Nit-Picking Nit-Writ
Thursday, August 16, 2012 at 10:54AM This article will focus on the writ of prohibition filed by George Zimmerman’s defense attorneys, but before I do that, I’ve got to get something off my chest. It’s something I haven’t read much about elsewhere and it’s been bugging me in subtle ways for several months. As far as I’m concerned, it gets to the heart of the matter and why any motion to dismiss (in lieu of SYG) may be problematic for the defense.
I think most people will agree that Zimmerman has given several conflicting accounts of what transpired on February 26, the night Trayvon Martin died by a perfectly placed gunshot wound to the chest.
While his imagination has run wild, there’s one part of his stories that has remained consistent. He prefaces each and every 911/non-emergency call with, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood…” or words to that effect. Why does he start each one with that statement? Is it an excuse for what may transpire before the police arrive? Cover your butt? Let me tell you why I did it, in other words, by setting up his version du jour. In my opinion, it lays down a foundation as either of two things. Or both.
- He criminally profiled Trayvon, which is what the State claims, and he knows it.
- There was premeditation. By premeditation, I mean, as soon as he spotted the boy, his mind clicked into some sort of mutated high-gear attack mode and that’s when he began to stalk his prey with a vengeance. They always get away. NOT THIS TIME. In my book, it’s malice prepense, or malice aforethought — premeditation, pure and simple.
Whether he intended to shoot Trayvon or not, he began a deadly game of cat and mouse. A killer cat pseudo-cop. Have gun, will shoot. And he did just that.
§
If you’ve ever seen video footage of babies falling out of chairs, they always look around. If someone is there, they immediately begin to wail and wait for mommy or someone else to run over and comfort them. If no one is there, they shrug it off and continue going about their business, climbing back up for more fun. Of course, I mean this only when there is no real harm done. It’s human nature and we learn at a very early age how to gain sympathy. In George Zimmerman’s case, he’s lived this way all his life. Someone has always been around to comfort him, and he’s forever gotten away with everything. He reminds me so much of Casey Anthony in the sense that her mother, Cindy, let her get away with murder. Don’t ask me if I mean that figuratively or literally.
Zimmerman handily dismissed the first judge, Jessica Recksiedler, and he’s working on another. To be fair, I believe the motion to remove Recksiedler was Mark O’Mara’s idea, and he seemed to be careful when he constructed the recusal motion, just in case he needed to do it again.
Uh oh, he did it again.
This time, it was due to the “scorching” language the new judge, Kenneth R. Lester, Jr., wrote in an order denying bond after he discovered Zimmerman and his wife lied in court about a large sum of money they had in an account she only acknowledged existed. She denied knowing how much was in it when, in fact, she knew it was more than $130,000. There was also the issue of a tucked away passport they both failed to mention but openly discussed in coded jail house phone calls to each other prior to the initial bond hearing.
Oh my, judges do not like to be lied to, no matter how many inane explanations a defense attorney can conjure up.
Granted, the judge’s wording was quite tough, but did it reach the plateau that separates a legal reprimand from a personal one? It depends on which side of the fence you live on. Actually, it depends on what benches the three appellate judges sit on. That would be judges C. Alan Lawson, Jay P. Cohen and Kerry I. Evander.
After Lester revoked Zimmerman’s bond, the defense filed a new motion to set bond. Of course, the State objected, but in the end, it was granted to the tune of $1,000,000. In his ORDER SETTING BAIL, the judge noted that:
… the Defendant did not offer any explanation of or justification for his deception that was subject to cross examination… As noted, the Defendant spent a substantial portion of the hearing presenting evidence relating to self-defense in an effort to counter the State’s case because, in the initial order, the Court characterized the State’s case as “strong.” Notably, at the initial bond hearing, this Court had only limited evidence; to that point, the State showed the Defendant had shot and killed Trayvon Martin. There was other evidence presented through the probable cause affidavit and the testimony of Dale Gilbreath, an investigator with the State Attorney’s Office, that the Defendant’s actions were imminently dangerous to another and that he acted with a depraved mind regardless of human life. The Defendant certainly indicated through cross-examination that he acted in self-defense, but he put forward no evidence of such. As a consequence, this Court found as a preliminary matter that the evidence against the Defendant was “strong.”
The order further stated that:
Since the June 29, 2012 hearing addressed whether to reinstate bond was not an Arthur hearing, the presentation of evidence attacking the State’s case is of limited relevance at this stage of the proceedings… The actual questions before this Court at this time are: is the Defendant entitled to bail when he presents false testimony at a prior bond hearing and what recourse there is when the Defendant has shown blatant disregard for the judicial sysyem.
In other words, the judge maintained throughout that the reason he stated the evidence against the defendant was strong was because the defense offered up nothing substantial to prove otherwise up to that point, and since the defendant lied to the court, was granting bail the proper decision? The argument that Zimmerman claims in his PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on:
There was little evidence regarding the strength of the State’s case at the initial bond hearing other than the bare-bones probable cause affidavit… and the testimony of State Attorney Investigator Dale Gilbreath, a witness called by the defense… Gilbreath acknowledged that the State had no evidence to contradict the conclusion that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and threw the first punch and no evidence to contest that Mr. Zimmerman was headed back to his car when Mr. Martin attacked him.
Herein lays the problem, whether you see it or not. While the writ of prohibition does make mention of the judge’s strong language, the rest of it is filled with smoke and mirrors. Why, you may ask? Because it doesn’t stick to the matter at hand, as I clearly pointed out above. The writ reads more like a motion for dismissal.
Granted, the judge did make strong statements, but the defense virtually ignored the reasons why. The fact remains, George lied, whether by remaining silent as his wife directly lied to the court, or by proxy. By that, I mean he authorized his wife to lie. Sadly, the writ includes the issue over his wife being charged with perjury. Zimmerman and O’Mara blame it on the judge, who mentioned it in his bond revocation order. Well, she did lie! She did break the law! Is that the judges’s fault? No, but Team Zimmerman thinks so.
Getting back to the June 29 bond hearing, O’Mara deviates from the truth in his writ:
On June 29, 2012 a hearing was held on Mr. Zimmerman’s Motion to Set Reasonable Bond. At this hearing, Mr, Zimmerman presented evidence… in support of his claim of self-defense. This tidal wave of evidence…
A tidal wave of evidence? In his later Order Setting Bail, Judge Lester noted that:
Argument by counsel is not evidence. See e.g. Wheeler v. State, 311 So. 2d 713 (Fla 4th DCA 1975) (noting that counsel’s opening statement is not evidence).
In plain English, it means that this tidal wave of evidence was nothing more than dirty bath water going down the drain. To clarify, the evidence was presented by O’Mara that day, not by the defendant. Sadly, the defense was aware of that, too, before it wrote the writ.
ON COURT ETIQUETTE AND ETYMOLOGY
The writ of prohibition states that:
The court chose language in its July 5, 2012 Order to describe the Defendant in ways that reflect the court’s opinion of Mr. Zimmerman’s character as much as his conduct. In its Order, the trial court said, “[u]nder any definition, the Defendant has flouted the system.”
Ouch! Poor Zimmerman threw a pity party over it because:
“Flouted” is defined at Merriam-Webster.com as “to treat with contemptuous disregard; to indulge in scornful behavior.”
In Zimmerman’s case, the court was correct in that assessment. He did flout the system. It continues…
The court went on to say that, “[t]he Defendant has tried to manipulate the system when he has been presented the opportunity to do so”… and again that “… it appears to this Court that the Defendant is manipulating the system to his own benefit”… The court also accused Mr. Zimmerman of showing “blatant disregard for the judicial system.”
The strange thing about the above statement is that every quote by the court is true. Interestingly, one of the defense team’s only ways to counter the court’s language is to camouflage it with claims of what transpired the night of February 26, which really has no bearing on the writ. Meanwhile, the defense laments that:
The court completely ignored Mr. Zimmerman’s voluntary disclosure of the alleged wrongdoing and failed to acknowledge Mr. Zimmerman’s surrender of those donated funds to his lawyer…
The problem is that Zimmerman was caught with his grubby hands in the cookie jar and something tells me he’s always been a sneaky little bastard, pardon my language, who immediately apologizes when he gets caught. See? All better. This is the type of creep who will admit to nothing if he gets away with it, and the more and more we get to know him, the more we recognize it as one of his strongest traits.
I can go on and on citing the examples the defense used in attacking the judge. I can write about harsh language the judge used in his bail order, but consider what he also wrote:
The State notes that his stories changed [with] each retelling, but on the surface he should be deemed to have been cooperative. However, he clearly understood that he was being investigated for committing a homicide and, while he believes that he was justified in his actions, there has been nothing presented which indicates that he was misled into believing that he would not be charged with a crime. Contrary to being betrayed, the Defendant received normal, reasonable treatment and was granted reasonable bail.
That sounds fair to me, but Zimmerman disagrees:
Of particular relevance in the instant case is the legitimacy of Mr. Zimmerman’s belief that the trial court has prejudged his guilt regarding the alleged (by the trial Judge) violation of Florida Statute Section 903.035(3), and how it may carry over to guilt in the underlying second degree murder case.
The way I look at this is no different from any other scolding. Just like parents disciplining their child, they get over it and move on. My God, if parents held grudges, how could they ever treat their children fairly? Even O’Mara admitted when questioned during his writ of prohibition news conference that Judge Lester is a professional and fair. Basically, he contradicted his writ.
I am convinced that this judge can proceed from here and fairly preside over the entire George Zimmerman case. In his ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, Lester made it clear that the DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE was legally insufficient. He further stated that:
The Defendant moved to recuse Judge Recksiedler on the basis of Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)(2), which mandates recusal when a judge is related to an interested party… [The] Defendant also argued language associated with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2330(d)(1). However, in an abundance of caution and based on the “totality of the circumstances,” she recused herself. This would indicate that her recusal was, in fact, based upon Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)(1), making this a successive motion under subsection (g) of that rule. Should that be determined, this court is prepared to rule on the facts alleged in support of the motion.
What that means is simple. The lower court is ready to show the higher court what this writ may be all about. Uh huh. Judge shopping.
Dave Knechel | in Angela Corey, Bernie De la Rionda, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Donald West, George Zimmerman, Judge Jessica Recksiedler, Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr., Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Mark O'Mara, Seminole County, Seminole County Courthouse, Shellie Zimmerman, Slimm v. Zimm, Trayvon Martin, Writ of Prohibition, Zimm v. Slimm, marinadedave | Share Article | 1 Reference 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (82)
G Z wants Lester recused M O M has no option if he cant persude gz other wise than to follow his instructions.Same thing regards the S Y G / SELF DEFENCE hearing.M O M cherry picks his alleged udisputed evidence that he states clears his client.The undisputted broken nose.Gz shouting for help 40 seconds .Trayvon beating down on top of gz could not retreat....None of this is undisputed ...The only eye wittness whom had eyes on dureing the fatal shot retired school teacher said the larger man on top got up from the now deceased person on the bottomShe heard the shot.Thats when gz flipped Trayvons body over on to the stomach. The person yelling for help is also dissputed.Infact sevral experts have come out an catagorically said its not gz voice yelling for help...m o m makes out as if a punch in the nose is enough to shoot someone point blank in the heart an end there life........gz an m o m deserve each other....Thanks for the article Dave..
Thank you for your comment, too, ecossie. I definitely want to write an article about why there's the sudden switch from SYG to a motion to dismiss. What's that old saying? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. I hope the truth prevails, and it's not Zimmerman's version of it.
FTA: ■There was premeditation. By premeditation, I mean, as soon as he spotted the boy, his mind clicked into some sort of mutated high-gear attack mode and that’s when he began to stalk his prey with a vengeance. They always get away. NOT THIS TIME. In my book, it’s malice prepense, or malice aforethought — premeditation, pure and simple.
~Exactly! This and the fact that GZ very well had opportunity to introduce himself to Trayvon (I know he said he was "afraid" to confront Trayvon) tells me that self defense wasn't what really went down that murderous night.
I do believe GZ was using the break-ins prologue to set up his defense with the investigators...and he almost got away with it.
He sure did have ample opportunities to introduce himself, Sherry, and to say anything about being afraid when he was packing a loaded gun is pure poppycock. Depending on which version he gives, like the one to Hannity, he wasn't in fear at all.
Yes! Absolutely, he was laying a foundation; a prologue, and you're right. He did almost get away with it.
You know I'm sick and tired of all the special treatment this poor excuse of a human has received and continues to receive. At every turn in his life, he's had someone there to wipe his ass for him and this is exactly the reason we are now talking about the death of an innocent kid at his hands. I'm just sick of him and I'm sick of his sleazy ass attorney who, to me, is actually worse than Jose Baez is. He better consider himself lucky that he's not charged with 1st degree premeditated murder because the intent was there the moment he stepped foot from the safety of his vehicle with his little six-shooter on his side. It makes me physically ill to think of him stalking Trayvon around that neighborhood that night. It's disgusting.
[Yes, A, I agree that Z is a poor excuse of a human being because he killed a person and is convinced he can get away with it. He has zero remorse! Pampered little guy that he is.
I must say, though, that I know Mark O'Mara personally from the Casey Anthony trial and he was a consummate gentleman. He went out of his way to say hello to me and I was duly impressed. Today, on the other hand, I don't think so because he is aware of what I write.
Sadly, at times, attorneys are blamed because of the clients they take on, but in the end, it's a challenge to make sure a person gets proper representation. I know exactly how you feel, but also consider this... Jose Baez may have been hated by many, but he didn't care. All he cared about was his client and his career, and in the end, he came out a winner, no matter what we think of him. At least O'Mara is eloquent and doesn't come across as sleazy. To him, it's a job. Yes, he is aware that a lot of people hate him, but down the road, will people hold a grudge? Look at how the focus has shifted off Casey. After this case is finished, someone else will come along, and O'Mara will go about his business, only richer and more famous. Z, on the other hand, he will never win, whether he's convicted or not. He will never amount to anything.
Thank you, A.]
In the pre ceading year there had been a grand totall of 6 crimes in the retreat veiw complex the seventh was the un neccesery murder of Trayvon..Six burgarlrys or attempts in 12 mnths.An yet gz an frank taffe was bomb arding the neighbours with prpo ganda that they were in the middle of an uprecidented crime wave..The house gz first points to haveing noticed Trayvon loitering / looking about was Frank Taffes house.And also a cut through unoficiall path the neighbourhood kids used as a short cut..GZ never mentions this to LE hey this is my buddies house an fellow member of the heighborhood watch..So concerned about crime he leaves his windows an doors unlocked all the time.Even had an alleged atttempt at robbing his home before allegedlly foiled by gz....gz says this gentleman /frank taffe leaves his windows an doors open all the time / HONEY TRAP?....An your correct Dave when ever gz was asked why he thought Trayvon looked suss he harks back to some event in histoty where a black youth had allegedly comitted some crime...Profileing...
[There's a lot that Z neglected to tell the police, but fortunately, it's all coming out. Unfortunately, Z still thinks he should get a medal. Fortunately, he never will. Metal, maybe, as in behind metal bars. O'Mara said in his press conference that Z isn't taking this well at all. Well, neither are Trayvon's parents or the rest of his family. Oh, it was profiling, alright.]
Dave~~I think we have already handed down our bloggy verdict that Zimmerman is guilty. I gave my version of what I concluded on your last post. I voted 'guilty' too.
I want to concentrate on the other things you wrote in your post. I think it is very unfair to accuse O'Mara of judge shopping. Period! Notice I used the word 'Period!' As you read this, what just came to mind? Be honest now... how about, "oh, oh, I think Snoopy has her dander up." Okay, words sure come in handy to put a slant on what you want to get across. One or two little words can made quite a difference... Look at the following, if I may be so bold ...
Zimmerman handily dismissed the first judge, Jessica Recksiedler, and he’s working on another.
I think it would probably have been to Z's benefit for Judge Recksiedler to have remained on the bench. Just think, O'Mara could compare notes with NeJame's law office from time to time....Ahum?
It was only common sense not to let Recksiedler stay on the bench... think...."conflict of interest." She should have removed herself. O'Mara just happened to be the scapegoat and being ethical filed the motion to have her recused.
Period!
Great post by the way... I am just sinking my teeth into it and will be sure to return after I make a Red Rose... back in a bit, don't go away, okay?
[I don't think it's unfair to accuse O'Mara of judge shopping, but I'll bet you bottom dollar that his client was the one screaming about replacing Judge Lester. Either way, it's what the judge alluded to, so it came right from the horse's mouth. As for slanting words, harrumph, I've been reading a whole crapload of slanted words lately.
Did you notice in your example that I wrote "Zimmerman handily dismissed..." and not O'Mara? And it's true, he wants this judge out and his writ proves it. He's "working" on another. Z is spoiled. He's used to getting his way. Period.
I do agree that Z should have let Recksiedler stay on the bench, at least for the time being, until he felt the need to take her out. They never gave her a chance. As for O'Mara comparing notes with NeJame's office? No way. Unethical, and neither office would risk their law licenses to do something low like that.
Also, I would never accuse O'Mara of being unethical. I know there's been talk over how much he really knew about Z's tucked away money, but I believe him, and in the end, so does the court. That's all that matters. And it's Lester's court, to boot.
Anyway, thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed the post. It's the way I feel and that seems to be in vogue these days. The heck with being fair.]
THIS is the part I was talking about that my faulty memory wouldn't bring to the front! This and only this is what I think will decide this case. Everything else is smoke and mirrors as you said. Judge Lester asked over and over if the defendant would testify and MOM said "only if he's not subject to cross", so it went no where. Back when he was remanded into custody the judge said then from the bench that it would take hearing an explanation from the defendant himself about why he lied and that he should be prepared to do so. He didn't. That's all this is about. They could have saved a lot of ink and paper because Georgie got his nose out of joint. You can't judge shop, and they used that 2.330(d)(1) already:
"The Defendant moved to recuse Judge Recksiedler on the basis of Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)(2), which mandates recusal when a judge is related to an interested party… [The] Defendant also argued language associated with Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2330(d)(1). However, in an abundance of caution and based on the “totality of the circumstances,” she recused herself. This would indicate that her recusal was, in fact, based upon Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)(1), making this a successive motion under subsection (g) of that rule. Should that be determined, this court is prepared to rule on the facts alleged in support of the motion."
We have a man who for some unfathomable reason thought being a block watch captain equated to being a lay policeman and he had vigilante rights. He wasn't and he didn't. He keeps prefacing it with "we had a number of breakins in the area" over and over, but no one ever seems to mention they were in the past. (only the one cop that interviewed him on tape) The break in problem had been resolved. I find it hard to believe this wasn't passed onto the block captain. At every meeting they tell you stuff like this and ask if there have been any further problems. So, to me, that's not an excuse for his actions. Nothing excuses going out in the rain, seeing a kid taking a cut through, then following him, chasing him down with a gun in hand and shooting him. Just an afterthought.. if you were a thief would you be casing houses in the rain? I doubt it (because it's usually then people are home!)... I feel like it was premeditated - either from the time he said "they always get away" or definitely from the time we heard him chambering a round in his gun, or as Dave said, making sure there was a round as it was automatically chambered.
Loved the post Dave. When I first started reading it, I thought "oh man, I'm going to have to read and reread this until I understand what he's saying"... but you did a good job. It was simple enough for this old brain to understand.
[Boy, Connie, you're good. Everything you said in your comment makes perfect sense. The judge did say that he needed to hear an explanation for lying from Z himself. I hope the judge makes that clear at the appellate level. For certain, the man is definitely good at what he does, so I shouldn't even consider it. Yeah, Z got his nose out of joint. It kind of reminds me of Casey... "Make them stop."
Z has no common sense, obviously, because a kid paid with his life. How many robberies take place in the rain? You're right. Also, Serino mentioned black on black on black, meaning black shirt, black pants and black shoes. That sure didn't describe Trayvon that night. What a jerk.
I'm glad you loved the post and understood it. Thank you for the vote of confidence. Believe me, I need it.]
Conniefl~~great comments and quite informative. I do remember Judge Lester saying that he wanted Zimmerman and possibly Shellie too, to explain to him why he/they lied about the money. I thought this may be an off camera meeting and not in the courtroom with the public present. By requesting this, wouldn't Judge Lester be forcing Zimmerman to take the stand and leave himself wide open for the state to cross examine him? Shellie, being charged with perjury had an excuse not to be present at the second bond hearing.
I think Judge Lester left the d (1) and d(2) open ... Richard Hornsby couldn't even interpret that one... He felt Judge Lester should have been classed as the 'first' judge asked to recuse..
I hope I am not confusing you...sry, if I am.
Great article as usual Dave! This punk & his wife lied blatantly to the court. What did he & his attorney expect??
[Thank you, southernlace. That means a great deal to me. As for the ZZZimmermans, I'm afraid nothing is ever their fault. That's the way they think. Since lying is a way of life, it's routine and accepted in their little world. Well, their world got a whole lot bigger!]
Just so you know, I tried an ad service, but didn't like it. I took them out. No more pop up ads. Sorry for the inconvenience.
good article..well researched... I'm wondering if Zimm's phone records will show he was in contact with Taaffe that evening?
[OJ's glove... I like that! Will Z's phone records show whether he called Taaffe or vice versa? You betcha! I believe he acted alone, though, because there's no real evidence to substantiate any other scenario, and law enforcement, nor the State, has hinted otherwise.
Thank you, by the way. I'm glad you found it well researched and a good read.]
Hope this comes out right. :) I think MOM is truly doing what he can. In his appeal he basically says the Judge is not fair, but in the press conference he says the opposite. MOM talked about George's character after he was busted for lying to the Judge. Yet he has no problem reciting the lies Mr. Zimmerman tells. Or is it tales? Broken nose, Trayvon on top... You get it, I think. It seems to me MOM is following the orders of his client, but when he talks to the media it comes across as he feels the same way we do about his client.
Snoopy has said she is sitting on the fence and I think MOM is doing the same. Snoopy do you see MOM on the fence? HAHA! I knew your fence sitting would come in handy one day. Now I see why you do it. I do not want to think MOM is bad, he is doing his job. Poor guy is kind of pulled in different directions and it shows. To me he is trying to be Professional and
represent his client and trying not to burn professional bridges, hopefully you get what I mean.
George on the other hand only cares about himself. He has lied to everyone. He let his family and friends go on t.v. and repeat his version of events. He put them in a bad spot, he lied to a Judge let his parents use their house I think for collateral and his wife! Can she be that in love or that dumb? Why would she ever lie to a Judge? OF all people to lie to!!
IMO this case is going to come down to the 911 calls. I honestly do not think a jury will believe Mr. Zimmerman was the person begging for help. Those cries hurt, I cannot imagine how Trayvon's parents feel. How come Mr Zimmerman did not stop when he heard them?
[I agree with you, Michelle. He's lied to everyone and made his family and friends look like fools. I'm convinced the screams were Trayvon's too, and I hope you're right about the witnesses.]
Dave: Thanks for the great post. You know, I always believed they were judge shopping.
I know I have previously linked this--but I just couldn't resist adding it here:
Call 4 at about ½ inch from the end:
Shellie: Absolutely.
George: And we don’t know if—you know—if I—if we get O.H. Eaton then I could—you know—I could have a bond hearing tomorrow. You know?
Shellie: I know. I know.
Georgie makes it pretty clear who he wants, now doesn't he?
I'll add this link, too. It is a YouTube video with a series of four phone calls. The first three are previous NEN calls made by George; and the fourth one is the one he made on the evening of February 26/12. (You just have to keep clicking the little pop-up box after each phone call and they play consecutively.)
He even starts his older calls the same way. I find you can see his anger escalating with each call. In the third call, you can hear him moving around during the call and Shellie can be clearly heard telling him to stay with her.
Speaking of Taaffe, I'm guessing he thought he was helping his buddy, but still--with friends who make statements like the following, you don't really have to wonder why they gagged him--I quote: “I think he had fed-up issues. He was mad as hell and wasn't going to take it anymore,” Taaffe said of Zimmerman.
(OJ's glove: I'd sure like to know who he was talking to when that picture was snapped of the back of his head--supposedly three minutes after the shooting. I personally favor the air marshal, though.)
[Thank you, nan11. Not only did you like my post, you cited proof that Zimmerman was, in fact, judge shopping! I almost forgot. He sure did make it clear!
Frank Taaffe, I'm afraid, was his own worst enemy, and he did nothing to help his good buddy in the end. I wasn't aware of that comment. What a galoot. I do want to listen to Z's phone calls, so thank you for those links.]
Michelle~~Snoopy has said she is sitting on the fence and I think MOM is doing the same. Snoopy do you see MOM on the fence? HAHA! You dang right and we are hanging on for dear life up here. Did I mention it was an electric fence? Oh, I think someone turned the electricity on when Mark hopped up here. Maybe he turned me on. Who cares... here we are.
Thank you for putting in a good word for a fine lawyer who is just going his job. This will prove I am an O'Mara loyal fan.
~~just MARK my words~~
Thank you for your wonderful response to me Dave. I appreciate your comments about O'Mara as you do personally know of him where as I do not. I am of the belief that a reputable defense attorney should bring a client up to their standards, not the other way around which is exactly what has happened to O'Mara with his representation of the accused murderer. Had the accused murderer been willing to listen to someone who is light years ahead of him in the smarts dept, perhaps he might have stood a chance. However, this is the type of person that the accused murderer is. He brings decent people down to his level and he has made O'Mara sleazy. I sincerely hope that O'Mara truly didn't know about the money, etc. because I just find it hard to believe that an attorney of the caliber that you have and others have described would willingly sell their soul to the devil.
[You know, A, there are some real jerks in the world, and I would never put Mark O'Mara in that category, no matter what he may think of me now. In a sense, I understand exactly what you're saying about bringing a person up to your standard or inching down to their standard, and you're right. It does seem as if Z has brought O'Mara down a notch or two. I think that's because of the hidden money and having to make excuses for the lies, not having control over the website after Z decided to take it back, and for not being able to curb his client, a la Sean Hannity. O'Mara sat there like a bump on a log. Z had to have total command.
Let me say it this way... I guess this case has got to be a real challenge for O'Mara. He's got a loose cannon as a client and I don't envy him in the least. Thanks for letting me know what you think.]
Dave~~I seem to be paying more attention to your words instead of their meaning. Now you said the following, I do agree that Z should have let Recksiedler stay on the bench, at least for the time being, until he felt the need to take her out.
Now if I were your English Professor, I would say that was pure brilliance from a writer. You just made Zimmerman into a murderer moreso than someone who wanted to take her on a date.
I cannot concentrate on what I am supposed to. Stop writing so well. No, no...don't. lol
[Pure brilliance, huh? The only thing on me that shines brightly is my scalp, not my brain. Hmm... just wait until I write my first novel. I need to get out of this mess.]
WOOT! I did it right! You got it! Electricity is nothing to be playing with, you will look like a poodle.
I have been doing a little research into MOM. I agree he is good at his job. However this case is different and I think his client is making it difficult. MOM is doing the best he can with what he has to work with.
Nan what? Mr. Zimmerman is talking on a phone shortly after the shooting? How could he? My hands would be shaking so bad, I tell on myself whenever I do something bad. Laughing or shaking like a leaf. If I am laughing that is not bad bad. More of a prank. Shaking equals trouble. I always rat on myself.
Dave,
When O'Mara first came on the scene,I perceived him as very professional and level headed.
I have no relationship with him in anyway and this is what I see.
He has attempted to do a chat session on a site that I perceive as fairly racist.
I believe that he has spoken to a gun rights group DURING the time where said group has disregarded the life of a young black man doing nothing more than walking.
There is at least the appearance that he knew about the $37,000
He has made statements which appear to pander to racists and gun rights such as "people who would have done the same thing:
It appears that he is Judge shopping.
I can understand your wanting to speak highly of him because you may not want to ruffle feathers, but I am not seeing what you are seeing at all.
[Hey, Porky3100! I must say that when O'Mara came on the scene, I had nothing but great things to say about him. Today, I'm not nearly as adamant, but I was not aware of a chat session of any kind. You can let me know privately what it is, if I may ask. He hasn't spoken to a gun rights group yet, but it's coming up. I have no idea what he's going to discuss, but I plan on attending to find out. I do think it odd that a guy who was never known to be a gun activist is now an authority on the subject, but we'll see.
Now that you mention it, I believe he WAS aware of $37,000, but then again, everything is relative. To me, 37 grand is a whole lotta money. To him?
One thing I failed to mention is what O'Mara's perception of Judge Lester is. I mean, I'm sure they've crossed paths and I'm sure O'Mara knows whether Lester is a no-nonsense jdge or not. It seems like he is, so that could be part of the reason why there's such a strong urge to replace him.
While I'll agree that O'Mara's less prestigious than he was, and he has had some strange notions, like talking to gun groups while in the midst of a fatal shooting case, I wouldn't nearly put him in the sleaze category. Not yet. You're right, I don't like to ruffle feathers, but I'm not afraid to when I feel so strongly about something, and he hasn't reached that level yet. Believe me, I understand where you're coming from, but I can't see it like you do, if you know what I mean. I try to, and I keep my mind wide open. Please let me know what else you see. It's very important to me, and I really appreciate it.]
Dave~~I did notice the following, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood…” or words to that effect. and I totally agree. The first thing you do is identify yourself when calling someone who is not familar with your voice, especially 911 even if it is non-emerg.
Back to the judge... In all honesty, when I read Judge Lester's Order revoking Z' bond, I was shocked. Had I not known better, I would have swore it was a script the prosecution would have taken to the podium with them to argue a motion. What should have been a terse 3 page Order turned into an eight page rant. I am not trying to be smart here or play devil's advocate. Maybe I am too used to judges who are old fashioned and still wear white wigs along with their black robes.
I think O'Mara did an excellent job pointing out all the 'bias' in his writ. Prejudice... Pre...judge...yes ... "the state has a strong case", I think a jury should decide that.
Of course, Zimmerman wants a new judge and he has been called a twit. I am not going to reiterate what has been said a million times.
I hope the appellate court views O'Mara's writ the same way I do. I want to see a fair trial before a fair judge. I do not think that can be achieved with Judge Lester on the bench. It it okay if I say that some judges can hold grudges?
Dave, an excellent posts is like a Christmas repast, food for thought and dang it, I was getting some hungry. Forgive me if I help myself to another few morsels...* burp
[His intro to 911 and NEN is meaningless in a sense. The bottom line is all about the now. What's going on now because what happened then is not the same as now. This shows that Z was forever looking for a fight or trouble or something not good. If ever there were a person where guilty until proven innocent, Z is the man.
As for the judge, obviously, you and I will not see eye-to-eye, but then again, neither will the defense and prosecution agree about the judge in this case, and they both base their opinions on case law. I happen to think the defense did a great job, but it was in pointing out issues that have no rlevance to the writ. As for the bias, my God, that writ was as biased as they claim the judge is.
Yes, judges can hold grudges, but Lester has one of the best records and reputations in the business, and that comes from both sides.
Hopefully, my next post will be just as good. I've still got the story to write about the dog. The one that set Z off to begin with.
Use your napkin!]
Taken from my link upthread.... and yes, I am the author.
O’Mara will address a gun rights group at its annual conference, in September, although it does not specify what O’Mara will be discussing. He is already being condemned for this from left, right, front and center before standing at a podium and opening his mouth. No one knows what Mark will be speaking about at this conference. Grrrrrr
Zimmerman fired in self-defense. Stop whining.
[He's the one who's whining. He's the one who, as his attorney said, isn't doing well at all.]
O’Mara will address a gun rights group at its annual conference, in September, although it does not specify what O’Mara will be discussing. He is already being condemned for this from left, right, front and center before standing at a podium and opening his mouth. No one knows what Mark will be speaking about at this conference. Grrrrrr
Well it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that he is there to support their cause considering they are the source of -considerable- donations.
[Oh, I agree that O'Mara is a big promoter of donations. He begs for money directly or indirectly every time he stands in front of a microphone. What a great audience that will be! Gun owners!]
What is the source that states that the NRA is giving GZ "considerable" donations and that they are a racist group?
[Interesting...]
I guess ruffling feathers is the opposite of pandering. Right?
[Dictionary.com defines pander as a go-between in amorous intrigues. Huh. I always thought it was one of them there bears in China.]
Great post Dave.
[Thank you, Joanna. Great time to go to bed, too.]
Dave~~here is a question for you. When you file for indigency, what is the maximum amount of money you are allowed to have in a bank account that is for living expenses?? I see Mark is being accused of knowing about the $37K. Strange that I am not surprised to see that here on your blog. If you kindly answer my question, then I will tell you the reason that O'Mara did not think the $37K was important enough to bring up, if he had known about it. You are all calling Z a liar yet you believe what Z said in a phone call and do not believe Mark. Really.
If a person files for indigency, are they allowed to have a loaf of bread and a couple tins of beans in their cupboard? Z was in hiding. He nor Shellie was able to work. JAC does not pay food allowances.
[I don't know what you mean about not believing Mark. What Z phone call? I don't know how much money a defendant can have, but I'm sure the amount is taken into consideration in high profile cases like this. For instance, Z will need protection and that's not free.]
Dave~~I suggest you listen to the jail calls when you find time. Z is talking to a male. He tells the male about a transfer, apparently the $37K. They had been discussing O'Mara just prior to mentioning the money. The male says, "does he know?" Z says, "yes." The male says, "the volume?" Of course, meaning the total in the account, Z responds, "no."
I did not quote that verbatim. You can listen to the call and judge for yourself if the 'he' was meant to be O'Mara.
I hate it when people put down an attorney who is just doing his job. I cannot believe he is being accused of being a racist. How come people are allowed to defame Mark in here while others cannot even hint about the other side. It seems that 'bias' is running rampant everywhere.
[I agree that O'Mara most likely didn't know about the large sum of money, and I think he's safe on that one. He did acknowledge knowing about 37K, but here's something from the Miami Herald:
"In a phone call recorded April 14 between Zimmerman and brother-in-law Scott Wilson, the two discuss the new defense lawyer and the attorney’s vision for an upcoming bond hearing. Zimmerman twice said that he told O’Mara that he tried to transfer $37,000 from his online legal defense fund site, but could not complete the transaction because PayPal rules prevent transfers larger than $10,000."
Jail call says defense attorney knew about Zimmerman’s hidden money
I still think everything is relative, and to O'Mara, 37K isn't a lot of money. Not like the way we see it. And the bottom line is all about the prosecution. No one seems to be interested in looking into it, so to me, it's not a big deal. There's no investigation that I'm aware of. I think O'Mara is fine there.
As for an attorney just doing his job, you saw the Anthony case. Criminal defense attorneys are targets in high profile cases. I invite anyone from the other side to comment, too. This is a two-way street. As long as they are polite.
The problem with the other side, in this case, those who attack Trayvon, is that he is unjustly targeted and he's the victim. How much bad is there to say about him? He had the equivalent of a marijuana seed in his system? He was a pretty clean kid, and because someone asks him about taking a swing at a bus driver does not mean he did it. I could ask someone if they ever took care of their ringworm problem. How embarrassing, but it doesn't mean the person had it.
BTW, you know how I feel about racist accusations and, certainly, O'Mara is not a racist. That won't work here. You must be talking about another blog.]
MOM as posters seem to like to call him went down to a zero in my books when he made the comment on his website, that basically meant for all the people who would do the same thing as GZ , you should send in your money. And I wont even watch his press conferences , I am sick of him begging for money for GZ. Even Baez didnt go that low. I am really starting to think MOM is just one more enabler in GZ`s life. Poor George, he wants to be a hero and no one will let him be. He wants to be a cop but they wont let him do that either. Poor George tells lie after lie while MOM spends his days trying to save Poor George from his own lies. aww but MOM says he is just scared and confused, lol while Poor George collects $300.000 ! Poor George isnt doing well, he has to stay in his house and cant be out acting like a wanna be cop, and he cant carry his $12,000 gun that he bought with the money people donated. Poor George is scared someone is gonna give him the same chance he gave Trayvon, NO CHANCE !!!! Poor George the judge isnt buying all his lies, why not his mommy and daddy did. Poor George went thru $36,000 in 18 days in jail and now he is broke. Well gee whiz if I spent that kind of money in 18 days we wouldnt have a roof over our heads. MOM gave him $20,000 to live off of when he got out of jail. Poor George had already paid off all his bills and paid in advance for his phones and whatever else there was. Aww but Poor George didnt know the well was gonna get down to its last dribbles and he wasnt gonna be rich quite yet with donations. Well Poor George isnt in jail where he should be and he has gotten a lot more than most have, considering he didnt have a penny in the days before shooting Trayvon. Poor George my A***
Oh and almost forgot , thanks for the article, I enjoyed it Dave
[I guess I have a problem with MOM because there will only be one MOM. I imagine I could get used to MO'M if I threw in an Irish accent. I'll give it a try.
I like your prose because it really flows. Poor George. PW. And everything you wrote is true. I cringe when this otherwise classy attorney goes begging for money. It's so unlike the person I know, or used to know. As for George, nope... he will never amount to a hill of beans. Not even old coffee grounds. If nothing else, I hope he lives out his life knowing what he lost. Never to be a cop. Never to be a judge. I think he'd be lucky to get a job working the third shift somewhere in an old, rusty warehouse.
I sensed right from the start that Judge Lester was not going to buy into his master plan. PW has been a guy who can snake oil his way into anything, but he's never run into a brick wall called the legal system and it's frustrating the hell out of him. Don't they know who he is? I'm afraid that, if this judge is removed, he's in for another one just like him. PW was a great manipulator. Not anymore. One single bullet took away his power. He didn't just destroy one person that day, he destroyed two. How sad for Trayvon, how sad for everyone.
Thanks for your commentary, elmosmommy, and for enjoying the article.]
So many things to write, but I'll narrow it down.
Clearly every reference to past crimes proves without a doubt he criminally profiled TM. He was chased for the acts of others. Odd the right wing gun nuts dont acknowledge TMs rights the way they do GZs. No, not that odd.
Side note, Taffee referred to several burglaries all by AAs. In checking the police reports, only 3 or 4 mentioned AAs. Of those arrested, one person was white. There is also a witnesses, who in her FBI interview also admitted to being involved and calling 911 on suspicious suspects. She too said she called on a white person. FYI. Incorrect prejudice and profiling by Zim/Taf.
A few reasons I think Zimmerman got the results he was looking 4, besides his darn audio taped confession (fucking a hole punks always get away, and yeah, I'm following!)!
There is testimony by others, & also an admission by Taffee that GZ patrolled the neighborhood. And George himself, says he was always packing. These 2 failures to abide by the most basic commandments of neighborhood watch suggest the true nature of Zimmermans involvement. And that includes more than watching.
From the interviews;
1) Wendy Dorival reports she got a call from George asking for info on a burglary suspect. When she declined to share he result of their police investigation, he called the victims directly. He wanted to be involved. In his 911 calls he runs outside while on the phone and u can hear Shelli telling him to get back in. In the same call, he told the cops he'd meet them on foot @ the back gate to let them in. In the burglary he reported he often references, he met the cops on scene, by foot. He put himself in danger all the time. This nite was not unique.
BTW- in the police report re: the Taafee "break in" the police found no one there, and nothing usual on the scene.
2) A witness testimony has George patrolling the neighborhood at nite w/ his car lights off. This strikes me as very very questionable. If 1 were deterring crime why would they try and sneak up on the suspect? Sounds more like the actions of someone wanting to catch a bad guy in the act. @ecossie possie interesting comments. Honey trap makes sense too. Why would Taffee leave his windows open in a crime infested neighborhood? Theres more to that story between the 2.
RE; MOM knowing about the money, George not only told him about the existence of $ but he told him the transfer was so large it didnt go through. Whether MOM knew the exact dollar amount, he knew this. I think the writ came a few days after the release of those JH calls, and Lester had gone away, I think. It wouldnt surprise me if this (initial writ)made the Judge a lil gun shy to pursue any further upon his return.
Finally, theres blood all over George face according to him, his nose was bleeding, hes yelling help, and TM has his hands all over this mess of bodily fluid. Why is there no DNA on TMs hands? Self defense my ass.
[Hello, Manberk - Absolutely! GZ criminally profiled TM and the boy died because of what others MAY have done. Where I see a major issue with these right-wing gun nuts is that they are blind. They think that just by legally owning a gun, you have a right to use it at will, and that's just plain wrong. No one is out to turn Trayvon into a saint, but why are those people doing it to Zimmerman? Why are they so quick to believe all of his stories? Whenever his alibi changes, they blow in the same direction as the wind he's spewing.
It's interesting that you checked the police reports and found that Taaffe's stories don't add up, either, but I guess that as long as the perp is white, it's OK to rob. Good thing for the other witness.
I'm aware that Zimmerman was always packing and he liked to drive around at night with his lights off. This shows he was looking for a target and also that he only played by his rules. Death Wish comes to mind, but that was fiction. He is not.
He sure did like to play the detective, didn't he. Always right on top of everything to the point he alienated some of the residents. He creeped them out. Trayvon must have been creeped out that night, too, but did he ever think he was going to die? Of course not. No one expects to run into crazy zealots inside gated communities. On the street, yes, but not there.
One of the reasons why it's so important for the defense to end this before trial, hence the impending motion to dismiss, is because there's no way Zimmerman or any of the defense's expert witnesses can explain why there was no blood or DNA on Trayvon's hands. Self defense my ass is right. Zimmerman will look good in prison garb.
Thanks!]
From the Florida Bar
Creed Of Professionalism
I revere the law, the judicial system, and the legal profession and will at all times in my professional and private lives uphold the dignity and esteem of each.
I will further my profession's devotion to public service and to the public good.
I will strictly adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of my profession's code of ethics, to the extent that the law permits and will at all times be guided by a fundamental sense of honor, integrity, and fair play.
I will not knowingly misstate, distort, or improperly exaggerate any fact or opinion and will not improperly permit my silence or inaction to mislead anyone.
I will conduct myself to assure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and resolution of every controversy.
I will abstain from all rude, disruptive, disrespectful, and abusive behavior and will at all times act with dignity, decency, and courtesy.
I will respect the time and commitments of others.
I will be diligent and punctual in communicating with others and in fulfilling commitments.
I will exercise independent judgment and will not be governed by a client's ill will or deceit.
My word is my bond.
[You gotta love that Florida Bar Creed of Professionalism, John, but I do wonder how many attorneys strictly adhere to it. Not to denigrate anyone, but no two attorneys think alike, and morals differ. Oh well, it would be nice. I know that some lawyers devote more time to public service, i.e., pro bono work, than others. The Bar recommends a minimum of 50-hours per year. As for humor, I guess it depends on who the brunt of the joke is. Cheney Mason never made any points with Casey Anthony's judges, but he thought he was comical.
Thank you for sharing this. Have you ever seen "The Verdict" starring the late Paul Newman? I STRONGLY recommend it. If I were a law professor, it would be one of my assignments.]
So I believe Mark O'Mara has a job to do, and his job is to represent his client and provide him with the best possible defense he can provide.
O'Mara is a seasoned, respected lawyer, I highly doubt that he would jeopardize his livley hood for the likes of George Zimmerman.
He is in a battle with the State of Florida, he has to head into that battle full speed ahead with the weapons and tools he has at his disposal and utilize them to the best of his ability.
While we the lay people may not like or agree with the tactics he is employing, he is doing his job, and he may have to do things directed by his client.
So like it or not our justice system is based on the premise, for Everyone, "Innocent until proven guilty", in which the State bears the burden of proof.
This case seems a little different in the sense that GZ is "Guilty until proven Innocent".
The fact of the matter is Trayvon was killed at the hand of George Zimmerman and it is up to Zimmerman and his defense to prove otherwise at this point as well as the State to prove it's charges against Zimmerman.
So I would think the defense's approach differs somewhat form most normal cases so to speak.
All within the bounds of the law, of course.
As far as the donations solicitation, well, Zimmerman started it and without it he would or soon will be declared indigent.
So let the yahoo's of the world buck up their hard eraned cash and take some burden off the taxpayers for now.
So like I said before Mark O'Mara is doing his job of providing the best possible defense he can, which of course means money too, and once GZ is on the State Funds, O'Mara's options in some respect have some restrictions.
How many of us have to do our job and sometimes do things that we don't particularly like or approve of but it is part of our job?
[Great comment, John, and you reminded me of an article I wrote years ago, but updated during the Anthony trial. It's all about doing work you'd rather not be doing. In O'Mara's situation, I do think, like most attorneys in criminal cases, it's a challenge. Here it is, and PLEASE, do not let the title fool you:
Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr – “Little Black Boy”
Thanks for your perspective.]
Manberk: Awesome comment!
Just sounding off of it--beginning on page 177:
Quote:
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2011
Hello Wendy! Hope all is well. I understand a suspect was arrested in the home invasion case that occurred in my neighborhood. Is that information correct?
Thanks again!
George Zimmerman
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011
George: I am back from vacation and my volunteer said she was unable to find an arrest. I made a query in the system and I found out that we received a fingerprint match on the burglary and identified a suspect. I have left a message with Investigator Lugo to see if there was an arrest made. The system does not indicate an arrest. I will give you more information as soon as I hear from Inv. Luga.
Wendy Dorival
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
George: I just heard from investigator Lugo who is assigned to the case. She says they have identified a suspect but have not been able to locate him.
Case is still active.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance.
BTW, do you know what the process is with the board in reference to the rental units. Do they request that the property management company provide them with a background check etc. Does the board approve the rental applicants?
Wendy Dorival End Quote
So, we have that exchange with Wendy in Oct. 2011, (the part bolded by me is just something interesting to note. Zimmerman never responded to that.) ; - )
Now, if we scroll down to the last section of this article--we find: EMMANUEL BURGESS – SETTING THE STAGE
Quote: On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor’s empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.
{snipped}
On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized.
{snipped} One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles. {snipped} Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2. End Quote
Burgess arrest was made on February 7, 2012. There is no real indication that Zimmerman new of his arrest. IIRC, in one of the police interviews--Serino points out that they did make an arrest on the burglary and goes on to let Georgie know that they do indeed catch the bad guys sometimes. A little ironic, isn't it?
My comment is getting too long, so I will have to end it. I guess the point I'm hoping to make is that this all points to a man--[Zimmerman, imo]--being mad, (and frustrated), as he!!; and focused on doing something about.
What that something turned out to be was the shooting of an unarmed, 17 year old.
To me this is evidence of a depraved mind--just saying.
I also realize that if O'Mara takes this to a SYG (self-defense) hearing, where the preponderance of the evidence is so low--none of this will be considered. (Well, it might not even be allowed in if there is a 2nd Degree Murder tiral.)
So, it's probably all a waste of time; but, interesting none-the-less.
(Sorry for the length.)
[I disagree with your last point, nan11. I think there's enough evidence to move this case to trial. And once there, any evidence law enforcement has that the state can use should be allowed. After all, it's got his name stamped all over it. It shows a pattern of behavior.]
Dave: You tease! Now I'm lickin' my chops over your future post on Big Boi.
Your splendid wit is second to none.
┌( ಠ‿ಠ)┘
[I'm not going to make you sit up and beg, nan11. A couple of months ago, I spoke to Big Boi's owner and he threw me a few bones to chew on. It should be an interesting read. I've been chomping at the bit, but every time I want to sit down to write about it, something else comes up or I get lazy.]
@John, there are some contradictions in the comment of the 2 posts.
"I will strictly adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of my profession's code of ethics, to the extent that the law permits and will at all times be guided by a fundamental sense of honor, integrity, and fair play."
"I will not knowingly misstate, distort, or improperly exaggerate any fact or opinion and will not improperly permit my silence or inaction to mislead anyone."
"I will exercise independent judgment and will not be governed by a client's ill will or deceit."
So being guided by Zimmerman doesnt sound like it would be a good excuse considering the creed.
I agree MOMs very good and should be thorough. But the Zimmermans ARE guilty of a crime, and MOM is implicit. Aside from the money, MOM stood in front of the court at the same bond hearing and also stated, this is the only passport my client has. We know that to be a lie. So is MOM breaking his own creed by allowing himself to be played? Or did he know? Either seems wrong, as does blaming the Judge for his and his clients games. Money manipulation plus lying about a passport suggests the exact possibility Lester mentioned. And MOM is directly involved.
I also question the $ angle.He knew about the website and he knew it was bringing in money. Some months later, after being busted, he did then recall the transfer GZ mentioned. So, again, lying by omission or turning the other cheek also seems to contradict the creed. Had they gotten away with it we taxpayers sure as heck would be paying the bill.
And BTW:
"I will conduct myself to assure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and resolution of every controversy."
This one isnt happening either! :)
Dave, I am just 8-months old in the business, but honestly, I am yet to see why anyone will think that O’Mara, from the point of view of the science of law and legal-strategy, is a good lawyer! I have read the O’Mara-Writ and IMHO the Writ is mostly a rant, lacking in internal coherency, badly structured and does IMO not read like the product of a trained legal mind (it reads more like what Al Sharpton would have written if he were on the side of GZ).
O’Mara did not even for once at least minimally try to dislodge (a) the arguments presented by the State in Response to the Motion to Disqualify OR (b) the reasoning underlying the Court’s Order Denying the Motion to Disqualify. That kind of struck me as very odd, mediocre.
Besides, O’Mara makes wild accusations against the Judge WITHOUT stating why in his (O’Mara’s) opinion the Court could not have reasonably/justifiably/rightfully made the findings it (the Court) made in the diverse Orders of the Court. If O’Mara, e.g. opines that the Court was wrong in finding, inter alia, that: “Under any definition the defendant flouted the judicial system”, one would expect O’Mara to demonstrate why the Court could not have reasonably/justifiably/rightfully make those findings (by showing why the Courts reasoning does not make sense, lacks factual basis, etc.). If the Court in all reasonability justifiably could have made- and indeed made the findings it made, what then is O’Mara’s complaint? If the Judge could in all reasonability NOT have made the said findings, O’Mara did not demonstrate at all ‘how so’. In fact O’Mara did not in any way dispute the factual basis for the findings of the Court. No, not at all. O’Mara rants, and rants. That I think is shameful.
On the side-bar, Dave, thanks for your latest post. I think it’s a work of a Master of Laws. I only wish I could have been longer.
[Congratulations, Intel! I wish you a great future.
I think, by your comparison to Al Sharpton, you mean that he's not an attorney and what O'Mara wrote was similar to what a non-attorney would have written.
I must say I absolutely agree with you, and I'm not even a lawyer, but the whole thing, to me, was just like you state here. I particularly like your analysis of the court finding that Zimmerman had flouted the judicial system. O'Mara merely whined intead of showing the appeal court why it was so. Great point! What then is O'Mara's complaint?
Thank you very much for your input. I sure hope you don't mind sharing, or allowing me to pick your brain occasionally. On the side-bar, thank you very much for your kind and complimentary words. That's wonderful.]
What is the source that states that the NRA is giving GZ "considerable" donations and that they are a racist group?
[Interesting...]
August 17, 2012 | Sherry
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gun-groups-seek-to-fund-george-zimmermans-defense/
I hate it when people put down an attorney who is just doing his job. I cannot believe he is being accused of being a racist."
Snoopy,
I will ask you -again- to please be accurate in your statements. I have said this before and will go on record again. I have *never* said or implied that O'mara is a racist. What I *have* said is that he panders to a racist cross section. In other words, I see him as an opportunist. I trust that you can appreciate this -significant- distinction?
Porky3100's link | Gun Groups Seek To Fund George Zimmerman’s Defense
Hope you don't mind if I make your link work, Porky3100. Thanks very much for providing it.
Nan11. Always a pleasure.
Dave~~you agreed the following proved Z was judge shopping in your response to Nan11.
Nan11 posted the following upthread.
Call 4 at about ½ inch from the end:
Shellie: Absolutely.
George: And we don’t know if—you know—if I—if we get O.H. Eaton then I could—you know—I could have a bond hearing tomorrow. You know?
Shellie: I know. I know.
Georgie makes it pretty clear who he wants, now doesn't he?
I would like to know the date when this call took place? Was it not before ANY bond hearing? When Z was speaking to Shellie it just so happened that Judge Lester had a heavy case load and could not fit in Z's bond hearing until later. Judge Eaton came out of retirement to help with the work load. Z and Shellie were hoping Eaton may take over the case so his bond hearing would be sped up.
Why would Z be judge shopping at this time? There was no flack about deception between Z and Lester at the time the jail call was made. Z did not even know what kind of judge Lester was or how he would be treated. Z was anxious to get out on bond.
It is quite apparent that Z is guilty as sin but he is entitled to a fair trial. Let's start by being fair right in this blog!! Get the facts straight. Those jail calls were all made before Z was allowed out on bond the first time and there was no mention that Z would want Lester off the bench.
[Snoopy - Z was sitting in the county jail when the call took place, remanded there by one Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr., the judge of record. This did not sit well with Z. Was he merely looking for Eaton to relieve the judge of stress? No, because Lester was the judge of record. Judges are not relieved of work loads in the midst of a case. Look at the Anthony case. Was Perry ever off the bench? If Eaton worked to ease any court loads, they were cases not yet assigned or ones that had not yet been heard by the judge of record. Once a judge is on it, he's on it and that's where we are today. One judge. I'll give you the possibility that Z was naive about it, but I still look at this appeal as judge shopping.]
Let's start by being fair right in this blog!! Get the facts straight.
Right back atcha', my dear. Right back atcha'.
If you believe what you just said in your comment, I have a bridge to sell you.
Not yet. You're right, I don't like to ruffle feathers, but I'm not afraid to when I feel so strongly about something, and he hasn't reached that level yet. Believe me, I understand where you're coming from, but I can't see it like you do, if you know what I mean. I try to, and I keep my mind wide open. Please let me know what else you see. It's very important to me, and I really appreciate it.]
You know how we roll Dave, we can disagree respectfully and are still friends at the end of the day. I like that about you.
Dave.
O'Maras request to chat over at of all places the treehouse!
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=13&f=2937&t=9152143.
Nan11 feel free to make this click friendly :)
[Thanks for that link, Porky3100! Very interesting indeed.]
Porky3100's Now Click Friendly Link | Zimmerman’s lawyer seek a ‘chat’ with conservative bloggers?
Thanks, Porky3100, but that's not the NRA-its gun groups who are more interested in the protection of the 2nd Amendment than they are of justice for anyone no matter how they want to spin it. I know of NRA members who have said that GZ cannot protect himself with the SYG law since he went out to pursue Trayvon. And that's just what he did no matter how he wants to say otherwise-there was an address lit up right in front of him so he had no reason to get out of his vehicle (and don't give me a cock and bull story, GZ supporters, that he didn't know the street name-he would have to know if he wanted to be the HOA's wanna-be resident cop).
Again, thanks, Porky3100, for the link. I found an interesting article link on there touting the NRA's latest gimmick-hoodies with gun pockets. Hmmm...
Sherry,
And thank you for clarifying that it was another gun rights group. You comment about what some NRA members have said really perked my ears up. Absolutely if the NRA is wise they will distance themselves form this case as this is NOT a case of someone protecting home or family. This is the case of a lying nutcase that killed a kid for no reason. This case is about everything the NRA tells responsible owners to NOT do.
That said, my main point was I think that here, O'Mara is more guided by the donations than his integrity, judgement and most importantly convictions. I get that he has to do his job but I do not think that his job requires the pandering stuff.
I have to say this about O'Mara-its not at all a good idea to be pandering to GZ supporters for money or for desiring a 'chat session' with those creepy treepers, not even in a setting the record straight fashion. Baez didn't go that far as far as I can remember. Not that he is any role model of defense attorney ethics. To me, it cheapens his defense attorney role.
Well, I do believe I am going to nit pick some. Dave, I think some of your recent comments are extreme concerning gun owners and organizations. I feel no need to elaborate. I just don't care to be grouped in with GZ supporters just because I have firearms.
I would care to point out the fact that the NRA has over four million members. From the amount of monies GZ has received, I believe one could conclude the members of the NRA have not rushed in to support GZ's "cause". Further, it is my opinion that the majority of gun owners think GZ is a "nut" case and shake their heads when learning of his actions....past, present and probably future.
Dave: This is sad. My condolences to Mr. Taaffe.
Orlando Sentinel | U.S. Marine, passenger die after crashing on Volusia roadway
Quote:
Public records show Taaffe is the son of Frank Taaffe, the Sanford resident who has at times been a key figure in the controversy surrounding the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
[That's very sad, nan11. No matter what, he was a father, and his son had a mother. I met Frank at the courthouse and he was very polite to me that day. I guess he didn't know exactly who I was or where I stood. I feel bad. No one deserves to lose a child. No one.]