Open thread discussion

Tuesday, April 2, 2013.

Good evening.

I will not be posting a new article today, so I am going to open a new thread for discussion.

I suddenly realized this morning that I am not aware of any information, good or bad, about Trayvon and Dee Dee and that means that an extremely effective wall of silence is in place.

That is an amazing accomplishment, given the virtually impossible to control teenage urge to gossip.

I want to thank everyone who has played a role in erecting and maintaining that wall. All of you have shown incredible resolve, grace and dignity by staying on the high road and ignoring the venomous and mean spirited personal attacks by the defendant’s racist supporters.

It’s difficult to watch them soil themselves in shame each day. Unfortunately, they have no time for other things and they are not any good at anything else.

I have not had much time to read comments today. I will be reading to catch-up until I fall asleep.

O’Mara appears to have positioned himself well enough to plausibly deny responsibility for leaking personal information about Dee Dee.

Do you all believe he will make that move?

Fred

170 Responses to Open thread discussion

  1. Romaine says:

    Lady2smooothe is referrencing page 126 of discovery document dump pt 1-183 pgs dated 05/15/2012, FBI transcript of 03/28/2012.
    @Lady2smoothe ty for your post I had question about the reference of the class g license myself. I would also like to see a reference to the site stating GZ’s lincense was invalid.
    My reason being, if GZ did not possess a cc license, would that be the SPD cover up?
    Would that also mean the defendant was illegally in possession of a legal weapon?
    Would that make his wife an accessory to the crime committed, if she was the gun owner?

  2. lady2soothe says:

    Sorry, I meant Professor, not Prodessor

  3. lady2soothe says:

    Prodessor,

    Ongoing argument over at HP

    JFT Supporter:

    GZ did not have a Class G permit
    therefore
    florida law 493
    — prohibits GZ from carrying any weapon, loaded or not, while he (GZ) enlisted himself to “work for” as the eyes and ears for SPD
    therefore
    when GZ told Officers he (GZ) got out of his car to follow TM because NEN told him “The operator asked if I could get to a place where I could see him” GZ enlisted himself to “work for” SPD and be their eyes and ears.
    then
    by florida law 493, GZ was to unload his weapon and conceal it in his car and not carry it while he (GZ) was following and tracking TM for SPD
    493.01(2) defines
    “Person” means any individual, firm, company, agency, organization, partnership, or corporation.
    and
    493.6115 (4) A Class “C” or Class “CC” licensee 21 years of age or older who has also been issued a Class “G” license may carry, in the performance of her or his duties, a concealed firearm.
    we know GZ did not have a Class G permit because he told Officers he was not allowed to carry at “work”
    simply put
    florida law 493 prohibited GZ from carrying his loaded gun the very second he (GZ) enlisted himself to “working for” SPD by being their eyes and ears
    hmmm … guess what
    that law, florida 493, is public knowledge and is what will be one more fact that puts him (GZ) away” GZ is a “person”
    493.01(2) defines “Person”
    “Person” means any individual, firm, company, agency, organization, partnership, or corporation.
    thus
    since GZ is a “person” Class G permit laws do, in fact, apply to him

    Then there’s the Z Supporter:

    “Florida Statutes 493.6100 – Legislative intent

    The Legislature recognizes that the PRIVATE SECURITY, INVESTIGATIVE, AND RECOVERY INDUSTRIES (emphasis added) are rapidly expanding fields that require regulation to ensure that the interests of the public will be adequately served and protected. The Legislature recognizes that untrained PERSONS (emphasis added), unlicensed PERSONS (emphasis added) or businesses, or PERSONS (emphasis added) who are not of good moral character ENGAGED IN THE PRIVATE SECURITY, INVESTIGATIVE, AND RECOVERY INDUSTRIES (emphasis added) are a threat to the welfare of the public if placed in positions of trust. Regulation of licensed and unlicensed PERSONS (emphasis added) and businesses ENGAGED IN THESE FIELDS (emphasis added) is therefore deemed necessary.”

    Moving along, Florida Statutes 493.6101(2) (not 493.01(2)) provides the definition of specific words used in the legislation, such as “Person”.

    While Zimmerman is clearly a “person”, he is not a person engaged in the field of private security, investigation, or recovery…the “person(s)” to whom these particular statutes seek to regulate.

    And another Z Supporter:

    He did not NEED a class G permit. He was NOT REQUIRED to have one. Please stop doing this to yourself.It makes you look very foolish, and that is a painful thing to watch.

    Will you please clarify, or is this even pertinent?
    Thank you

    PS I had a very hard time getting to your page tonight, my Avast kept claiming this was a phishing site.

    • Jun says:

      It’s a moot argument

      And pointless

      Whether Fogen has a license for a gun or not, which at this point is questionable, it does not mean he has the right to go chasing kids with guns and shooting them

      Fogen has no authority to act as an officer of the law

      However, if Fogen wanted to act as security or an authority, he would need to be given title and license, which he was not, however, was acting as if he did

      Besides, according to the evidence, Fogen did not complete all the classes required to have a CCW license, so his license may not even be valid

      Both of them are wandering off into pointless territory

    • The argument is irrelevant.

      The dispatcher did not ask the defendant to “get to a place where I could see him.” He specifically told him not to do that.

      Whether the defendant had a license to carry the gun is irrelevant because he certainly did not have a right to use it. According to his own statement, he was not in imminent danger of death or serious injury when he pulled it out of the holster, aimed and fired.

      He also initiated and provoked the confrontation by stalking and attacking Trayvon.

  4. Lonnie Starr says:

    I would say that if DD’s info get’s out MOM should lose his license to practice.

    • SoulSistaWoo says:

      I agree!

      I don’t know if MOM actions are based on Greed, Racism or the lack of empathy and conscious… whatever motivates his antics needs to STOP before he crosses the line of exposing DD to any form of life threatening danger.

  5. SearchingMind says:

    “O’Mara appears to have positioned himself well enough to plausibly deny responsibility for leaking personal information about Dee Dee. Do you all believe he will make that move?”

    I think not, Professor. O’Mara and West are by nature no gladiators. They are neither suicidal nor care about GZ (they are probably convinced GZ is a murderer). O’Mara and West mount the cheapest of attacks at the weakest of points and most unexpected of moments (i.e. at the same moment they court their opponent for favors, smiling and joking!) and after having calculated the costs and benefits to their public image. With the BDLR’s Epic Response, I think that O’Mara and West understand that the gloves are off and that the hawks have taken up positions on surrounding tree tops – waiting for an opportunity to strike. Anytime this duo leaves it’s burrows, it will be constantly on the watch out and walking on its toes. The hawks are around. High up the trees. Watching. And waiting.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I agree. It should be interesting to see what the defense attempts next. It may not be so blatant as in the past because of the new BDLR shots across the bow . . .

  6. ay2z says:

    And I hate that the CTH has ursurped the name, and I would like to share a reminder of the real meaning, taking it back, for pleasure viewing of what is real, and quite a wonderfully mind stretching exercise. enjoy!

    http://www.clickorlando.com/Tree-house-conforms-to-nature/-/1637238/15432168/-/d4ym8gz/-/index.html

  7. 2dogsonly says:

    Murder On A Sunday Morning won Academy Award for best documentary 2001. Camera films the two public defenders, Pat Mc Guinness & Ann Finley from their initial investigation through the actual trial inside the actual court, Fl. Sunshine allows this.

    When head of the Public Defender’s office was notified of nomination and hence two tickets were coming for attendance, he graciously gave them to Pat & Ann.

    The editing the French did and the fact Pat, in particular, is such an Irish character, and the corruption openly done by detectives, and the innocence of the Black teenager ( so very much like Trayvon) makes this heart stopping .

    When Brenton Butler, a 17 yr. old, was arrested they never notified his parents. When he would not confess they called the policeman known for beating confessions to report for duty. Officer Glover took this teen out to woods and beat him.

    Officer Glover, was the son of our much admired Sheriff, Nat Glover who was the first Black Sheriff in Jax. Nat Glover later ran for mayor.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      Was it you who mentioned Murder on a Sunday Morning on another thread?
      I watched it this weekend. Great documentary. Loved the people, the attorneys and the Butler family. It was so heartbreaking to see this kid in shackles, and I loved the interaction with the family. It made me cry.

      I agree everybody should watch it. You can watch it on YouTube.

      http://www.youtube.com/plGaylist?list=PL0D37916E9F437408

    • ay2z says:

      To be sure, Lumet’s films are not documentary. And The Verdict is not a parallel case to the Trayvon Martin killing, and the central character’s personal struggles, are not paralleled in the justice struggle for Trayvon.

      The point is about soul searching, making the hard decisions, the right decisions, not the easy flashy benefit decisions.

      For O’Mara, I think he’s taking the easier road, the one that floods at it’s lowest points, with mud and slime, and debris. It’s more exciting for him than to take the high road, and I have to wonder what Prof might be alluding to as O’Mara’s positioning of himself.

      One position that O’Mara has defined for the court and the public, is that he has nothing to do with Robert Zimmerman Junior’s worst tirades. If he can’t control the brother, how can he control everyone else.

      There’s no doubt in my mind that these two major tirades were deliberate, condoned and sanctioned by O’Mara et al. The benefits were enormous to each tirade, people got talking, it was hype and it was everywhere.

      What were the chances of the defense getting this much publicity, and exponentially be granted air time on the big talk shows, to both O’Mara and Junior, to explain themselves. Ratings for the networks were too much to deny O’Mara or Junior. O’Mara doing his obligatory, I have no control, speech and denouncement, and Junior doing his apology that wasn’t.

      It gets to the big prime time shows on networks that are not driven by moral decisions, but bottom lines.

      O’Mara’s got his reputation to ride on, and his track record here of separation from the ranting. It’s game, set and, he may have his finger on the red button.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      15 year old.

  8. ay2z says:

    A quote by Louis Godfrey makes us realize the importance of artists, poets, filmmakers, musicians, to make us think. It seems to relate to Prof’s question, he is asking us to think. The same reason Lumet’s work is important.

    “Sidney Lumet, … was one of the great moral compasses in American cinema. His best films – 12 Angry Men, Network, Dog Day Afternoon – are challenges to consider our individual culpability and responsibility in the actions of our social institutions.”

    (attributed to columnist Louis Godfrey)

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      I like Lumet’s work. Thanks for mentioning The Verdict, I haven’t seen that one yet. I may be watching it tonight.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I watched it in a theatre when it came out 30 years ago – looking forward to seeing it again as a more seasoned and worldly adult!

  9. ay2z says:

    Anyone seen the other Sidney Lumet film? (same director as 12 Angry Men)

    The defense’s dirty tricks for it’s all powerful arch diocese client had ‘positioned themselves’ to win by disappearing witnesses, intimidation and threats to an innocent woman admitting nurse who lost her career, and a nicely played ‘shill’ who used her undercover information to recover a lost career in law.

    Paul Newman plays the lead, there’s an interesting quote about ‘the chance at justice’.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      Thanks,
      I’ll will watch it. Anyone seen The Staircase?
      It is an 8 part documentary about the Michael Peterson case, made by the same filmmaker as Murder on a Sunday Morning.

      • 2dogsonly says:

        Amsterdam, that Peterson case was amazing. And thank you for mentioning Murder On A SundaymMorning!

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        I didn’t know anything about that case. But after watching Murder on a Sunday Morning, I looked for other documentaries made by this filmmaker, that’s how I found the staircase.

        It is an amazing case. The interesting part is that Peterson remains an enigma to me.

      • willisnewton says:

        The Verdict was based on a novel but the screenplay is by David Mamet. He’s one of the best… great film. Back when I first started, a producer at Universal gave me the script to read as a favor. I’ve kept it for years, and recommend it to writers all the time.

      • ay2z says:

        Lumet talks about the screenplay and its write:

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @ Willis
        @ay2z

        Sounds fascinating. Oke I’ll watch it now.

  10. ay2z says:

    ‘collegues’, not colleges– duh

    • Rachael says:

      colleagues?

    • Rachael says:

      “What drew O’Mara to this case? His affinity for the NRA and ever expanding self-defense rights, or was it a personal drive for the media spot light which was already created by the time he came into the picture?”

      I think initially it may well have been about NRA and self-defense, but like a bug, he got drawn to the lights. He’s gonna hit the bug zapper soon though.

  11. ay2z says:

    O’Mara appears to have positioned himself well enough to plausibly deny responsibility for leaking personal information about Dee Dee.

    We shall see what O’Mara is made of, won’t we? And I am not talking about ability to get away with, ability to come out clean on the other side, but what in the man as a human being is capable of doing, whether he is found out by his friendly bar association or not.

    What drew O’Mara to this case? His affinity for the NRA and ever expanding self-defense rights, or was it a personal drive for the media spot light which was already created by the time he came into the picture? Did he, after 30 years of legal practice, was he itching to get into a high profile case to win it at all costs, ensure his place in the cereal box list of great American lawyers (remember Todd Macaluso?.

    O’Mara, touted by certain colleges familiar on the talk shows, picked up a client in the Caylee case, for what reason other than to have high profile camera attention, if only to help the client help themselves. But it was something in front of cameras.

    It is a frightening thought, that he would betray any ethics or professionalism he ever had, or was seen to have, to throw this case for the win. But if his intention was to win based on what he believed he could do in April 2012 when all the legal pundits were announcing how there is no case, he may have a hard decision to make now.

    Why can’t the defendant be allowed access to every document, every piece of information in his own case? Why can’t the defendant, who has killed once by his own admission, save his case by leaking this through the ‘useless’ (defendant’s words on jail call) but well primed Bobbie Jr channel?

    • Two sides to a story says:

      @What drew O’Mara to this case? , , ,was he itching to get into a high profile case to win it at all costs, ensure his place in the cereal box list of great American lawyers . . .”

      I’m guessing that was his highest objective, originally. It’s not every day that a local case goes under the national spotlight.

      What his other personal motives are aren’t really clear, besides advertising himself as a criminal defense attorney.

      There are days I’m convinced he thinks Fogen is innocent and others in which I’m convinced he knows Fogen is in deep and serious trouble. That he keeps manipulating racist rightwingerss for money while saying he’s turned away racist donations is the most disturbing thing about him . . . the way he speaks from both sides of his mouth to keep them donating . . . a skillful lawyer with a forked tongue.

  12. fauxmccoy says:

    follow me up and down … la la la 🙂

  13. SearchingMind says:

    Question

    It has been said (by I belief Pyorck) that O’Mara motioned the Court for extension of the deadline for filing final witness list. The Court’s website does not show any such motion. Does anyone have more information on this issue? Thanks in advance.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      BdlR mentioned it in the 1st footnote of BdlR’s epic response. In it BdlR writes the motion for extention was filed at about the same time as the Defendant’s motion for sanctions against the State’s attorney’s office. I can’t find the motion on the defense’s website either. I guess they don’t think it is good pr to have the prosecution show good faith.

      • JustMe says:

        There is no motion from MOM to extend the witness list deadline, it was a “verbal” exchange between MOM and BDLR. Bernie states that in his answer to the court.

        Another reason for Bernie to be pissed off.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        This is wat Bernie wrote;

        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.

        It looks to me that it was on paper.

    • groans says:

      I don’t have any information.

      However, I have noticed that the court does not post everything on its web page. I’ve noticed it especially with respect to motions. Many times motions don’t appear on the site until after there’s been a hearing on them, or maybe shortly before the hearing. I don’t know why they hold some things back temporarily, but I’ve noticed that they do.

      So much for the touted “sunshine” in the Gunshine State!

  14. rayvenwolf says:

    OT Jordan Davis Shooting update for those who haven’t seen the latest before I dash off to work
    Case documents and new info

    Follow up to above – Dunn’s girlfriend claims he never mentioned seeing a gun only that he felt they(Davis and his friends) were going to advance on him. Brief mention of one witness statement as to what Dunn said before opening fire. Also one of the witnesses to the Durango’s movements was an officer close by making a DUI arrest.
    Article two

    Hope everyone has a good day. I’m off to go stand around in the mall for the next 6 hours.

  15. jo says:

    i don’t know much about twitter but i just looked at jnrs twitter page…what a hypocritical sack of sorry shit. Every question he asks about dee dee or crump or trayvon could be asked 1000 times about his brother. Don’t call someone out for a little white lie when your brother lies about the circumstances surrounding a young mans death at his hands. He is really loving the attention and i’m sure he thinks he’s Elvis. He is dumber than George. Get a job ya bum.

    • Jun says:

      You ever heard of the silent treatment?

      I think you need to do that to Junior

      The guy is an attention whore

      Just ignore him

      He was involved in the scheming of the money, as heard on the jailhouse calls

      Junior will get his soon enough and his twitter is being watched

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @Jo –

      Re elfin RZ Junior:
      ” … i’m sure he thinks he’s Elvis. He is dumber than George. Get a job ya bum.”

      Made my day, Jo, made my day!

      Thanks!

  16. SearchingMind says:

    @ Aussie, Groans, Jun, A’dam, all

    Clarifying the legal chain of O’Mara’s Motion

    Rule 3.220(8)(1) of the Florida Rules of CRIMINAL Procedure provides that deposition shall be taken in accordance with Florida Rules of CIVIL Procedure – EXCEPT where the Rules of CRIMINAL Procedure say otherwise.

    Rule 1.310(b)(4) if Florida Rules of CIVIL Procedure allows for video deposition (the conditions were met);

    Rule 1.301(c) of the Florida Rules of CIVIL Procedure gives the deponent the right to object to certain aspects of the deposition, among others, the manner of taking the deposition, the qualification of the officer administrating the oath, etc. In reading Rule 1.301(c) it is necessary to stand still and reflect on the word “otherwise”. That’s very important because the deposition cannot go forward if objections are raised (and held onto) regarding those matters preceding that word: “otherwise”.

    All BDLR needed to do- and actually did was to raise objection and ask Dee-Dee not to cooperate. Rule 1.301(c) of the Florida Rules of CIVIL Procedure gives him that authority.

    To remedy the situation, O’Mara had only two options within the system (a) abandon the video deposition and take the traditional deposition, or (b) obtain a Court Order compelling video deposition. O’Mara reasonably anticipated a negative decision from the Court and opted for option ‘a’. By so doing O’Mara also demonstrated that (a) video deposition was not necessary in getting complete, accurate deposition, (b) the 5hrs delay could have been avoided and (c) it was all his fault that he suffered damages himself (and might even have to compensate DeeDee for the anxiety she suffered during 5hrs of waiting and wasting precious time). In combination of what the Professor has already written on the matter, we can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty what Judge Nelson is going to do…..

    O’Mara’s suggestion to take the video deposition anyways and have the tapes destroyed, if JN rules against him, has no basis in law and practice, is not understandable and really infuriating (as said, I would support Bernie if he had punched O’Mara between the eyes 🙂 ).

    Rules 3.220(t)(1) and (2) of the Florida Rules of CRIMINAL Procedure are not applicable (with regard to videotaping DeeDee and obtaining her ‘countenance’, etc. and Professor can correct me if I am wrong on this one).

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      Thanks
      Very clear. Under those rules, was it in any circumstance reasonable for O’Mara to expect the court to compell DD to give the video deposition without the prosecution being heard?

      I was kind of interested in O’Mara’s remark that the deposition wasn’t finished. Correct me if you think I’m wrong here. Did O’Mara find himself in a difficult position, in that if he hadn’t taken the deposition that day, he may not have had any chance to depose DD again. But by taking DD’s deposition that day, he has lost the opportunity to claim that defense is still entitled to depose her again?

      He basicly waisted his time waiting for a court order, he would’ve never obtained.
      I don’t think BdlR will agree to having DD deposed again.

    • pat deadder says:

      I think Omara knew the video tape was not going to happen and his only reason for trying was to stir up the trolls and get more donations and get them back on his side since they are not happy with him.

    • SearchingMind says:

      Honestly, A’dam, the actions of the defense counsels are most of the time astonishing to me. I am sure defense counsels knew that BDLR will object to video deposition of DeeDee. I am certain that defense counsels – if they thought that they had a legitimate case – would have acted preemptively by (a) noticing BDLR 3-weeks ahead of the deposition (b) forcing a ‘no-response’ from BDLR and (c) motioning the court for an Order to Compel. I am equally certain that defense counsels made the calculation that such preemptive strike would have been an action in futility – which is why they abandoned that operation. It thus baffles me that defense counsels nonetheless chose to go to the deposition with their video crew expecting one of the following scenarios to play out: (a) BDLR is a moron and would not object or would object but grudgingly allow the video deposition to go forward, or (b) BDLR is a moron, will object, but will also allow the video deposition to go ahead while the Judge decides on its appropriateness/merits/legality, or (c) BDLR would object and advice DeeDee not to cooperate. In that case, all defense counsels had to do would be to call Judge Nelson and complain to her that BDLR is being a bad boy and Judge Nelson would then call BDLR, admonish him and order him to let defense counsels have their way with DeeDee, (this is Rule of Criminal Procedure O’Mara Style). None of these scenarios played out as defense counsels expected. When after 5hrs it finally occurred to defense counsels that Judge Nelson was “not available” (this two geniuses really needed 5hrs to understand what was going on!), they opted to abandoned the video deposition – correctly figuring out that 13 march 2013 provided them with the one and only shot at having DeeDee deposed (they didn’t miss the bus this time).

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        When after 5hrs it finally occurred to defense counsels that Judge Nelson was “not available”

        I am not familiar with court etiquette, but I thought they were stood up by Judge Nelson too.
        I remember that Nelson had made it known that 4/2 was a vacation day for her, at the last hearing, but that she was willing to come in if necessary. I thought her canceling the 4/2 hearing with the only reason she gave was that she was on vacation, was a clear signal from her to the defense; She wasn’t about to waste her vacation day for the defense’s nonsense.

        I checked the I checked the Defendant’s motion for Sanctions.. again, and according to O’Mara, after the defense told BdlR that depositions taken on videotape are allowable under applicable rule, BdlR refused arguing they were not authorized by rule.
        Would you interpret this as state arguing that although the rules state that the videotaping of a deposition is not forbidden, the rules don’t give the deposing party the authority to videotape the deposition?

        I also noticed that the compromise the defense was offering, would’ve put the videotaped deposition in the custody of the defense until the court would decide differently.

        O’Mara and West are sleazes. This latest incident has me convinced. It doesn’t matter how sleazy Baez actions may have been, he is making the bucks now. I don’t know what the penalty would be if the tape would’ve been accidently released. Once it is out there on the internet, you can’t take it back again.

    • Jun says:

      I think you need to re-read the statutes and rules

      It clearly stated, even under civil procedure, that either party can object, then and there, to the manner in which the deposition is conducted

      Videotaping is a manner in which a deposition is conducted

      Under 3.220 it says disclosure can be limited and it also says that people can object to the manner in which a deposition is conducted

      Also, it does not say it has to be videotaped, it says it “may be” videotaped, therefore not set in stone

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @Searching,

      Great research, SearchingMind, and we love you for it. Thanks.

      Have been waiting for a “Reply to” button so I can respond to your much earlier query to A’dam, (paraphrasing your question) as I recall: “Know how I know that?”

      Answer: The first line to the lyrics of “Blues in the Night.”

      Do I win the Golden Hawk’s Egg?
      :

  17. Xena says:

    The professor is not blowing smoke. The following is Florida statute regarding tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant.
    http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/914.22

    Title XLVII, Chapter 914, Section 22 (In pertinent part. You can read the full statute at the above link.)

    Tampering with or harassing a witness, victim, or informant; penalties.—
    (1) A person who knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, or offers pecuniary benefit or gain to another person, with intent to cause or induce any person to:
    (a) Withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official investigation or official proceeding; …
    (d) Be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process;
    ….. commits the crime of tampering with a witness, victim, or informant.
    (2) Tampering with a witness, victim, or informant is a: …
    (c) Felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, where the official investigation or official proceeding affected involves the investigation or prosecution of a second degree felony.
    (d) Felony of the first degree, punishable by a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, where the official investigation or official proceeding affected involves the investigation or prosecution of a first degree felony or a first degree felony punishable by a term of years not exceeding life.
    (e) Life felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, where the official investigation or official proceeding affected involves the investigation or prosecution of a life or capital felony. …

    (3) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from:
    (a) Attending or testifying in an official proceeding or cooperating in an official investigation; …
    (c) Arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with an offense; or
    (d) Causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or from assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;
    or attempts to do so, commits the crime of harassing a witness, victim, or informant.
    (4) Harassing a witness, victim, or informant is a:
    (c) Felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, where the official investigation or official proceeding affected involves the investigation or prosecution of a second degree felony.
    (d) Felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, where the official investigation or official proceeding affected involves the investigation or prosecution of a first degree felony.
    (e) Felony of the first degree, punishable by a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, where the official investigation or official proceeding affected involves the investigation or prosecution of a felony of the first degree punishable by a term of years not exceeding life or a prosecution of a life or capital felony….

    (5) For the purposes of this section:
    (a) An official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and
    (b) The testimony or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.
    (6) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance:
    (a) That the official proceeding before a judge, court, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the state, a state or local grand jury, or a state agency; …

  18. Soulcatcher says:

    Gz knew his job was to observe and report, not stalk and shoot.

  19. Rachael says:

    Well the outhouse crew once again think they know who the “real” Dee Dee is and have figured it out from some witness list. I really think they are (as always) way off base, but it makes me uncomfortable that they are still trying to figure out who it is, as if that will somehow oh, I don’t know – but obviously it is only so they can do harm, because otherwise, why the hell would it matter? They are indeed some VERY sick people.

    • Xena says:

      @Rachael. Looks as if they really want to hear the bars slam behind them.

      • Rachael says:

        Do they think it is a joke or something? I’m going to send it to the FBI again. I hope that at some point, they realize they are insinuating themselves into a murder case and they are not doing themselves or GZ ANY favors.

        • Xena says:

          @Rachael

          Do they think it is a joke or something? I’m going to send it to the FBI again.

          Zidiots think that as long as they change handles and use fake email addresses, that their real identity cannot be discovered.

          Come close. (Whispering) What they don’t realize is that each time they submit a comment, whether it’s approved, not approved, or goes into spam, they leave their IP address. IP addresses are internet fingerprints. IP addresses are assigned to internet service providers, (ISP). It’s with the IP address that the provider is identified and that is who gives LE the account holder’s information.

          (No longer whispering). But of course, Zidiots will not stop to ponder how LE will get IP addresses from blog administrators. Another big secret that Zidiots don’t know. (Whispering again.) Word Press blogs are owned by Word Press. We who “Administer” them do not own the blog, even if we own the domain name. Word Press cooperates with law enforcement. LE does not have to go through blog administrators for information. (No longer whispering)

          The laws are written so that the ISP account holder is held accountable, even if someone else used the computer.

          I hope that at some point, they realize they are insinuating themselves into a murder case and they are not doing themselves or GZ ANY favors.

          That would be grand, but if they don’t, think of it this way — they are adding more counts to the charge. Also, because they are doing it interstate, it falls under federal jurisdiction. Those guys love to ambush.

      • Tzar says:

        @xena

        Zidiots think that as long as they change handles and use fake email addresses, that their real identity cannot be discovered.

        Krugger-Dunning

      • towerflower says:

        I think some of them really believe they are not doing anything illegal, that they are supporting justice. I would love to see LE take some action against them for their actions.

    • Jun says:

      Its because they are right wing wackos

      • Two sides to a story says:

        While I think most Stumpers are engaging in harmless curiosity, there are a handful there that are liable to do something stupid. Keep your popcorn handy.

  20. PiranhaMom says:

    This is an Open Thread, so I bring up another issue on this case.

    My question is: What impact DURING THE TRIAL would Zimmerman’s written statement made to Sanford PD, AFTER killing Trayvon, and while UNDER OATH, that uses the terminology “suspect” for Trayvon – what impact would that statement have on the issue of Zimmerman’s INTENT and thus his guilt or innocence?

    Could Bernie de la Rionda use that to prove Zimmerman’s intent to capture Trayvon?

    We understand the intent to pursue (“these assholes, they always get away”) but doesn’t Zimmerman calling Trayvon the “suspect” show that he is lying (I know, I know, for the thousandth time) when he said, “I was just going in the same direction”?

    For all his flim-flam about “I was just getting an address for the dispatcher,” he declares, having accomplished the capture (and the execution of “the suspect”), that Trayvon was a criminal, engaged in criminal behavior, when Zimmerman caught, detained and then killed him.

    Would this be one of the factors that escalates manslaughter to “Murder 2”? Because it shows Zimmerman’s INTENT?

    He’s not a cop. He has no arrest powers. Based on Trayvon’s activity AS ZIMMERMAN HIMSELF reported to Sean/NEN-311, no police officer, in fact, could establish “probable cause” to detain Trayvon Martin.

    Does Zimmerman’s use of the word “suspect” show Zimmerman’s intent and premeditation?

    “Suspect” of what? How could de la Rionda use this?

    • Rachael says:

      I think it can be used – it shows that he did profile Trayvon as a criminal. Even IF Trayvon had been behaving in a suspicious manner, he was not suspected of a crime.

      Suspect means a person whom law enforcement officers believe most probably committed a crime being investigated.

      GZ is not a law enforcement officer and Trayvon was not being investigated for any crime.

      As well, by not being a law enforcement officer, GZ is not afforded the right to use reasonable suspicion to detain an individual.

      If he felt Trayvon looked suspicious, his only job, the one and only job he had to do was call the police. By determining he was a suspect, he had profiled him. By thinking he had the right to use reasonable suspicion to detain him, he was over his head.

      It screams of profiling and premeditation to me. GZ, after all his criminal justice classes, should have known better than anyone what a suspect is and between his classes and his involvement with the NW, should have known better than most about reasonable suspicion.

      Yeah, I think he can use it.

      • lurker says:

        I kinda-sorta think that somewhere in the curriculum they covered Stand Your Ground, too, dontcha think? He told Hannity he had never heard of it before.

      • towerflower says:

        lurker, I don’t believe fogen when he says that. I live in the State of Florida and I also have a concealed license. When you get it the state gives you several pamphlets about the various gun laws including the SYG law. I would also like to see them interview his professor at the college to see what was discussed.

    • Malisha says:

      I believe that use of “the suspect” for Martin in the written statement (over a dozen times) is a very important part of the prosecution’s case. It shows malice, ill will, wrongful intent. Fogen was exposing his own attitude toward Martin — that he was an alleged criminal. THAT is why he came up with the “You got a problem, homie?” lie. HE profiled Martin as a criminal. HE chose to chase him down and “make him talk.” When Martin did not meet Fogen’s twisted expectations and act like a properly chastened captured criminal, Fogen killed him. And he had no regrets. [THANKS Hannity!] From Sean at NEN to Sean Hannity and all the way in between, Fogen showed, told, and wrote his murderous intent.

      • lurker says:

        Interesting question might be to ask what he was suspected of. No evidence of any crime.

      • Trained Observer says:

        Lurker: Apparently Trayvon was suspected of living, breathing and walking around black — clearly unacceptable to Fogen.

        In the past, I (like others), have noted that Fogen spotted, stalked, confronted, and shot Trayvon dead.

        That’s KISSing it. But what Fogen did was far worse.

        I’d like to amend my opinion: Fogen spotted, stalked, tattled to cops by stupidly initiating a NEN cover his ass call, confronted, shot to the heart, and then squeezed the last breath out of his suspect just to be extra sure he’d never live to tell about it.

        Corey must have thought long and hard before settling for Murder2.

      • lurker says:

        @TO–no disagreement. I was thinking more in terms of how Z. might answer that question on the stand.

        Even if he falls back on his “well there have been a lot of break-ins lately,” the only thing he’s going to be able to come up with to tie THIS specific young man to any of those past events would be his age, race and gender (or the way he was dressed).

      • Trained Observer says:

        Exactly. Thin soup, for sure, underscoring why Fogen never would have cut it as a cop.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I would think the state is all over Fogen’s “suspect” written remarks like a fly on honey.

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @ Malisha –
        @ Rachael –

        Thanks to you both for expanding on my concern. Malisha, I was inspired by your recent “list” re GZ. I’m hoping that Zimmerman’s use of the word “suspect” (which Trayvon was not, and which Zimmerman had absolutely zero authority to describe Trayvon, or ANYone, as a “suspect”) will be brought clearly to the jury’s attention as evidence of his intent.

        His evil intent..

        • dianetrotter says:

          I love it!
          a) who made him a suspect?
          b) why was he a suspect?

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            What was he suspect of doing? GZ can’t mention a crime that he suspects TM is responsible for, yet one cannot be a suspect if there’s nothing to suspect them of.

            Of course, this is just another one of those questions that will keep GZ off the witness stand. Because he will be asked to explain to the jury what Trayvon was to be suspected of at that moment in time.

            GZ had better not say that he expected a crime to be committed soon in the future. Because that statement alone would make GZ a criminal at that point in time.

      • Malisha says:

        Lurker, the conversation between Sean and Fogen shows Fogen trying to come up with reasons Trayvon was “suspicious” which is the same as trying to come up with reasons he would be “the suspect.” All he can say is the kid is walking and “looking around” and not rushing. Then he tries to embellish with “comin’ over here to check me out” as if that is suspicious, and “looks like he’s up to no good” and graduates to “These a55holes, they always get away.” Then Singleton asks him essentially the same question and he comes up with the story about ANOTHER YOUNG BLACK MALE who was by Taaffe’s house a few weeks back, showing the reason for suspicion was resemblance to another young, black male. So basically “the suspect” was “suspicious” because he was a young, Black male. Exactly what Ibrahim Rashada said Fogen’s fliers warned people about: young Black males in the neighborhood.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          “He’s coming towards me… He’s coming to check me out”, is GZ’s attempt to make Trayvon appear brazen, unafraid and intimidating.
          It’s why he later adds that TM circled his truck, because it makes TM seem brazen and thuggish.

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @ Lonnie –

            The only information GZ supplies to Sean TWICE is:

            “He looks Black” and “And he’s a Black male!”

            It is the redundancy of the race identification which shows GZ profiled Trayvon racially. When GZ said “He looks Black” Trayvon had his hoodie up, against the elements, on a dark rainy night.

            Zimmerman could not possibly have seen Trayvon’s racial characteristics when Sean initially asked for racial identification.

            Within a few seconds, as Zimmerman advanced his vehicle on Trayvon and GZ could establish his race, GZ excitedly added “And he’s a Black male!”

            It is Travon’s “Blackness” that caused Zimmerman to judge Trayvon to be “the suspect.”

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @ Malisha –

          I did not know about warning fliers passed out that stated the race of individuals. Did anyone retain a copy? Were they issued by the HOA, by GZ on behalf of the HOA, or by GZ as an individual?

          Anyone know if there has been a demand by the prosecution for the HOA records/Meeting Agendas and Minutes, covering the period GZ was courting its approval to serve as NW? Note: Zimmerman as a renter could not be a member of the HOA: only the owners of units are members.

    • Dave says:

      If the prosecution were to use this statement as part of its case in chief, they would have to introduce the entire statement into evidence including the defendant’s claim of self defense. Thus, the killer could avoid testifying in his own defense.

      • Jun says:

        you are embellishing the rule a bit. they would simply ornate the sentences used. the defense can’t submit his own testimony, but they may finish the statements.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_admission

        So if the statement is

        “The suspect ran to the back.”

        That is all that will be submitted and onlu the state can submit his statements LMAO

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @Dave,

        Interesting observation, Dave. That’s why I wanted this explored. Malisha reports GZ used the phrase a dozen times. Perhaps (if he wanted to use it) Bernie could use one of the statements (of the dozen) that don’t get into GZ’s fabrication of his “self defense.”

        Thanks for helping out on this. Much appreciated.

      • Jun says:

        In all honesty, all of Fogen’s testimony statements do not need to be used at all, to prove he was the murderer

        The state will likely plan it out, to use Fogen’s statements against him, if he decides to take the stand

        But if not, they have a case without his statements because

        1) NEN call proves that the defendant provoked the entire incident

        2) The geographical distances and the statements the defendant gave, prove he went after the kid, because by his own admission, he provoked the situation by the clubhouse, and then the victim ran, and that is when the defendant ran from the clubhouse in the victim’s direction, hence he was chasing and stalking the victim

        3) Witness 18 saw it from when Fogen caught the victim and confronted the victim, attacked the victim, she heard the victim scream and plead for help and wished she could have helped the victim, and then she saw the defendant kill the victim and simply rise to his feet.

        4) There is no dna transfer or any other transfer at all on the victim’s hands, sleeves, cuffs, arms, therefore, the victim did not even attack at all, even in this situation where it would be self defense. This proved all the defendant did was target, terrorize, stalk, chase, and attack and kill. It is not self defense if you provoke the incident and just attack only. Besides, the victim was pleading for mercy and there was none given to the victim from the defendant/

        Go through all the evidence, and the only person claiming that the victim started the whole incident, is the defendant. Everything else points to the defendant creating the tragedy.

    • Jun says:

      I think his use of the word “suspect” goes with the intent and motive for the crime

      He is an unauthorized citizen trying to act with authority of a Law Enforcement Officer which is illegal

      It also goes with his intent because it is obvious that it was his motive to commit the crime

  21. bettykath says:

    I don’t think MOM will release the information. He’s sophisticated enough to know better. However, he may be responsible for it b/c it could come from his office by someone who feels justified in doing so, someone who really believes the defendant’s story and the treehouse bloggers. This person might also feel some justification b/c of treatment of the defendant and MOM by some on this blog who have been quite free with nasty comments about them at the same time being very protective of DD.

    Let’s hope they all understand that releasing DD’s information could result in charges against them with serious jail time a real possibility if that release results in intimidation or harassment. Even if they don’t do the harassing themselves,

    Would it be necessary to show actual communications between one who makes information available and those who do the actual intimidation for a charge of conspiracy to intimidate? Or to be charged with intimidation if someone else actually does the deed based on information provided by an otherwise non-participant?

    • Jun says:

      If you negligently cause a criminal action, you are considered a participant under law

      for example, if you drive someone to go shoot someone, although you are not the shooter, you are still an accomplice

      Them releasing private information in itself is against the law, and to claim ignorance is futile, considering it is already common knowledge within Omara’s office the threats

      I also feel you are overplaying the mistreatment of the defendant and MOM as you are comparing jokes and some nasty comments towards Fogen and MOM to actual physical threats that would happen to the witnesses in regards to this matter and their twisted justification does not make them any less criminally responsible

      If you feel we are overboard, then even Bill Maher and others who have made jokes should also be treated to their justifications

      • bettykath says:

        jun,
        “I also feel you are overplaying the mistreatment of the defendant and MOM as you are comparing jokes and some nasty comments towards Fogen and MOM to actual physical threats that would happen to the witnesses in regards to this matter and their twisted justification does not make them any less criminally responsible”

        Of course there is a difference. But I’m putting myself in the mindset of someone in MOM office. Let me help you try it.

        Pretend that you are devoting time and energy to help someone you hold in high regard as he fights for justice for his defendant. This is a real stretch, but you have to assume that you believe his defendant is innocent and his attorney is being unjustly foiled at every turn. There is a blog where everyone on there not only believes the defendant to be guilty, they call names and mock him and your esteemed leader, the attorney. Again, they are mocking and making up names for this person you admire. Wouldn’t there be a bit of your heart that wants to retaliate against someone? Especially that lying b**** that is being protected by the prosecutor, the judge, attorney Crump?

        An excellent way to be blind sided is to ignore the emotions of your opponent.

        • Xena says:

          @bettykath

          This is a real stretch, but you have to assume that you believe his defendant is innocent and his attorney is being unjustly foiled at every turn.

          First mistake, and a very big one. Let me show you. First you wrote:

          Pretend that you are devoting time and energy to help someone you hold in high regard as he fights for justice for his defendant.

          Justice is not always prevailing nor getting the court to grant everything requested. Justice is not believing that the client is innocent. For instance, justice for Jodi Arias’ attorneys is having her found guilty but not sentenced to death.

          Not even criminal defense attorneys always believe that their clients are innocent. Rule number one for attorney staff that actually works the case is to help ferret the facts and see how they apply to law. It’s not getting so emotionally involved in a belief of innocence that facts are denied or disregarded.

      • Soulcatcher says:

        Here’s a good example. My daughters ex sister-in-law is at her apartment, and her boyfriend and one of his friends come over. A guy shows up and sells the two guys some pot and leaves. The guys decide they have been ripped off and they want their money back. They call the guy to come back, and decide to go out to the parking lot to work on one of their cars. They tell her when he shows up to sent him out to the parking lot. He shows up and she tells him to go out to the parking lot which is on the side of the building. He goes and finds them, and they tell him they want their money back. He only has 2 dollars, they argue, and one of the guys end up shooting him and kills him. The police arrest and charge all 3 of them for murder. Although she had nothing to do with what occured in the parking lot, the fact that she sent the guy there makes her responsible as well.

      • Jun says:

        Betty

        I think you are going with a Sun Tzu quote in the fact of knowing your enemy to overcome them and I ascertain to that quote many times and believe in it

        I understand that they are biased beyond reproach and it is a twisted justification which I often hear and see in many cases of criminal activity

        It is how they justify it to themselves, even if it is wrong

        From a reasonable perspective, I look at the whole picture and logically, there truly is nothing that shows Crump to be a liar

        From what I understand, w8 told a white lie, because, the victim’s mother was there, and she did not attend the wake, and seeing her distressed state, she did not want to hurt her further

        It was not very smart but forgivable and understandable

        However, if we are going to use such circumstantial character assessment, which is weak on its face, and apply it toward her testimony, I feel it would and could be fair to do so, but then I look at the whole picture and the other evidence, and her testimony matches witnesses and forensics which leads me to weigh the fact that what she heard on the phone, is very credible, considering she was not even there or in person, just overhearing what her friend Trayvon told her

        And on the other hand, the defendant has lied repeatedly, and it would be unfair for me to show bias toward the witness 8 and not also legitimately look at the defendant with curious eyes

        It does not feel very justified to me, because, at the end of the day, the defendant did kill a teenage kid, and I feel it is understandable that the victim be heard and have their rights

        Perhaps you were speaking in relation to the Fogen Gang Member’s motive for doing such criminal acts?

      • Xena says:

        @bettykath. I would like to address the following;

        Again, they are mocking and making up names for this person you admire. Wouldn’t there be a bit of your heart that wants to retaliate against someone?

        No one on the pro-justice for Trayvon side needs to mock and make up names for GZ, his legal team, neither his family members in order for Zidiots to engage in harmful tactics against them. All they have to say is that Trayvon was an unarmed 17 year old who GZ killed.

        If anyone sees nickname and mocking as evil and retaliates by violating law(s), they are not considering the consequences of their actions; not law abiding citizens.

      • bettykath says:

        Some of you just don’t get it. You seem far more interested in telling me how wrong I am than to understand what I’m saying.

        Let me try again. There may very well be someone in MOM’s office who is zealous in her/his view of MOM and/or the defendant that she/he would see that the releasing of the information about DD would be justified. Is this legal? No. Is it “right”? Only if you have a zealous sense that the whole system is working against you (prosecution, judge, public opinion as shown by this blog). My comment about DD being a b**** was to show the viewpoint of such a zealot.

        Just so there is no mistake: My personal view is that releasing DD’s personal information would NOT be a good thing for anyone to do and if anyone were to do it, they should have serious time in jail to think about it. My personal view of DD is that she will have to be courageous to get through this and that she will.

    • Xena says:

      @bettykath

      Let’s hope they all understand that releasing DD’s information could result in charges against them with serious jail time a real possibility if that release results in intimidation or harassment. Even if they don’t do the harassing themselves,

      It would not have to result in intimidation or harassment. The purpose for doxing is to cause emotional distress among other forms of harm. It’s the purpose for doing it that makes it a violation of law. Now, why would anyone other than the prosecution and defense attorneys want DeeDee’s personal information? Would they want it if she was not a witness for the prosecution?

      • bettykath says:

        Glad you agree. Doxing is harassment. I was looking to see if there were degrees of charges. I could see releasing the information as contempt of court, at least. Harassment could be misdemeanor or felony. Intimidation, iirc, in this instance would be a felony.

        • Xena says:

          @bettykath

          I was looking to see if there were degrees of charges.

          Depends on the state. In my state, penalties increase depending on the number of violations in the last 10 years; if the person has previously violated harassment laws in other states and if at the time of the offense, if the offender is under conditions of bail, probation, conditional discharge, or mandatory supervised release etc.

          I could see releasing the information as contempt of court, at least.

          Contempt of court is generally disobeying an order of the court. Criminal and/or civil contempt are separate offenses from harassment.

          But here, the issue involves witnesses so laws pertaining to witness intimidation apply.

      • Rachael says:

        This, IMO anyway, goes beyond harassment. They are interfering with a murder case.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        @bettykath —

        harassment of a witness could very well wind up as witness tampering, a serious charge.

        (xena, apologies for clicking your reply button to respond to another, am reading from blog and it was my only option.)

      • Dennis says:

        I’ve heard of people getting up to 15 years in prison for obstruction of justice in a murder investigation. Witness tampering to my knowledge is classified as obstruction of justice. Anybody that threatens DeeDee might be going to prison for a very long time.

    • ladystclaire says:

      For all we know, maybe Rene Stutzman has been passing on information from O’mara to the dog house. I wouldn’t put nothing past that bag lady because, she acts as if she has a damn dog in this fight. it’s just awful to see what these IMBECILES have turned this case into. I pray to GOD that, Fogen is convicted and then maybe these MORONS will go back to their respective caves.

      Hell, the cavemen/women had more common sense and dignity than these people could ever hope to have.

    • Malisha says:

      BettyKath, the justification somebody MIGHT FEEL because of anything said about anyone, here or elsewhere, is not justification for anything. I might “feel” justified in going on a total rampage right about now because of things people have said about Trayvon Martin. So what?

  22. dianetrotter says:

    It would be great if BDLR could connect alleged GZ threats to trolls. They talked about the New Black Panthers and I haven’t heard of them since. Seems like all threats could be traced back to ip address and person responsible. I read that threats went to MOM’s office for GZ. That’s pretty dumb.

    • lurker says:

      I can’t tell–were you suggesting that some of the troll chatter made the New Black Panthers go away, or something? The reality is that the NBBP is a really fringy group composed of roughly three folks. So far as I can tell, they leaped on the publicity with their flyers (which they quickly withdrew–probably because they realized what deep trouble they were in). One was arrested shortly thereafter on a parole violation for carrying a weapon. I recall that they had to put of $10 grand to spring him–which must have pretty much wiped out their reward fund.

      There was a similarly fringly white supremacist group that did a similar headline-grabbing stunt around the same time, announcing that they were going to be around to protect Sanford during one of the demonstrations. They never showed.

      • towerflower says:

        The NBP recently was in Brunswick, according to the local news there, condemning the rush to justice against the two teens accused of shooting the baby. They were asked by local clergy to go home.

  23. kllypyn says:

    While the Zimmerman family continue the prove they are the scumbags we’ve always thought they were with their continued attacks on Trayvon and his family. Contrast that with the martin/fulton family despite the crap they’ve had to deal with since Trayvon’s death.They have conducted themselves with continued dignity and grace. they have never bad mouthed or demonized the man who brutally murdered Trayvon. they have never attacked his family. The closest they have ever come to bad mouthing the man who killed Trayvon was after that ridiculous hannity interview.they have never said a thing about his brother or his parents.i really admire them. they have proven how good and decent they are. I wish people would leave them alone they’ve been through enough. Kelly D Payne

  24. Xena says:

    @ Professor

    O’Mara appears to have positioned himself well enough to plausibly deny responsibility for leaking personal information about Dee Dee.

    Do you all believe he will make that move?

    It doesn’t have to be O’Mara. It can be someone in his office, an intern, a stenographer, a clerk of the court, the cleaning crew — and this is how and why.

    Zidiots get personal information, or they allege that what they have is personal information. In the breitbart spirit, they incorporate malicious lies, misrepresent facts, and in a mocking fashion, communicate that to the individual with threats that they are ready to send the info all over the known world — unless.

    I can only imagine that once O’Mara releases the names of expert witnesses for the defense, they too will be doxed and threatened by Zidiots. To encourage their cooperation, Zidiots will send them examples of their handiwork and sadly professor, the filth and defamation they have posted about you and your wife on the internet might be that example.

    • Tzar says:

      It does not sound like the idiots are interested in justice

      • Xena says:

        @Tzar

        It does not sound like the idiots are interested in justice

        Sure they are — sovereign citizen justice — common law justice before the Civil War.

        GZ killed an unarmed Black teen. Zidiots do not believe that GZ should be arrested, charged with murder.

        That means sovereign citizens can retaliate — kick the teen’s parents; burn down the barns of lawyers helping the parents — threaten to destroy and use terrorism tactics on anyone who doesn’t agree with GZ.

        They forgot something very, very important however. Pre civil war, folks like the Zidiots had power and authority. They could blacklist individuals making sure they never worked again. They could steal their property with fraudulent deeds. They could pass gossip around the town to defame.

        Today, Zidiots have no power, no authority — nothing but mouth with bad breath so that even the NRA doesn’t want to associate with them.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Only the kind of justice that lets Fogen walk.

      • ladystclaire says:

        @Xena my friend, I’m curious in that you mentioned these two words to describe what the IMBECILES at the CDH aka CTH. you used the words terrorism tactics, can these people be charged as domestic terrorist by the DOJ? this is a sad case from the beginning, with this obese POS murdering a child. it’s even more sad to see how Trayvon, his family and AA in general have been slandered, defamed and mistreated by a group of white racist bigots, who think this Hispanic person should get away with murder.

        If that’s the case, then James Holmes should be allowed to get away with his crime of murder as well. by all means please don’t forget about Charles Manson while were at it. set the man free and the state of California should be made to pay him for every year he’s been locked up. I know you see where I’m going with this because, I’m just saying that if you give one murderer a pass for just killing an AA kid, the same should apply to those who killed white victims. maybe the state of Florida was wrong for executing Ted Bundy as well.

        This country I hate to say is full of rabid racist who IMO have no business out walking among those of us in society.

        • Xena says:

          @ladystclaire

          @Xena my friend, I’m curious in that you mentioned these two words to describe what the IMBECILES at the CDH aka CTH. you used the words terrorism tactics, can these people be charged as domestic terrorist by the DOJ?

          IDK if the DOJ can charge them with domestic terrorism, but public harassment is a form of terrorism because it is also intended to instill fear in others that they too will be subjected to harassment if the bullies are displeased with them.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Yes, I think if anything happens with W8 or anyone else on the witness list, the dirty deeds will be similar to what we’ve seen in the past, and OM won’t be held directly responsible for the acts.

      I’m glad that BDLR publicly called him on his connection to his “minions” in a court document, at the very least.

      • lurker says:

        I do think that placing O’Mara’s actions before the court may well have a chilling effect on what he attempts to pull off. In my dream, Judge Nelson will respond with a warning along the lines of “these are some serious charges, here, if anything like this is contemplated, I would watch me step.”

        The cybersphere may have added a wrinkle or two, but witness intimidation is still witness intimidation.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Lurker, she’ll have to be extremely careful how she says it due to the defense’s propensity to file motions to recuse.

      • Malisha says:

        Judge Nelson’s order, in order to not be recused, should read:

        1. The Defendant’s counsel are fine, upstanding, unimpeachable, upright, decent Americans as is their illustrious and admirable client.

        2. No lawyer who has appeared in this case has ever done anything that could ever be rightfully criticized.

        3. This Court has no reason to suspect that anything was ever said or done that should not have been said or done according to the rules of civil or criminal procedure, the Canons of Ethics of the Bar, the law of the Great State of Florida, or God’s Plan.

        4. Denied.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Aryan Brotherhood votes in secret to release Zimmerman from his vows. — Houston Tx

          In a cell high a top the Texas State Penitentiary, the Aryan Brotherhood, in an unprecedented move, voted to release G. Zimmerman from his vows and expel him from the organization.
          A source who wishes to remain anonymous says: “In his first 7 weeks he’s cost the organization 300 thousand dollars, a city manager, a County Prosecutor, a Chief of Police, an air marshal, a valuable Rent-a-Friend and a useless drunkard, we can’t afford to continue to lose assets like this so the leadership decided to cut their losses.

    • Xena, I am very certain that someone in O’Mara’s camp communicates with GZ sympathizers regularly. I don’t know if you ever followed the FB page by GZLC. There was a moderator on that site whose responses resemble some of the swift responses seen on the new informal FB site. I really think he/she is possibly an intern and has continued contact with this group, with or without O’Mara’s blessing.

      • Xena says:

        @diary

        I don’t know if you ever followed the FB page by GZLC.

        No. I don’t have Facebook so only visit a page when it’s been referred to me for reading because I cannot comment or “like” without a FB account. I wasn’t aware he has a new FB site.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        If you watch comments on Diwataman’s blog or CTH, you’ll notice that some e-mail GZLC regularly with their ideas. Whether these messages are answered is unknown, of course, although we did have evidence of OM asking supporters to root out info on the internet for him, a mistake that probably won’t be made again.

        • Xena says:

          @Two sides

          If you watch comments on Diwataman’s blog or CTH, you’ll notice that some e-mail GZLC regularly with their ideas. Whether these messages are answered is unknown,…

          Whether they are sent is unknown too, but I suspect O’Mara had more reason that just representing GZ to want to know what the FBI has in their files.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Oh, we know names of who communicates with GZLC . . . wasn’t it you, Xena who named some the other day? Perhaps I’m mixing you up with someone else. Might have been Fauxie. I’ve also been aware of some of the same names.

        OM shut the GZLC FB page down last summer. Too much flaming back and forth between the two sides and also outright embarassment caused by his racist followers.

        • Xena says:

          @Two sides

          Oh, we know names of who communicates with GZLC . . . wasn’t it you, Xena who named some the other day? Perhaps I’m mixing you up with someone else.

          Wasn’t me. I won’t publicly confirm nor deny certain information. However, if it’s posted publicly in a comment, I might refer to it but won’t post the link because we don’t need to give free advertisement to Zidiot sites.

      • @ Two sides (and others too)….Have you checked out Diwata Man’s Twitter account? His name is Joe Michaels. His avitar/gravitar (I still don’t know the difference..lol) is a photo of fogen’s face….with his eyes colored in a bright blue…and a swastika tatoo above his left eye. If his comments aren’t convincing enough that he’s a racist, that picture screams it clearly enough.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Yes. The picture is worth a thousand words. That Jeralyn Merritt extols his virtues and links to his work is curious.

      • Xena, he does not have a “new” FB site. The actual posters from his FB site actually settled into a new “home.” There is communication between someone using an O’Mara email address and the administrators of this page.

      • And I have actually witnessed posters leave to email “O’Mara,” only to return within the same screen shot with a copy of an emailed response (actual email address redacted). This occurs regularly on the FB page.

        Believe me, these posters are much more intimate with the GZ team because they make up many of the actual posters from the GZLC FB page. Many of them claim not to like CTH, but the posters are the same from the original GZ page.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      It could be GZ himself.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Unitron, are you Fogen himself? Or someone in the inner circle?

      • Malisha says:

        Two Sides, I thought we were talking about “Diwataman,” who is probably a person whose job is to deliver water for one of those bottled water companies. Probably NOT an Aquarius.

        • Xena says:

          @Malisha. When I first read that handle, I immediately thought about “Jiwanaman” the movie where a basketball player imitates being female in order to play on a female basketball team.

  25. JustMe says:

    Professor, I know the answer to this question, but I need confirmation. MOM has Attorney Crump on his witness list, but since he was only the “courts witness” and the reconsideration was denied, MOM will not be able to call Crump to the stand, correct?

    As far a DD, I don’t feel MOM has positioned himself far enough away from “the outing” of DD if that should happen. If this does happen, to me, it will be quite evident that MOM would be directly connected and responsible for that criminal behavior. As we know, BDLR stated in his answer to the court that he is well aware of the connection MOM has with these trolls. Therefore, BDLR can and will, connect the dots to MOM and these trolls, IMO, of course.

    • MOM can place any name on the witness list, even if he does not intend to call that person to the stand.

      If he were to call Crump to the stand, Judge Nelson would excuse the jury and hold a hearing regarding whether there is any relevant subject matter that is not protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges.

      Since there isn’t, she would excuse Crump and tell MOM to call his next witness.

      • JustMe says:

        So basically, MOM can call Crump to the stand and we’ll have another hearing within the trial on the same redundant garbage from MOM/West again. smdh

      • Cercando Luce says:

        Every extra 5 minutes that this trial takes is 5 minutes outside the pokey for U-know-who.

  26. onlyiamunitron says:

    “O’Mara appears to have positioned himself well enough to plausibly deny responsibility for leaking personal information about Dee Dee.”

    If the mantle of unimpeachablility and trustworthiness that seems to be extended to parties and non-parties by virtue of their being officers of the court does not extend to West and O’Mara, thereby making them unable to be trusted to maintain confidentiality with regards to certain evidence, should not the court or the prosecution or both come right out and say so in order to afford the defendant an opportunity to discharge them and retain counsel which is not hamstrung in that manner?

    unitron

    • parrot says:

      Nah….

      • cielo62 says:

        >^..^< I don't think MOM would be believed for anything as minor as leaving the toilet seat up. If anything shows up about Dee Dee, MOM will be the first culprit suspected. He does not have plausible deniability. He is not plausible at all.

      • lurker says:

        I do believe that one benefit of BDLR’s masterful response was that it covered the waterfront and named each and every one of the elephants in the herd in the living room. He called O’Mara on his courting of the press and the cybersphere and pointed out the damage already done to two uninvolved young ladies (and in going back over some things, O’Mara at one point actually tried to use that to leverage the prosecution to reveal Witness #8’s identity so that the RIGHT person could be intimidated–or words that amounted to the same thing). He also referred to O’Mara’s calls to the online world to do his sleuthing for him.

        What he did was put everything squarely on the record and in front of a judge who says that she doesn’t follow cases in the press–and also very likely ignores the online chatter.

        I believe that O’Mara has been trying to build plausible deniability right along in playing the innocent just trying to keep up in this brave new world of online information. He wasn’t leading when he put out his own website–just following and responding. He has also pointed to the “unusual” circumstances behind this case (spurring a national conversation on race that he supports–but has nothing to do with his client). The only unusual elements in this case were that SPD tried to sweep a murder under the rug, and they misjudged the victim and his family. Trayvon was no disconnected kid from a beat-down family. His folks are educated and professional people capable of not only recognizing injustice, but also in doing what needed to be done to ensure that their son is an equal recipient of the justice guaranteed to all citizens in this country.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          lurker says

          O’Mara at one point actually tried to use that to leverage the prosecution to reveal Witness #8′s identity so that the RIGHT person could be intimidated–or words that amounted to the same thing).

          that was a particularly loathsome move and transparent as glass. :/

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @Lurker,

          Well, to give O’Mara and West credit, along with Zim Jr., they really have engaged in the national debate on racism.

          They’re for it.

      • Tzar says:

        lol was thinking the same thing

    • Valerie says:

      Witness 8 is a court protected witness,changing counsel will not change her status. Because of doxing and threatening behaviors all over the internet and especially those closely associated with the defense best known as “internet trolls”, Judge Nelson has told the defense over and over and over again…the information they seek can only be obtained through her deposition.

    • SearchingMind says:

      @ Unitron

      Yes, in theory and practice “Officers of the Court” trust and respect one another. But that is NOT the same as taking chances with one another. “Officers of the Court” take the necessary precautions the law allows them to take to protect the lives/safety of witnesses and the integrity of the judicial process. They dot the i’s and cross the t’s to avoid accidents from happening. DeeDee’s personal safety can become endangered by accident. As BDLR said: “things can happen”. It’s is thus not about mistrust. It also about protecting O’Mara from causing a possible accident that might result in putting someone’s life in danger. Prosecutors are simply being diligent, doing your work very well and not confusing “trust” with “taking chances”.

      Sidebar, Uni., what say you to O’Mara detailing in his Motion how Mr. Guy and BDLR have supposedly lied and mislead the Court? What say you to O’Mara describing the attorneys for the parents of the dead kid as “handlers” and essentially accusing them of perjury and corruption? Where are the trust and respect therin? Doth O’Mara not have professional responsibilities?

    • SearchingMind says:

      @ Unitron

      Also Uni, the suggestion that “certain evidence” has been withheld from O’Mara and West is utterly wrong. DeeDee’s address – as you very well know – is evidence of NOTHING in this case. Besides no “mantle of unimpeachablility and trustworthiness” has been extended to “to parties and non-parties” but withheld from O’Mara and West (as you claim). Are you willing to provide proof in support of your claim?

      • Trained Observer says:

        Now that DeeDee is apparently older than 18 and no longer in high school, she may not be living with her parents, and may not have a permanent address — all the more so given her current situation. She could be moving about with some frequency among friends and other family members with temp jobs, etc. That’s what I’d be doing if I were she and caught up in this ongoing tragedy.

      • lurker says:

        @TO–or she may be in college.

      • Trained Observer says:

        True, Lurker. Yet the prospect of carrying an academic load while under this kind of duress seems daunting. No matter her plans after trial, this run-up period doesn’t seem like a good time to be in school — unless it’s online study where she can protect herself by keeping out of the spotlight.

    • Malisha says:

      I don’t think the client has any extremely high ethical requirements for his counsel. I mean…just sayin’…

    • Extremely unlikely that the Court, much less the prosecutor, would interfere in the manner you suggest with the existing attorney-client relationship.

      I think it’s pretty clear at this point that BDLR and Judge Nelson do not trust MOM and West.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: