter went to everyone in Crump’s camp, then to Bernie, possibly the DOJ, and even Matt Gutman (who Crump, Bernie, and Julison colluded with to get ABC national coverage, in return for Crump, et al., giving ABC exclusive information/details of the case).
In other words, by March 12, 2013, the only people not privy to this “letter” were MOM West and Zimmerman.
In my mind this letter is an explosive detail in the case. It is a big problem for the state. The classic questions come to mind, “what do you know, and when did you know it.” Sure, some people will opine “it is just a letter, big deal.”
But this is not a simple little letter, it is the words of the State’s star witness (and really only witness). Any evidence related to the State’s (and Crump’s fabricated) witness is relevant and should have been revealed to the defense. (Unless, as MOM said in court, “something is afoot”).
Bernie might say: “I made the determination that the letter was not important so that’s why I did not reveal it.” That’s not the law Bernie, and as a 30-year career prosecutor you know it.
As Mike has pointed out in here, the prosecutor is obligated to turn over to the defense documents or material he knows, OR SHOULD KNOW, MAY BE RELEVANT to the defendant’s defense.
The operative aspects of the prosecutor’s obligation:
1) It is NOT Bernie’s call to make, WHAT information to turn over, or not. He is NOT the one who decides the DeeDee letter’s value to the defense. To err on the side of caution (and not give a defendant reason to appeal) prosecutors have a rule: if it is in the file and not confidential to law enforcement, give it to the defense.
2) The standard is knew, or had reason to know. The second part of that element examines the prosecutor’s behavior from a reasonable person standard, would common sense dictate important a letter from DeeDee? (darn tootin we would); and 3) The operative word is “relevant.” In discovery a party is entitled documents or materials that MAY lead to admissible evidence. That is why at deposition, for example, objections based on relevance are not permitted.
So when Bernie said in his March 28 indignant missive words to the effect “what’s the big deal, Zimmerman did not say he has been prejudiced or damaged by my dilatory, obstructive depo conduct,” that in a word is bullsheet.
I’ll put up part II separately, so I don’t look like a thread hog.
I believe the letter disclosed to the defense on March 13th (according to O’Mara) in Friday’s Sentinel article posted above is what prompted him to write the motion to sanction the defense. That was written on March 25th. He already had lots of material about the issues surrounding W8 and he used them in his argument in the motion. Mr. O’Mara didn’t mention this letter in his filing.
He told the reporter he filed the motion and asked to be reimbursed for wasted time because he wants the State to stop withholding evidence in the case.
Unbeknownst to the court or public, another piece of evidence that was withheld for a year had been uncovered on March 13th….the statement W8 wrote over a year ago.
The Supplemental to “formally” disclose this to the Defense wasn’t prepared by Bernie until March 27th. So officially, the defense got the letter “after” W8′s deposition.
Is that why Bernie included it in his response? Is he trying to get out in front of yet another example of the State withholding evidence?
**prompted him to write the motion to sanction the State.
So in other words DD told O’Mara in her depo that she had written a letter/statement, and had given it to Sybrina a year ago? Bernie was at that depo, and would have heard her statement to O’Mara. How else would O’Mara have known about the letter? I doubt BDLR would have walked in and handed something he successfully had hidden for more than a year over to the defense.
We know from O’Mara’s document that DD again admitted that she lied, and gave the reason that Sybrina was present for Crump interview, and sitting next to her for the BDLR interview. She said she told BDLR about the lie several months ago.
I wonder what else DD gave to the defense in the depo. I still think there may be something even bigger than the letter and the lies to cause such a complete meltdown by Bernie. Bernie has been getting away with lying about, and withholding evidence all along, and has not been punished for it at all.
Mr. O’Mara tells a reporter he got the letter on March 13th (the day of W8’s deposition). Mr. de la Rionda in his filing of discovery on March 27th says a copy of the letter was given on March 15th (the day of Sybrina’s deposition).
Looks to me the State has been caught dead to rights withholding evidence.
This letter could turn out to be very explosive. Not because of what it says but because of how it was hidden.
The Judge’s reaction to this will go a long way in shoring up people’s belief in the justice system or doing great damage to the belief in the system.
It worries me she canceled court without consulting with both parties first. It was the State that broke the news to reporters there would be no court on April 2nd. Then the judge issues a denial without explanation or hearing on a motion to reconsider deposing Ben Crump. I get the impression, she wasn’t happy with the defense.
We’ll wait and see if she gives them a court date before April 30th to deal with the outstanding motions and how she handles the games with evidence in the case.
Nettles- What I am wondering is how O’Mara got the copy of the letter on the 13th. Did BDLR hand him a copy that day? Did DD have a copy of the letter with her and then hand it to O’Mara at her depo.? Did DD tell O’Mara about the letter and BDLR got a copy of it faxed, or sent to the depo location somehow?
If O’Mara found out about the letter through DD first, and only then BDLR handed the copy over, it looks even worse for BDLR, as he would have continued to hide evidence if it wasn’t for DD.
Maybe with the flurry of motions that were being filed by the defense around the dates of the depos., and with the indisputable proof of evidence tampering with recorded statements from DD saying she told BDLR long ago about the lies, and possibly she also told him first about the letter, the judge may have cancelled the April 2 hearing because of her own more private meltdown. This may require her to do more than to tell BDLR he has to start being a good boy and to cooperate, and that will not look good for an already floundering state’s case. I feel certain that she was PO’d at the defense for causing her to do her actual job which differs from her instructions from “others.”
I believe the defense said they wanted to get another hearing set up before April 30. Nelson’s next move will be telling.
So, in your letter you claim you thought it was “Just a fight”.
Now, can you tell us, did he get into a lot of fights? Did he win all of his fights and that is why you werent worried? And since you now tell us you werent worried, why did you tell the whole world you were worried? and if you were so worried, why didnt you call his parents (I thought you knew him since kindergarten)? why didnt you call the cops if you were so afraid for his life?
and as boutis noted so eloquently above, bernie is butthurt that he had to fork over stuff he had been hiding for OVER A YEAR (while he lies to the media and the court claiming it is the defense who is stalling)
After seeing the letter over at Dman’s site, I came to a similar, not so professional conclusion. The letter does not sound like something that is written by a teenager. The language used is too legalistic to be written by someone like DoubleD.
Dumb Dumb wasn’t the only one coached by the schemers…..go back and listen to johns interview with baldy,Baldy was working hard asking w6 john bizarre leading questions such as “did you hear the sound of punches” and “did you hear the sound of a head hitting the sidewalk (as if what that sounds like is common knowledge)” to try to lead john away from what he saw because he is such a damaging witness to the prosecution.
bernie doesnt interview witnesses, he coaches them with the testimoney he expects them to give
Thank you so very much, Mike. This case has truly struck fear into my heart. What is our nation without our justice system? It may not be perfect, but it is far better than others. At least it was prior to the perversion of it by the Scheme Team.
At any rate, I am grateful for your articulate and spot on articles. It would be excellent if you were to argue the case for George in court! :-)
I think in some ways, the point of a race hoax is specifically to strike fear in folks’ hearts (there are other golas, as well of course, like eliminatuign SYG in 25 states or preventing SYG from being enacted in 25 states, getting the guy who loved rev wright the white people hater re-elected) and then see what kind of reaction you get.
.
create a false race narrative and see how much hate you can get the white folks to spout out (so you can then say, “see, look how racist, these white folks are”). like i said abpove, there are other goals, but this is an important lower level goal (getting rid of or preventing SYG and re-electing the guy who is so quick to call out nations police officerfs “stupid”).
.
ironically, while they created this race hoiax so they could unearth white racists, it is my contention, that there have been far more black racists (and white racists directing their hate at fellow whites) that have shown up for this race hoax than have white racists shown up for this case.
We follow blogs. Most people do not. It makes me wonder how average people view this case if they only see MSM coverage.
Thanks for your insight, Mike. It is my honest belief that the Prosecution is being “managed” by the Scheme Team and not in the impartial interests of “the State”. BDLR’s blustering seems to echo whatever contemporaneous Scheme Team talking points are in play at the moment.
The next move is clearly up to Nelson. How she handles BDLR’s unprofessional – and non answer – to MOM’s succinct and to the point motion – will give us all a much clearer indication of how she will elect to proceed. In addition to not just the participating attorneys, high profile cases forever “make or break” the reputation of Judges too. Will anyone ever forget Judge Ito?
As John Galt likes to say, at this point, it appears the Orange Blossom Special is right on schedule ….
Hi Ytz4 – Given Nelson’s previous support for the prosecution, and her desire to “tamp things down” – and her cancelling of the next hearing – I think George has almost no chance at a fair hearing – prior to his trial. Nelson is very biased against O’mara. If she “accepts” Bernie’s “explanation”, and does not grant O’mara what he asks – that will prove her extreme bias for the STATE.
Why didn’t O’Mara ask in his motion for sanctions that the testimony and statements of W8 be excluded from the record? That seems a fair result for obviously coached and lying testimony that was withheld from discovery by the prosecution. Or is this not the proper way to ask for that?
I actually believe that IF this goes to trial – or to an immunity hearing – O’Mara would prefer to totally wipe the floor with W8 and discredit the prosecution’s case.
Juggler has it. This would be the time to ask for that — if O’Mara wanted it. It’s a strategic call. If she’s excluded, then the state has a chance to try to prove murder-2 with just the circumstantial evidence, and hope the jury is in a lynching mood regardless of the evidence.
By not excluding her, even if the state doesn’t call her, O’Mara can call her, and still cross examine her on the mechanizations of the state.
Seems like a big chance to take when it’s almost a certainty that the state would have to drop its case if W8 were excluded. Their entire charging affidavit is based on her “testimony.”
It’s highly unlikely that any witness would be excluded by any court, especially for “just” being caught in some lies. A lying witness can have their credibility impeached by confronting them, on the stand, with prior inconsistent statements. This can be much better for the defense than excluding the testimony.
Imagine being on a jury and either side puts up a lying witness who is promptly shown to be a liar, the proverbial “were you lying then or are you lying now?” Doesn’t that taint the entire care presented by whomever wasted your time with a lying witness?
The exclusion here wouldn’t be for the lies — it would be because the state withheld documents relating to the witness.
It would still be an extreme and extraordinary punishment. Imagine if the judge had grounds to exclude an exculpatory witness. Just because there may be a technical justification doesn’t mean it should happen.
A judge may not allow certain testimony but that’s not the same as totally excluding a witness.
JMO – no witness will be excluded because of anything we’ve seen yet.
That’s a different situation. The defense doesn’t have a duty to disclose exculpatory documents to the state. The state DOES have a duty to disclose to the defense. It’s a two way duty in civil matters, but only one way in criminal.
PS – people lie in court, and while under oath, a lot. I think the oath to tell the truth should mean something and should be prosecuted when it’s ignored. By describing it as “just” lying, I meant to reference how the courts usually look at it, unless it’s something truly obvious, egregious, and material to the charges brought; or unless the judge (Lester) has an axe to grind.
If we did that, then most of our urban police departments would be staffed by a skeleton crew.
I am wondering about BDLR’s claim that “Witness 8 did everything she could to not being [sic] identified, including using her nickname so that she would not be subjected to what is now happening to her. See attached letter Witness 8 gave Victim’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, prior to the recorded telephone call with Trayvon Martin’s attorney, Benjamin Crump.”
Does this mean that Dee Dee signed the “letter” with her nickname to avoid identification? If so, what was the point of redacting it? If her friends used her nickname with any frequency, could this really help to avoid identification? Why would Sybrina accept a signed statement if she knew the signature was not the witness’s formal name? If she did not not know the name what was the point of a nickname?
Is it possible that the note was written or dictated and/or signed by a different person from the one interviewed and verified by BDLR?
Just what is it that “is now happening to her?” Something in the deposition by the defense?
John, astute observations. This shows another flaw of Bernie’s papers. Where I come from the arguing attorney would have to attach a declaration (affidavit) laying a foundation for introduction of the DeeDee letter (where he got it from, when, and who gave it to him). He would also have to testify in the declaration HOW he knows all the stuff he said in his papers.
Additionally, DeeDee would have to attach her declaration confirming the same information as Bernie, including when she wrote it. And DeeDee would have to testify on those statements Bernie says.
In its present form Bernie’s statements are inadmissible hearsay, double and triple hearsay. (For example, where he attaches a letter to establish the truth of what she said back then, and the letter says what Trayvon said.
Even Sybrina could have attached a declaration, her simply saying that she got “the attached letter” from DeeDee.
But like I said before, I don’t know how they do things in Florida.
Perhaps attorneys in criminal law motions are allowed to make factual assertions and argument without having to provide admissible evidence to back them up (affidavits, documents, reference to the record).
Perhaps in Florida criminal courts what attorneys say is deemed true for pleading purposes. They don’t have to clutter up the files with supporting evidence.
Thank you IMNM – That’s pretty much where I stood. We’re supposed to accept at face value that this letter (a) was written by the individual alleged to be the ear-witness “DeeDee” (b) the letter was written on the date claimed (which I dispute) (c) and accept the above merely on the strength of BLDR’s “I said so”. The State refuses to provide when they were in receipt of this letter, under what terms, and the chain of custody – if any – for same. We’re just supposed to accept BLDR’s unsubstantiated assertions as “fact”. I have many problems with this. :-)
Thanks for the nice words. Of course, there was a bit of sarcasm to my comment.
I assume Florida mandates, like any jurisdiction: when factual assertions are made in papers, the attorney must “back up” those statements with evidence (the most common evidence being declarations from witnesses, attorneys, or business record holders).
If the attorney fails to do this, other than at-law arguments, the attorney’s statements will be deemed inadmissible argument.
Note: Notice that I don’t want DeeDee’s letter stricken from the record. For ulterior motive I want that letter, and the fact that Bernie gave it to the defense in March 2013 to attain carved-in-stone status. :)
Even though WPress says my comment was posted yesterday, I don’t see it. So I’ll try again:
____________________
OK, Part II.
IMO there’s circumstantial proof that the DeeDee March 19, 2012, letter was actually a statement requested by Crump and a document that he or someone in his office coached DeeDee on preparing. This is important because it is another bit of proof of the Crump conspiracy.
Here’s my thinking:
Here’s Crump’s March 20, 2012, presser:
youtube [dot] com/watch?v=86QQnKMuUmk
Because the letter had the appearance of being prepared by someone other than DeeDee, it read like an outline of “preferred/ideal” facts, or a statement similar to what a lawyer would “work” with someone to prepare, on Saturday I pondered if Crump had used the “letter” as an outline for his March 20, 2012, presser, and if it was proof of Crump’s and The Scheme Team’s case theme.
For a number of reasons this is important, not the least of which it that the letter is evidence of the conspiracy, criminal witness tampering, interfering with a lawful police investigation, and obstruction of justice.
Anyway, print out DeeDee’s letter and watch Crump’s March 20, 2012 presser.
Notice that Crump’s talking points in the presser are in the exact order of this “letter.” Also take note of the word’s Crump uses in his presser. What are the odds that Crump and DeeDee would use the same exact words and that the letter follows along in the general order of Crump’s presser?
Now Crump would say “of course I used DeeDee’s letter to Sybrina as an outline for my meeting with the media, any competent attorney would. That would make no sense because why not provide it to media during his presser? It is dated March 19, 2012. Why not introduce it to the world as another piece of explosive information that as Crump says “connects the dots and proves Zimmerman a murderer,” as Crump said during the presser.
In regards to this letter being additional evidence of Crump, et al. crimes:
– Interfering with a police investigation: Crump lied about many aspects of police conduct (e.g., that they did not arrest Zimmerman, they did not investigate the case, that the police, they let a murder go, Zimmerman Sr. was in cahoots with the SPD and SA Wolfinger) to support his reasoning on why he and Tracy Martin were justified in not cooperating with the SPD criminal investigation.
However, Crump was (as Bernie would characterize) a “civilian.” Similar to Bernie cannot lawfully decide which information is relevant, and therefore something he should give MOM West, Crump as a “civilian” is not allowed to decide to cooperate or not with law enforcement.
(Especially despicable was Crump accusing the SPD of collusion, conspiracy, and incompetence, but it was Crump and Tracy Martin who repeatedly put up roadblocks in front of the police (Tracy Martin would not give the police information about Trayvon’s phone; DeeDee; voice samples of Trayvon; background about Trayvon – e.g., his “record” at school, social page postings; and tampering with witnesses – Crump trying to coax them to change their statements to police; and turning the public against the police and SA Wolfinger, to name a few.)
Can you imagine the state of our society if you or I could refuse to cooperate with a lawful police investigation and hide evidence from them, because we supposedly don’t trust the police. The law does not allow “civilians” to decide whether or not cooperate in a police investigation.
– IMO the letter is also proof that Crump violated his attorney oath and obligations as an officer of the court.
Anyway, here’s why I say that the DeeDee letter was a Crump fabrication. It is suspicious in so many ways, no wonder Bernie did not give it to MOM West until the eve of DeeDee’s deposition.
Here’s the approximate times in the video that IMO shows a Crump outline for his presser. Also there’s the words DeeDee uses that are the same as in Crump’s presser.
07:10 – I was on the phone with Trayvon.
08:00 – Started to rain. Raining hard.
08:10 – Running through apartment COMPLEX.
08:45 – Goes back to walking.
08:55 – “I think this dude is following me.” (Note that this is how I think DeeDee would say it, not as she says in the letter “then noticed someone was following me.” Anyone think that’s how DeeDee and Trayvon talked?)
10:30 – He says he is going to try and lose him. (Yeah, Trayvon talked like that :)
10:35 – Trayvon says I think I lost him.
10:48 – He says he is right behind me AGAIN.
11:00 – She says he hears Trayvon ask ‘Why are you following me?’
11:30 – She heard earpiece fall.
____________________
Seems obvious to me that Crump memorized this “letter” he had DeeDee make, he used it as an outline of what he was going to say in the presser, wanted to lock in DeeDee to the false narrative, and have “notes” for DeeDee to be able to refer to in interviews by law enforcement or attorneys. In other words, these were DeeDee’s lines she needed to commit to memory. (Despite Crump’s efforts, she failed miserably in the Bernie interview. An interview, by the way, I suspect Bernie too had this “outline” to reference while asking DeeDee questions.)
As I said before, this is all on Crump. I don’t perceive DeeDee as a serious liar, because she did not care about Trayvon Martin not the criminal prosecution. And in regards to DeeDee, Crump’s actions were similar to police entrapment. Crump intentionally created the circumstances where DeeDee was compelled to tell the lies that she did. But for Crump I doubt DeeDee was going around town busting at the seams to tell what she knew. Nope, when Tracy Martin called her to pitch her “helping out Tracy and Sybrina to get justice” I bet she hung up the phone thinking “Oh f___, I don’t want to get involved in all this sh#*.” And then things blew up from there.
In contrast to DeeDee, Crump had the motive to lie. Crump knew that to pull off his con he had to memorize his false narrative, and have others stick to it too. The DeeDee letter was the outline to Crump’s case theme and by God he was sticking to it. He then went to work tampering with witnesses to get them to fit his false narrative and fictionalized DeeDee.
“Why not introduce it to the world as another piece of explosive information that as Crump says “connects the dots and proves Zimmerman a murderer,” as Crump said during the presser.”
1.) Introducing the letter takes the spotlight off of Mr. Crump, a spot that Mr. Crump seemingly enjoys.
2.) W8 desire to remain anonymous and out of the limelight. Introducing the letter would focus even far more attention on exactly who she is etc.
3.) The letter, if introduced, would raise questions about all the (false/unknowable) detail that Mr. Crump lathers in his presentation.
I doubt that DeeDee ever wanted to be involved with this mess. What would be her motive after waiting so long to even discuss it?
MichaelNotMike, I hope you do not mind if I reblog your points. I think you are spot on with what you are saying.
I hope this helps:
Attorneys writing *motions* should avoid footnotes/endnotes so that judges aren’t flipping back and forth and getting annoyed. Motions are supposed to use short clear sentences briefly setting forth their case. (Attorneys writing *briefs* may use footnotes but again are better off avoiding them.)
Appellate opinions are written by judges and the longer the opinion, the more likely it will have footnotes. Even short opinions often have footnotes. Judges write however they like; they’re not trying to please anyone.
I don’t understand your comment. I was not talking about how Judges or Justices write, I was referring to attorneys writing papers to the court.
In regards to appellate justices, there’s some interviews of current U.S. Supreme Court Justices who comment on writing appellate briefs. (I have them if you want a link to my server).
Some Justices said they LIKE seeing footnotes, some said they don’t have an opinion either way, and yet others said they do NOT like footnotes in written briefs.
Some SCOTUS Justices said they try to avoid footnotes in their opinions because they do NOT consider footnotes part of the actual decision, footnotes detract from what they are saying, and even though footnotes are considered dicta, many lawyers (and even Judges) nevertheless cite footnotes as authority, or otherwise ascribe significance to them, when the SCOTUS did not intend such.
Interesting side note: That’s why the SCOTUS send out one-sentence form letters denying review. The SCOTUS does not explain WHY it is denying review, lest legal scholars and lawyers use “denial letters” as “mini opinions” of the Court, or otherwise attach importance to denial letters.
In regards to trial Judges, their personal attitude about footnotes are as varied as the number of Judges in the U.S.
Warning: At the trial level footnotes can be fatal. I had a case once where opposing counsel (a Harvard law school grad, at a 700-lawyer firm) placed all evidence objections and some argument in about 20 footnotes.
The Court ruled defendant’s objections were ALL overruled and as a sanction he struck all the footnotes in their entirety because “counsel used footnotes, in 10 pt. font, to circumvent the Rules of Court 20-page limit on motion filings.”
The Court ended up denying defendant’s summary judgment motion and the case immediately thereafter settled for $12 million. (IMO because counsel did not want the client to see the Judge’s ruling on the attorneys use of footnotes.)
Well far more than you wanted to know about footnotes. :)
ItsMichaelNotMike – sorry if my comment ended up under one of yours. I wrote it as a general observation because earlier today a couple of commenters were discussing footnotes and it seemed to me they were both correct in what they were saying, although what they were saying appeared diametrically opposed. If I understood the discussion, one was mentioned motions (trial level) and the other was referring to appellate opinions.
I know you know about footnotes, etc.! ☺
To footnote or not to footnote — aye that is the question.
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous footnoting,
Or to take arms against a sea of lawyers,
And by opposing end them. ……
The rest is in the footnotes.
*applause* *applause* Excellent, Joel! lol
Ah, looks like I have failed, once again. The comment was not meant for me. What can I say, in track competition I was known for jumping the gun. At least I’m consistent.
Nevertheless, permit me to make some additional comments about footnotes, a GREAT bedtime story to tell the little ones (at least those whom you WILL INSIST attend Harvard).
________
It was a foggy, windy day in 1981 Washington. Hot tea was the order of the day, lemon bars or carrot cake if you had the coin. Now-Chief Justice Roberts fondly recalls his clerkship for then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
While sipping tea and eating BOTH lemon bars and carrot cake, Chief Justice Rehnquist, with his trademark sharp- critical eye, reviewed clerk Roberts’ draft opinion.
With the frightening, kingly flourish of His Majesty signing a death warrant, the Chief Justice used his blood red ink fountain pen to square off significant sections of Roberts’ effort. The Chief Justice then commanded Roberts to “put all the stuff in footnotes.” (Details added for dramatic flourish. Hey, YOU try to make this kind of stuff riveting!)
Like all subjects of the King, Roberts did not question the command. He dutifully rewrote the draft opinion “with all that stuff in footnotes.”
The Chief Justice King reviewed Roberts’ significantly edited rewrite and commanded “Fine, now go back and CUT OUT ALL THE FOOTNOTES.”
_________
ItsMichaelNotMike moral to my (lame, boring) story. Keep it short, try to leave out the footnotes.
This isn’t boring to those that write.
As usual, I agree with ItsMichaelNotMike. (And his footnote facts and story were much more *riveting*!) ☺
ItsMichaelNotMike, have you heard from txantimedia lately? I was hoping after the new year things would be better in his life and he’d maybe start blogging again. Seems like a nice guy and I don’t like it when nice people feel they have to sit down and shut up, or they just give up, you know?
Also, ItsMichaelNotMike, would you mind if from time to time I took some of your posts over to Rumpole’s forum, randomtopics.com?
I think Txantmedia is focusing on dealing with his wife’s grave illness (cancer, as I recall). Moreover, he did say after the November election result that he was fed up and would no longer blog.
If you want to post my comments, go ahead. But be advised re-posting my comments might get you put on probation, flamed or banned by those “other” blogs and forums.
I check tx’s site now and then to see if he’s back. Not a word since November.
Thanks for the ok. I’m not worried about getting sanctioned at randomtopics for re-posting you. Rumpole already suggested I invite you to join from looking at your writing in private messages. (Yeah, Private MessageS, plural, doesn’t acronym very well – PMs.) ☺
The Honorable Otis D. Wright II was slapping Prenda Law people silly. Him being on the federal bench in CA, I thought maybe you’d been in front of him before and had heard of this case or these cases. Judge Wright will likely be referring Prenda Law partners to their local bars and state prosecutors. It’s all very exciting if one has been following it, but would take a lot of time to catch up now.
liesel409
I spoke to txantimedia the week of Christmas, his wife’s cancer treatment had work, he had found out that they could not find the tumor on the latest sonogram. He was happy about the development but could not celebrate as his father-law had just passed that Tues.
I to hope that things are going well for him.
ItsMichaelNotMike,
Here is an article about lawyers and their almost uniform inability to write.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/why_lawyers_cant_write
Before reading this short article, I would have sworn that, since the profession of lawyers involves the use of exact language, it wasn’t true. Now, I am not so sure.
Great link Joel. I know Mr. Garner and appreciate his efforts to convert lawyers into good writers. But as you can see from the comments appended to his ABA article, most lawyers are deluded when it comes to performing a “self-audit” on their writing abilities.
Most lawyers actually believe they are great with the pen. They consider themselves great communicators and do not see a need to practice, learn new things, or improve their writing.
And as I lecture to students and in training articles: put 10 lawyers into a room and instruct them to write the same “demand letter.” At the end you will get ten different letter formulations, each lawyer thinking his or her letter is best of show.
While I like some of Garner’s material, my “writing God” is Gary Kinder, whom I first came across in 1991 or thereabouts, when I took his “Write A Motion In 20 Minutes” full-day seminar.
http://garykinder.com/
Full disclosure: I am using for free his new program called WordRake. I am using the program for a year before I publish a review of the product.
Bonus Comment: On his writing alone Bernie confirms my oft-quoted statistic – If graded, final course grades would show 80% of U.S. lawyers perform “C” work or below.
That’s one of the reasons Bernardo likes his government job, there’s no accountability. And it is partly what motivated him to file that POS paper. He knows there’s little chance of him suffering consequences for his misconduct.
Worst case, if he loses the State v. Zimmerman he will simply move on to an easy win to stroke his ego and barely-wounded pride. (And ultimately he can blame the loss on those pesky anonymous Internet trolls.)
If a person is honest with himself and loves to write, he will improve. By honest I mean reread his own writing. I spend more time rereading and editing than I actually spend writing. Just this little note to this point has taken over twenty minutes and I have not even finished it.
I don’t think Bernie De la Rionda spent more than an hour writing his hot-headed motion. I think Judge Nelson should actually throw it back to BDLR and simply say “I can’t follow the reasoning on this motion. Rewrite and resubmit or drop it.” I don’t know if Judge Nelson can do that or would do that. It would be an incredible kindness if she did.
However Judge Nelson decides, I don’t think Bernie can just shrug off this case and go on. This case will break him.
ItsMichaelNotMike, have you been following the Prenda Law copyright trolling litigation? The Prenda Law principals all pled the 5th today before a federal judge!
http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/02/prenda-laws-attorneys-take-the-fifth-rather-than-answer-judge-wrights-questions/
Prenda Law, reminds me of Righthaven out of Las Vegas.
Yes. That case is an excellent example of what I mentioned before (and that many bloggers like Talk Left say too), if Zimmerman’s case was in federal court it would have been dismissed long ago, because of the infirm charging document, no evidence, or prosecutorial misconduct.
(And by now Angela Corey-Nifong would have been taken to the woodshed for her contacting Harvard in May 2012 and threatened harsh critic Alan Dershowitz with lawsuits, job loss, and disbarment.)
Relevant to Bernie, on this filing alone the federal Judge would conduct an “order to show cause” why Bernie should not be held in contempt, the case dismissed, the State Bar contacted for disciplinary action, Bernie disbarred from the federal court (I assume he is a member of the federal district court in his locale), and suffer monetary sanction.
And this is what the court would do sua sponte (on its own “motion”). MOM West could separately file a motion to dismiss, imposition of sanctions, including for attorneys fees, and costs.
Note: Yes, federal Judges are that strict and their power that complete. Simply put, federal Judges do not put up with this sheet.
Perhaps U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White summed it up best when he sentenced a lawyer in a Barry Bonds related case. His comments definitely apply to Bernardo and Angela Corey-Nifong:
Lawyers are held to a higher standard of conduct. Defendant counsel’s conduct was especially egregious because he was a lawyer and he lied to judges and in court filings. Defendant attorney should be punished severely as a lawyer who lied to the court.
Counsel has corrupted the system, a system where lawyers have to play by the rules. If you can’t believe what the lawyers say, you have no basis for finding the truth, no basis to follow the law, and the system breaks down.
____________________
This is why Angela Corey-Nifong and Bernie piss me off. They are dishonest and corrupt as the day is long.
As Ken says in your link:
“There are few things more terrifying to a lawyer than a furious federal judge.”
To be sure, that’s why I have always filed cases in federal court. Fed Judges do not take kindly to lawyers telling lies, even what some lawyers consider “white lies.”
History is replete with fed Judges taking action against lawyers who act like Bernie or the “copyright trolls” in the Prenda Law litigation.
(And sadly there’s plenty of federal prosecutors who are just as rotten as Bernie. These people really let the power go to their heads.)
For example:
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/fedl_judge_sanctions_us_600k_for_secretly_taping_defense_lawyer/
This is a poor example. Yes, the federal district judge sanctioned the prosecution team…but if you look closer, you will find that the federal appeals court overturned it, and then the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case on appeal.
What ultimately happened is not the point, it is the prosecutors’ conduct and a Judge’s power over attorneys who appear in his or her court.
I would not want to do anything that gets the ball rolling on something like this.
If Bernie gets sanctioned but beats things on appeal, does that mean it is OK for attorneys to follow his example?
Let me add this video of “Twin Lakes” – to show how difficult it would be for anyone to see or “follow” TM.
Subject: Dave’s video of the dark corridor. In fact, George could not “see” TM 125 yards away, in the gloom.
It is the contention of DeeDee (nee Crump) that George saw (in street light) TM “jog” around the corner “t”, and that George THEN got out of his truck, and FOLLOWED TM in the near total-darkness. Further. DeeDee’s contention is that George “ran him down” and then shot him. This is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE – unless TM was EXPECTING George to come around the corner. Thus DeeDee’s statement of alleged “following” are crazy – because it would have been impossible to even SEE TM from 125 yards away, let alone “follow him” with TM’s 30 second head-start.
hello mike:
Fantastic job, as always. I really enjoy the way you break things down into understandable English and are able to analyze and convey the strategy (or lack thereof) of both parties. I would bet that you are an outstanding English teacher!
I have averred several times in other forums that there is no way the response was written by such a hack as BDLR. There may be some relevant jester in Shakespeare that represents this clown, with his nutty histrionics, but he does not have half the brain required to write such drivel. It was clearly written by an attorney in Corey’s office, and approved by Miss Piggy herself.
Again, very little of the response addressed the actual allegations, any judge would be able to see that. But given Nelson’s inability to follow the law and her intellectual dishonesy, I doubt that the motion will be granted. Nelson just does not seem to be strict enough with the defense, hence they will continue to play games. She showed a glimpse of hope after hearing the W8 lied about the hospital issue, but it looks like that was shut down again after denying the motion for reconsidering Crump’s depo without comment.
I wonder if the defense now has enough to go to the appellate court. Something is rotten in the state of Florida!
I have to attend a meeting, but I have to publish my new name for Bernardo and Angela.
What has the Berangela de la Nifongs so upset, to where they are running around like angry chickens with their heads cut off?
– Zimmerman has two experienced, seasoned, 30-year TRIAL lawyers representing him. As is often characterized: Zimmerman has a trial lawyer with 60 years experience. The State is outgunned (including in the smarts dept.)
– Berangela knows they have no case. Curse and blame anonymous internet trolls all they want, when it comes time to PROVE the State’s case AT TRIAL, Berangela have no EVIDENCE. They know it, lawyer observers know it, and even Berangela’s nincompoop, drama queen civilian supporters suspect it.
– Berangela also know there’s FATAL pre-trial motions coming from the defense. Zimmerman’s motions in limine will PROHIBIT Berangela from even hinting their bogus theories, because before trial MOM West will show the theories are unsupported by evidence.
– Pre-trial Judge Nelson will rule in Zimmerman’s favor because present theories and argue to the jury what ADMITTED EVIDENCE shows.
Bottom line: If Berangela don’t have EVIDENCE, they will be blocked beforehand advancing at trial unsupported theories.
– Berangela’s gasbag antics and serious misconduct aside, Berangela knows they cannot prove their case. No element of the charge is supported by the (little) evidence Berangela have (and presumably they gave to the defense, as required by law).
That’s why the Berangela de la Nifongs are so bitter. If they could imprison all us anonymous internet trolls, they would.
Theories can be offered by the Defense or the State, the biggest case was won on just that in Casey Anthony’s case by Baez, they are done in opening and closing statements.
Casey Anthony had a death penalty case, Baez WON Casey’s case with unsupported theories and accusations presented in his OPENING Statement.. In Baez’s opening statement, Baez claimed “Caylee drowned, George Anthony not ONLY sexually molested Casey for years but he DUMPED Caylee’s remains down the street from their home in a swampy area.”
Baez DID NOT have one scintilla of evidence to support any of his theory, BUT, the jury NOT ONLY believed it, they didn’t hold Baez responsible for FAILING to put on any evidence to validate the Opening Statement. Most Attorney’s present their “opening statement,” then evidence is presented to validate the opening statement. NOT in Casey’s case, Baez presented NO EVIDENCE that Caylee drown, Dr. G. the ME testified “she had NEVER seen a child drown accidentally with all their orifices covered in duct tape and there was no reason to dump Caylee had she accidentally drowned if it was truly an accident, why didn’t Casey or George call 911..” The theory by Baez was appalling, but the Jury bought into it, and imo, a murderer walked free.
Judges can do a lot with pre-trial evidence but Judges can’t do anything about theories presented WITHOUT any evidence in Opening Statements. Baez didn’t have any evidence to substantiate his claims in his opening statement, yet it all came in. Casey’ case had “Chief Belvin Perry,” a distinguished Judge that supervised I think 75 to 100 other Judges.
I don’t think the State has a case but that won’t stop them from presenting their theory as to what went down that night during their opening statement, MOM/West CAN validate w/evidence the events from their opening statement I am betting and disproving a lot of what BDLR’s says.
Hi Art Tart: I’m sure people following the GZ case get sick of hearing about the Casey Anthony case, but you’ve captured very well several things that concern me about what could happen to George once this mess gets into the courtroom for trial. In a million years, I would’ve never believed Baez could get away with what he did in that opening statement, much less that the jury would use it as evidence — and apparently the most important evidence presented by either side. My jaw is still on the floor over that one. And Baez? Well, he’s now called a “high profile defense attorney” and actually SOUGHT AFTER. It’s like the Twilight Zone, and I fear as absolutely ridiculous as the state’s case and its antics are, they could still win handily.
I think you are VERY mistaken about why Baez won the Anthony case. Keep in mind that the medical experts and the prosecution could not even SHOW how the child died. They had some circumstantial evidence but they chose to go for the jugular and charge Casey Anthony with first degree murder. There was NOTHING to lose in pleading NOT GUILTY. All Baez did was try to throw up a smoke screen. I am totally convinced that Casey’s parents were aware beforehand of Baez’ intentions. The REAL reason Casey Anthony was acquitted had so little to do with the jury actually being hoodwinked by Baez’ antics, and pretty much EVERYthing to do with the jury’s reluctance to convict someone of capital murder when the prosecution didn’t even have a CLUE as to cause of death. They overcharged, and they lost. Baez didn’t so much win….the prosecution simply decided to over-reach and fell short of the mark.
Comments about the significance of the DeeDee letter have left me puzzled. Some have said that this is irrevocable proof of a “cover up” and will end the State’s case.
Is it really possible that the state will drop the charge?
jordan2222 – the DeeDee letter is puzzling, but the lying affidavit of Crump claiming he didn’t coach or edit their interview proves him to be a liar by Gutman’s/ABC additional audio released a year later. YET, Judge Nelson doesn’t allow the Defense to do a deposition on Crump.
I’d be surprised if the State dropped the charges although this case reeks of corruption, still praying and hoping though.
I am aware of what you are saying. I put a lot of stock into what Sundance at CTH says. Have you read his comments on the DeeDee thread?
You are really asking, “how stupid is Bernie – if he continues this fraud-case against George”. As long as Bernie could claim that he “did not know DeeDee was lying about everything”, he can keep his PCA document. Once it is totally clear how DeeDee’s statement reek with lies (after O’mara’s deposition), then Bernie has a hell of a problem. He can never admit that DeeDee was lying — nor admit to the false charge he wrote-up on that lying DeeDee. I bet he will “stone-wall” well into the trial – with Nelson blocking all objections developed by O”mara. Mark my words.
My commentary is WHAT will happen when trial approaches. MOM West will move to exclude certain evidence, on various grounds (relevance, prejudice to Zimmerman outweighs whatever what the State contends the “evidence” proves, tainted, and the full range of plain ol’ objections).
MOM West will separately move to PREVENT the Berangela de la Nifongs from PRESENTING in their case in chief, during cross-examination, or closing argument various allegations, accusations, implications, or theories wholly UNSUPPORTED by the evidence or Berangela’s anticipated offerings.
Assuming Judge Nelson keeps out all that stuff (aka Berangela’s BS) the net effect BEFORE trial is that the Berangela de la Nifongs HAVE NO CASE.
In the real world, where there’s accountability and a Judge has no problem pretrial dismissing a case (rather than waste the Court’s limited resources): on MOM West’s motion to dismiss (or the Judge sua sponte – “on its own motion”) would kick Berangela down the courthouse steps and toss their papers into the wind.
But that’s not going to happen (the Judge dismissing the case, regardless of the sorry state of the Berangela de la Nifong’s case). This is political and she is going to pass the buck to the jury, even if the Judge can plainly see the state has zero evidence to prove the meaty elements of the charge. And remember, the state has the burden of proof, not Zimmerman.
All that said, might Berangela do the right thing and dismiss the case, at any point? Oh hell no. Berangela are stuck. No way they would back down. They don’t care about ethics, they don’t care about justice. They know the right thing to do is dismiss the case. But none of that matters. What they care about is their reputations and legacies. Dismissing the case would be admitting defeat.
Plus they have a “client” who wants them to prosecute the case, no matter what. So dismissing the case is not their call to make. The client insists this case go to trial, period. So on this basis alone the case will be tried.
Lastly, Berangela are willing to gamble they can seat a jury that will “hang” George Zimmerman no matter that the State’s evidence does NOT prove the charge.
Berangela feel confident that they can rig the jury with mostly angry black people who are secretly quivering in anticipation of getting seated on the jury and no matter what finding Zimmerman guilty.
You can bet Berangela remember the OJ Simpson criminal trial. Ironic that history has repeated itself, except this time around the black jury will be expected to find THIS defendant guilty.
The best of all worlds to Berangela and Judge Nelson is letting the faux jury decide the case, and then let Zimmerman “whine” to the Court of Appeals.
All MOM West can do is make the proper motions, preserving the record for appeal. (You should assume THAT is why MOM West filed the Motion for Sanctions. They don’t expect to get them, but the Motion creates a record for appeal, and may show Judge Nelson’s bias.)
Thank you. I wish it was not so.
janc1955 – I wouldn’t have believed the antics were legal as we watched in the Anthony trial either had I not witnessed it. I continue to read comments by many that, imo, have not watched closely a high profile case on a daily basis, they are going to be in for a surprise and disappointment.
I never realized the Defense could tell absolute lies without ANY evidence to support any accusation, but in fact they can. I wholeheartedly agree, as absolutely ridiculous as the State’s case is, they can still win, we have see it happen.
hi juggler523 – I certainly don’t think Baez won because he was a rocket scientist, he was inept on even filing MOTIONS in the beginning & stayed in trouble with Judge P. imo, the evidence was there to convict, it’s terribly sad that KC benefited from the total decomposition of Caylee’s remains leaving her little bones disbursed for yards in that swampy area but ALL the duct tape covering the facial orifices dispels the theory Baez presented and the jury believed, of an accidental drowning.
Baez created reasonable doubt in his opening statement and as Janc1955 stated, who would have EVER THOUGHT they would treat a theory as evidence? The Jury Consultant was brilliant in picking the inept jury from Pinellas. I agree the case was overcharged, not by the Prosecutors, but by their boss, funny Ashton now has his job. The jury had more than enough evidence to convict KC according to all the legal analyst I read, and imo, Cindy Anthony should have been CHARGED with PERJURY, especially since she lied in a capital case.
Mike – this is a great blog, I appreciate ALL the hard work & research that goes into your UPDATE Articles, a labor of love! I didn’t start at the beginning of the case with you as I wasn’t aware of your site, so I spend time reading articles from the beginning you wrote, the information is still interesting and newer events have added to some of the older info. I am thrilled when I see a new update, I get a big glass of wine, hey, sometimes that’s what it takes to believe the response BDLR wrote to the Defense.
I too was a teacher, I taught special education, the love of my life & an education in itself!
Holy Chingamoles!!!! MOM West filed a Writ on Judge Nelson denying a right to depose Crump.
I am loving life.
So much for doing anything else for the balance of the afternoon.
Click to access petition.pdf
Yee haw!!!!!!!!!!!
Fantastic news! I can’t wait to see how the MSM handles this development. Epic!
ItsMichaelNotMike,
I suspect that MOM West aren’t going to meekly lay down any more especially if Judge Nelson is going to continue to deny reasonable requests.
I second that Yee haw!!!,,,and raise you a “WOOO HOOO”!
I will wait anxiously for your break down, Michael.
Ummm…Dear Distrct Court of Appeals …Judge Lester ( Bozo #1) was a real loser and now we got Judge Nelson ( Bozo #2 ). Sooooooo, help me out here pleeeease, and BTW… just wondering…is the third time the charm? Hugs and kisses, (like always)….signed, Mark O’Mara
P.S. Do you know if the FBI kept a copy of the 25 minute ABC tape? It seems somebody thought it was kryptonite for the Black Superduperman and so it had to go.
An excellent read. Could have been shorter.
____________________
May it please the Court:
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT:
Crump is a moron. Crump is a liar.
II. ARGUMENT
Crump is a moron AND lying sack of sheet.
III. CONCLUSION
Crump is a moronic lying sack of sheet.
Respectfully Submitted,
MOM West
Anxious for the next installment Mike.
How sweet it is,
Dear Cherpa1:
Hi there. I had hoped not to have to do another one of these for at least a week or so. SMM is fast becoming your all Trayvon Martin all the time blog, but I’ll have a new article on the three major developments up no later than Saturday, and probably, Friday.
HA HA HA Mike… as the saying goes, no rest for the weary.
And as Al Pacino said in Godfather III, words to the effect:
“Just when I thought I could get out (go legit), they pull me back in.”
MOM West, Berangela, and The Scheme Team are not going to let you give your pen a rest.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/4/4/20850/61773/crimenews/Zimmerman-Files-Appeal-Over-Benjamin-Crump-s-Deposition
Defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt’s analysis
very good read
Thanks for the link. I have not been able to stop reading about this since I posted the filing alert 6 hours ago.
MIAMI – With the murder trial for George Zimmerman, accused of killing Miami Gardens teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford in 2012, due to begin in just over two months in Seminole County, officials in Miami-Dade County are preparing for possible trouble in the event that a not-guilty verdict is handed down. http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12913&Itemid=199
Reblogged this on captainlongschlongsilver.
Love that it was “Hand delivered to Judge Nelson”
Goodbye innocence?
http://pjmedia.com/blog/al-dura-verdict-what-prognosis-for-civil-society-in-france/?singlepage=true
Pingback: The Freddie Gary Case, Update 11: It’s Deja Vu All Over Again | Stately McDaniel Manor