Home » Uncategorized » May 12, 2013 – Open Thread

May 12, 2013 – Open Thread


Happy Mother’s Day to all Mothers and especially to Gladys Zimmerman.  I’ve always felt she is the forgotten Mom in this case because her son lived through the events of February 26, 2012.  Gladys, I want you to know that you are not forgotten and I think about you and the ordeal you and your family are going through daily. Due to an abundance of politics , and the lack of ethics and honesty in the justice system in Florida, I stand with you and your family in fighting the injustice we are witnessing.

It is clear to me, after reading through the State’s discovery, you have raised your children to be socially aware.  George rented his townhouse.  He wasn’t an owner, yet took action to try to stop the crime all residents were being subjected to. The community had to call police 411 times from January 1, 2011 to February 26, 2012.  George’s mentoring of minority children and his fight for justice for Sherman Ware leave no doubt that you raised him well.  I read in the discovery, that George volunteered to recruit block captains but seemed to be having a hard-time getting owners of the townhouses to get involved.  One block captain admitted he quit in December of 2012 but didn’t tell anyone and the other block captain admitted she was suppose to introduce herself to the neighbors and advise about the Neighborhood Watch Program but she hadn’t done it.  Other neighbors said they met George as he stood on corners trying to find more people to volunteer to be block captains.  Here you have George, a renter, bringing the program to the community and spending endless effort in trying to get the owners to get involved and participate.

What does George get for his efforts?  He gets the State of Florida vs. George Michael Zimmerman.  Boricuafudd wrote a great blog piece, Are We Living In an Urban Jungle? and as we hear the parents in Cleveland encourage people to look out for neighbors and answer your door to police and answer their questions, we witness a vilifying of George for doing that exact same thing.

Mrs. Zimmerman you have raised very good children.  Robert Zimmerman Jr. is a terrific spokesperson for your family.  He has talent and I hope that this tragedy results in his getting a louder voice.  Robert carries a great message on race and race relations.  While George’s sister has been less visible, I got a sense of how much she cares about her brother in listening to the jail house calls.  You have raised some terrific kids Mrs. Zimmerman.  May you be comforted in knowing that and may the justice system that you and your husband gave time and effort to in another State be realized by the Zimmerman family in the State of Florida.  God Bless you Mrs. Zimmerman.

Thoughts-and-Prayers I am aware that some of our participants here are watching their Mothers deal with a serious health crisis. My thoughts and prayers go out to them. For those who no longer have their mothers with them, I remind you to make sure you live in such a way that makes your Mom proud. Our family chain is broken, and nothing seems the same; but as God calls us one by one the chain will link again. —Ron Tranmer

I am not a mother. I knew at a young age I didn’t want children. I do however respect and admire the women who take on the selfless role to raise children. I am fortunate to have my Mom with me. She too is going through a health crisis and today she’s with us and I plan on spending a great deal of time with her. She is my hero. Happy Mother’s Day to all the Moms; here and gone. ♥


74 thoughts on “May 12, 2013 – Open Thread

    • Nettles – First let me say how much I appreciate this blog and the fabulous job you are doing. Now though; I have searched but I must not be a very good detective because I cannot find a poll in which to vote 😦

        • No, there is nothing there. I am using Chrome if that makes a difference. I don’t have any of the other format problems that folks have been talking about and everything else looks wonderful, white on various shades of grey background, some colors on some fonts and the pictures show up in vivid color…just no poll 🙂 This is on both of my computers, configured essentially the same.

  1. Question for our legal minds. If DCA gives the green light to depo Crump can the scheme team petition supreme court of florida…..even if it is a losing proposition, just to run the clock down even further on the defense?

    • The broader question is can Crump interpose delay, without staying action in the trial court. The answer is yes. He can petition for a rehearing with the DCA, and I think he has to before gaining the “right” to petition the SCOFLA. There is no right be heard by SCOFLA, not is there a right to a rehearing, but there are time periods where an order is not final until the periods for reuesting rehearing/appeal have run.

      I speculated at CTH on the DCA moving in Crump’s favor, but in a way that puts Nelson in a pickle. The DCA could rule that the defense has a right to depose Crump, but that the time to bring the appeal is after trial. That makes Nelson’s ruling an error, but the DCA isn’t ordering her to correct it.

      No matter how you play out the scenarios, Crump has lots of judicial clock to play with.

      • I would think that the same DCA that had just issued a ruling that Crump had to be deposed (relying in part on a petition from Crump to make their ruling) would absolutely refuse to slow the proceedings down to give Crump a chance to appeal, so I have no doubt that in that situation, they’d deny any new motion from Crump to appeal their decision. That denial would then give him grounds for appeal directly to the SCOFLA, right? I can’t see them taking the case. There’s no irreparable harm to Crump if he is forced to be deposed.

        • I took the question as one of how much clock would run, not as one of ultimate outcome. Assume Crump loses the appeal, that the DCA orders Nelson to rescind her order precluding the defense from deposing Crump. Crump then has a time period in which he is allowed to petition the DCA for reconsideration. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 allows 15 days (default time, unless the DCA orders otherwise), and gives respondant 10 days to file a response. Rule 9.020(j) qualifies “rendition of a final order”

          If any timely and authorized motion under rule 9.330 or 9.331 is filed, the order shall not be deemed rendered as to any party until all of the motions are either abandoned or resolved by the filing of a written order.

          • I would think, then, that if the DCA rules in George’s favor, at that point the judge would have no choice but to grant a continuance. The DCA ruling will have an instruction that the TCJ is to proceed in accordance with this ruling, which would require her to make provisions for a potential Crumpeal to the SCOFLA.

            • Yes, but Crump can still delay by asserting that he will be requesting reconsideration, and then requesting it within the default or DCA-set deadline. Nelson doesn’t have to make any particular provisions. Her function is to take arguments and issue orders. If the DCA order is pending reconsideration, she won’t hold Crump in contempt for failing to appear for deposition. Thinking about it, she would only lift her order that is currently against the defense (precluding deposition), which may put the defense in the position of having to move for an order compelling Crump’s testimony. An order from the court to Crump is a necessary prerequsite to finding Crump in contempt.

              Nelson doesn’t have to grant a continuance. Lower courts are free to make as many errors as they are comfortable with. She must figure that no matter which way the trial goes, the result is going to be appealed.

              • Well, except an outright acquittal – the state is precluded from retrial in that case, on double jeopardy grounds.

                • The order might read like that, but I doubt the DCA would shorten the time to petition for reconsideration to anything shorter than 10 days, so there is at least that (default 15 day) window before the DCA ruling becomes final / rendered.

                  And, if the DCA did say that they would not entertain any motion for reconsideration, Crump could burn some time by petitioning the SCOFLA. I don’t think they’d take the case, but he can burn time by asking and being turned down. He can also burn time being in contempt for refusing to testify. In that situation, he’d have the keys to his own jail, as giving testimony would remove the reason for contempt.

  2. Happy mother’s day to all of the mothers here. Nettles your message to mom Gladys Zimmerman was wonderful. Yes, she should be very proud of the children she and Robert Sr. raised.

    Happy mother’s day Mrs. Zimmerman. Prayers for you and the entire family. George please stay strong, we here are all behind you and your “defense team.”

  3. Well, I’ve caught someone’s attention. A wordpress theme developer from Germany is following me on twitter. Man, have I got suggestions for him. 🙂

  4. Can Bernie’s “selective application of the law” be used by the defense to their advantage? The state continues to pursue Shellie but not a peep about charges for dee dee’s lies, Crump’s fraudulent affidavit, or Cupcakes witness tampering.

    • In a word, “no.” Prosecutors have the power of discretion. There is no legal remedy for “failure to charge.”

      • Evidently there is since Wolfinger didn’t charge GZ. It involves protests, threats of riots, political influence and the appointment of a special prosecutor. Although in regards to a perjury charge specifically I’m sure you’re right that only the prosecutor in the case can charge perjury for that case.

        • Right – but the remedies you noted are political, not “court orders” or some other mechanism in law, like suing the prosecutor for failure to charge.

          • This comment is coming from a person who has very little legal knowledge. But it seems to me sometimes the law makes a simple matter so much more complicated at times. Take for example this request to the higher court to overrule the lower court and order the deposition of Mr. Crump.

            I’m reading this may get turned down if the higher court agrees it is in error but it can be remedied after the trial, if convicted. That’s insane. The law wants to allow an error to go through because it can get corrected later. What about the poor defendant and the expense of all that? Why would they have such a stupid procedure? To allow a judge to err and let it get corrected later?

            • The law can’t prevent lawyers from filing stupid petitions to higher courts. Not saying this one is, just that in the universe of actions that are taken by a lawyer, a significant number of them are stupid or mooted by action at trial. So, the reason the law has this stupid procedure (of limiting what it will decide on interlocutory appeal) is to make the judicial process (trial plus appeals) more efficient. In the universe of appeals, the vast majority are taken after the trial. So, yes, the system allows the judge to err and have it corrected later. I am certain that many judges take advantage of this and KNOWINGLY issue errors, knowing that at least half the time the error won’t even be presented to an appellate court, and when the error is presented, the standard of proof always favors the judge below.

              The law has many fictions, one of which being that “poor defenandant” is getting the benefit of the best legal system devised by man. I think the system is pretty good, myself, but no system works well when the players are corrupt.

              In the instant case, the DCA has many options. It can just reject the appeal as too early. “See us after the trial,” without more. Observers would not have a clue (inside this case – precedents are always clues) as to how the DCA feels about the merits of O’Mara’s argument that he has a right to depose Crump. Or it can agree with O’Mara and grant the relief requested. That means they agree he has a right to depose Crump, and that the issue is properly on appeal before the trial is conducted. All I did was suggest a third possibility, not to say that this third possibility is what a rejection to O’Mara necessarily looks like. It finds a right to depose Crump, but does not agree to reverse the trial judge before trial. I already expressed what I see as the ramifications of the third possibility, so I won’t repeat those remarks.

              • Thanks for that detailed explanation. I understand somewhat better now. I was reading that if the higher court thought this matter could be heard after appeal, they would not agree to consider it at all. I was told by some online lawyers that if the higher court agreed to consider the petition then it got over its biggest hurdle, that the higher court thought it possible that remedy after trial could be made whole. So when I saw the Order to Show Cause, I got quite excited. Fingers crossed the 5th DCA restores faith that GZ is able to get a fair trial in the lower court.

                • The biggest legal hurdle is agreeing to reverse the trial judge, on defendant’s allegation of discovery error, before the trial has concluded. The hurdle to get a show cuase order is lower than the hurdle to reverse the trial judge before the trial.

            • Oh, “Why would they do it that way?” is an excellent question, by the way. And the reasons the appeals court gives in writing are often masks for the real reasons. I got to thinking, what if the DCA is offended that this trial is going on, but also doesn’t want to set a precedent that causes an increase in interlocutory appeals for discovery errors (discovery errors are, for the most part, not appealable until after trial). It can pass the buck back to Nelson using the decision that I speculated.

              This passing the buck happens all the time. Nelson passed the buck on public disclosure of the Confidential Settlement Agreement to O’Mara! The Court ordered O’Mara to write the order, for the court’s signature, that produces the result that O’Mara asked for, which was disclosure of the agreement. Well, O’Mara has an unredacted copy of the agreement in his possession, and there is no upside to him to making the redacted one public.

            • There are many built-in injustices in the law, not intentionally, but because there is a clash in legal principles. A big one, that is somewhat easy to understand, is the clash between the justice system’s interest in the finality of a judgement versus the right of an individual to habeus corpus petitions.

      • And I’ll add that suggesting to the jury there was witness tampering, without direct evidence of it, is a near certain recipe for mistrial.

        I’m confident in O’Mara’s ability to deliver a good trial performance, without overreaching. Bernardo, not so much.

      • W8 said she lied to avoid hurting Fulton’s feelings. I think it’s material when a witness admits she’s willing to lie under oath to spare the family members’ feelings. How would it affect the family if they learned Martin was responsible for his own death? Furthermore, W8’s behavior in the days following Martin’s death is material. She didn’t go to the police or contact Martin’s family. Was she acting in a manner consistent with her later version of events? Her lie could certainly be seen as an attempt to explain away inconsistent behavior.

        • My first comment contains so many typos, I’d prefer it not make it out of moderation. I may retype it later. I’m lost without an Edit feature.

          • Welcome to the group! I’m glad you are here. I enjoy reading your posts at Talk Left. No worries about typos. I have an edit feature and if I see an obvious typo I correct it.

        • W8’s statements concerning the hospital stay are relevant to credibility and to exploring the veracity of anything else she purports to have personal knowledge of regarding this case.

          However, whether or not W8 went to the hospital sometime after the death of TM is not material to the fundamental issue of how the tragic confrontation between GZ and TM transpired.

    • Captain Double-Entendre: I am a frequent reader on this forum and note that you seem to post some interesting comments and observations. However, I do not visit your site because of the rudely childish and immature name of your blog. Just giving you an alternate perspective from the adult word – feel free to ignore my feedback as perhaps adults aren’t the intended audience of your blog.

  5. After reading Francine Oliver’s highly inflammatory interview I did some digging and came upon a treasure trove of Ben Jealous / Trayvon rally video footage to add to the youtube channel to further document the over the top black racism in the lynching of George ZImmerman. I’ll keep you guys updated.

  6. I don’t see this posted here yet. It’s very well made and essentially summarizes how I think things went down. The parallels drawn with the movie Bonefire of the Vanities (1990) are spot on.

    • Thank you for that link Art. Here is the most important takeaway from the post-

      “The decision by the DCA on deposition of non-party lawyers will be precedent for future criminal cases. The DCA decision to limit such depositions would encourage actions that may encroach on criminal cases. Such encroachment may subvert Brady protection, since inculpatory evidence may be highlighted or enhanced; while exculpatory evidence may be obscured or hidden. Conversely, the DCA decision to allow such depositions will likely cause such lawyers to more carefully consider their involvement in criminal cases.”

      IOW, the decision by the DCA will either allow those like Benjamin Crump, an attorney for the Martin family, or who has been portrayed as the “victim,” to narrate, control and decide how criminal trials from now on will be fought. If Benjamin Crump wins in his refusal to answer for his obvious control of a criminal trial in order to control the out come of his civil lawsuits against anything that moves in Fla., the due process laws, and further the criminal justice system in the US is over and done.

      • pinecone & Nettles – I agree, if Crump were to win the appeal, the bigger picture is US is screwed, it scares the hell of me. Anyone could be GZ or find themselves living the nightmare he/family are living. MOM too mentioned this in his appeal, Crump has a “vested interest in the outcome of the criminal trial.”

  7. re W8

    Given what we know, so far, about her proffered testimony, I can’t fathom what BDLR and co. think she can say that helps their case.

    • hooson1st – I wonder how difficult it is going to be for the jury to understand DD as I had a difficult time, grunting, talking about a “little drip of water.” No matter what she testifies to for the State, surely the Defense will impeach her testimony on the cross examination.

      But what else does the State have? I remain surprised to continue reading TM supporters think ALL the evidence that has not been disclosed t the public supports the State. Maybe they realize that not much in the discovery helps the States case.

      • This may be crazy, and of course, it all depends on what MOM/West learned during her partial deposition, but I think that she would make a good witness for the defense.

        The Crump shenanigans would be exposed three ways to sundown.

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