Home » Uncategorized » June 3, 2013

June 3, 2013


Donations are still urgently needed.  Even $5 helps. Please give if you can and use your voice to ask others to help. Thanks to the Captain, he put together a quick minute video appealing for donations.  Please share it with your friends and families and see if we can’t generate the funds needed for George to fight these corrupt people. 

For those who are able, please make a donation to the defense fund. Thank you for helping.

Please continue to spread the word and appeal for donations.  Let’s send a message that it’s not ok to subvert the rule of law in any county for any reason.  Help George Zimmerman fight back.  In doing so, you will be helping every defendant that comes after him to ensure they get fair trials. Who knows, it could be one of your loved ones.

For newcomers, please know that racist remarks will be trashed. If you are presenting yourself as a George Zimmerman supporter, please keep in mind this man is in a fight for his life. Conduct yourself in a way that won’t bring heartache and/or embarrassment to the Zimmerman family.

Anyone who wants to share something privately, email me at nettles@bell.net


92 thoughts on “June 3, 2013

  1. Boy is Coreybking an IDIOT lol. Brandi Green was a RENTER! Not a homeowner…

  2. I’ve noticed what appears to be a high percentage of bald men in the legal profession in Florida, based on this case. Might have been interesting for Hornsby to run that demographic, as well, just for fun lol I believe the gene is carried by the mother, so maybe that same gene also leads these women to Florida and makes them encourage their sons to be attorneys / jk!

  3. I don’t think I even subscribed to yesterday’s thread but has there been any discussion about jury instructions?

    Nettles, I have not forgotten to respond to you about Crump’s interview and I will get to it plus also the other one he did

    • Speaking of responses…. I have not forgotten my response to you on the lynching article. I was busy working on morals, dichotomies, and question begging.

      • It’s easy to get behind but thanks for remembering me. I still owe Nettles my take on the recent Crump videos.. so much to read in all of these blogs, ya know.’

        When you say “question begging” to what are you referring?

        I am done with that ridiculous “discussion” about the $25,000 which virtually dominated multiple threads on 3 different blogs that I follow. What a waste of space!!!

        Is your blog back up? If so, I need a current link, please.

        • I received an apology from Analyst1961 late last night. He was sorry the discussion went off in the direction it did. Sounded to me like he’s done with it too.

          I told him he is welcomed back. I would love to have more voices fighting for George Zimmerman. He tells me he made a donation to the fund. I’ll take him at his word.

            • The last thing I heard was $39,000 on Saturday around 4:30 p.m. I’ll see if my friend on facebook has had an update and if she hasn’t I’ll email asking.

            • I had emailed the team asking for an update and they had planned on posting one shortly. Then the news broke about the 5th DCA and I got an email the fund update will likely be posted tomorrow.

              • Nettles, I think there is merit/value in them telling us more about what they want to do with the money…. maybe a general list in priority order WITHOUT being so specific as to show their strategy. Like a charity drive, that could greatly increase participation, public awareness AND donations. I have seen a lot of negative comments from folks who SAY the same thing and IIRC, you referred to that, too. Correct?

                What do you think?

          • He is a likeable, friendly guy and knows as much about the case as many others do.

            As soon someone says, “I would make a donation BUT… ” the conversation is likely to head south. Gifts are not or at least should not be conditional.

            Oh, well, he opened the door and had a difficult getting out, and it looks like he exited at the back door. He’ll be back. He’s addicted like the rest of us and no doubt will watch this until the bitter end. Maybe he did that on the spur of the moment just to change the conversation as some of these conversations are getting old. Such has been the case with that damn NEN call forever. We have been trying to thread a needle over a call that the jurors may never even hear although I think they will if Nelson has her way.

            You: “He was sorry the discussion went off in the direction it did.” Wow, talk about taking a wrong turn and losing your way. It was like “You cannot get there from here.”.. LOL

    • Interesting. They slapped her down for not giving a directed judgment of acquittal in the case as requested by the defendant and for not giving self-defense instructions to the jury.

      • Giving improper or incomplete self-defense instructions to the jury is not new. Maybe you know of some other cases, too. The real issue are the instructions themselves which are woefully inadequate and have been since the law was changed.

    • Judge Nelson: “My interpretation is…”

      DCA Smackdown: “i]t is a settled rule of statutory construction that unambiguous language is not subject to judicial construction.”

      So, in other words, Nelson wasn’t really interpreting the law at all. She simply didn’t agree with the law as written, at least insofar as it hurt the prosecution’s case, and ruled in defiance of the law to the detriment of the defense.

  4. From mordecaiwashington.wordpress.com

    Here is the text of Mark O’Mara’s apology for his misstatement about the homeless men fighting video.

    02 June 2013

    During the Tuesday, May 28th hearing, Mr. O’Mara misstated the nature of video from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone which was included in the Defendant’s 3rd Supplemental Discovery. He stated that the video showed “two buddies of his beating up a homeless guy,” when what happened was Trayvon Martin, along with a buddy, was videotaping two homeless guys fighting each other over a bike. Though it was unintentional, it is a particular concern to us because we are and have been committed to disputing misinformation in every aspect of this case, not causing it. For that, Mr. O’Mara apologizes.

    And here are the texts of the apologies for misstatements by Angel Corey, Bernado de la Rionda, Benjamin Crump, Esq, Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin, Chad Joseph, Brandy Green, Natalie Jackson etc. It is a long list so I apologize for any inadvertent omissions.

    • They are willing to offer any kind of conjecture that will result in a conclusion that George Zimmerman is guilty of murder. They’d be willing to convict on the very flimsiest of theories. They are insane.

    • I don’t have an account there, but someone needs to go tell them that GZ never said he got hit 25-30 times.

      Here is a link to the transcript:


      Serino: How many times, OK, how many times you get punched in the nose? A couple, few?
      Zimmerman: I don’t know, I don’t remember.

  5. Is anyone else having problems not getting email alerts? trying to figure out why not getting emails when check box. hmmm always have.

  6. This reminds me of all of us going around and reading and watching all the forums, blogs, media, tweets, facebook … all of it. You sit there reading or watching and THINK >>>> (watch):

    • Funny stuff, but I liked Dan Quale. After being sent By Busch to determine what problems we have as a country, he said in an address to the ABA that we have too many lawyers.

      • Carlin was a liberal. What’s funnier is the part left off after he goes into Quayle. He starts in on Marilyn Quayle. I couldn’t find the video on that, but posted the routine at Random Topics in response to someone conjuring the vision of Nelson disrobed. Yikes!

  7. I need a little help from my friends. A nut job at the OS CLAIMS MOM/West have LIED to the public & had knowledge of the bike incident since August 2012. She is so rabid she has contacted Natty Jack of her claimed deception.

    PLEASE reference # 13 by West’s list to BDLR in the letter in which MOM/West do admit possibly having the fight/bike video, BUT, I am assuming they have NO audio. Does anyone have a different interpretation of that paragraph?

    Did MOM/West possibly get the audio from their expert when going through the bin file BDLR turned over to them?


    • Art, this likely comes from Natalie’s right hand, BigBoi. She stalks the page and we posted that document here yesterday. Rather Coreshift and I were talking about it.

      BDLR did let slip to the defense about this clip in August. In a Sept. 19th email, Mr. West attempted to get a copy of it. I’ll have to go look at the April 30th hearing but in it Mr. West tells the court when they got the information off the SIM card. This is where the video was. The video was not in the .bin file.

      • So I guess the Defense just around to double checking their discovery of what they may possibly use at trial. The Defense ONLY has to turn over to the State what they plan/may use at trial, they are not bound as the State is to turn over everything.

        Judge Nelson gave both the State & the Defense 24 hours in her ruling to turn over everything pertaining to the phones.

        • I’m short on time right now but if you have time, look up the April 30th hearing. The motion to compel information on Trayvon’s phone was discussed between the 6 minute mark and the 17 minute mark. In his presentation, Mr. West reviews the how and when information came to them and that they believe there is more. It’s at the 17:00 mark when BDLR lies to the court and tells the Judge they didn’t get any reports from anybody.

          There is a hearing tab on the top menu and I think it was Coreshift who taped that hearing for us. Thanks for that Coreshift.

          I’m pretty sure they didn’t actually get to see the video until sometime this year.

    • Art – It is still not clear where the confusion came in. So, it is premature to make any conclusion either way.

      In the absence of a more detailed explanation from MOM (which will likely in the next session) what can be said is that MOM admitted and apologized for the mistake. Contrast that with BDLR, Crump, Jackson and others, there is no comparison.

      • hooson1st – I agree, MOM has apologized & that’s all he can do. I appreciate that he is always professional & respectful even to those that are not deserving & GZ has 2 great attorney’s passionate about his case. Both MOM/West are merely human, they have a tremendous work load, it may have just been an error, I don’t think it matters why the error was made, the important thing is, MOM stepped up & corrected it.

        BDLR is never going to play by the rules, could care less how unprofessional he acts or is viewed by the public. He & Corey were tangled up in another trial in which they acted in the same manner, hiding evidence yet again, yet they never suffer repercussions.

        The MEDIA NEVER retracted the LIES told by Crump/Handler’s/ SybrinaTracy even when evidence PROVED them to be liars.

  8. Was going to bring this up. Glad you guys are talking about it. So…what happens now with re: to that bike video? They just hide it/never release it and let the public think it never existed?

  9. Question for those who know more about the legal process. Will the defense, if character comes into question, be able to q. Stephen/Father about the girl that was at Tracy’s house that almost called the police on Trayvon? It’s based on 2-28-12 tweets from Stephen Martin. 3 of them. They kicked her out and made her take the bus, he said ‘we had a pic but we can’t do it like that’. CTH showed the photo a few days ago and Diwataman has the tweets. I can post them later when not at work if you are not familiar with them.

    • Are these the tweets from cousin Stephen you are referring to?

    • I don’t see any way those particular tweets will ever come in, unless the defense can verify who the girl in question is and she is able to testify that Trayvon was violent towards her or something like that. Even then, it would only be if the state tried to portray Trayvon as a saint who never got into fights or did anything violent.

  10. I jumped ahead and read it… not a good day for the old lady as this is her second time to screw up.

    I was surprised about how much the DCA knows. They KNOW what is going on a level I did really think that they did. That is my take on reading “between the lines” of the sentences. That scares me because I now believe they are in the deal.

    Look for Nelson to limit the depo to name, rank and serial number.

  11. The attorney who will be doing analysis at Legal Insurection during the Zimmerman trial next week, Andrew Branca, had written a good article on when someone’s past can be used in a self defense trial. Here is an important part of that article-

    “The law also differentiates between two legally acceptable reasons why evidence of a person’s past conduct may be admissible in the context of a self defense case. The first reason is that the evidence may help the jury to determine who was the initial aggressor. This is obviously a key issue in a claim of self defense because in most circumstances only a non-aggressor is eligible to claim self defense as justification for the use of force against another. The second reasons is that the evidence may justify the fear of the defendant under the circumstances. This is a key issue in a claim of self defense because in most circumstances a person must be in reasonable fear of harm or death/grave bodily harm before they are justified in using force/deadly force in self defense.”


    Would the fact that GZ told the NEN operator that the suspicious guy was just walking around looking about, and looks like he is on drugs or something constitute prior knowledge. How is prior knowledge determined?

    • I would think that if one or more of GZ’s calls to the authorities with a similar observation was made which ultimately resulted in the arrest of an individual involved in criminal activity, it would be admissible to establish GZ’s bona fides as to observations.

      • hooson- It would seem to me that only the timeline on 2/26 would be allowed at trial. I have no doubt that the defense will bring up the rash of burglaries at the RTL may in fact be introduced, but if I am not mistaken, the defense will not try to tie GZ into those prior burglaries. Wouldn’t that open the door for GZ’s character to be introduced, which could be a can of worms including his past police incidents. I don’t think that the defense will even go beyond the increased burglaries in the community.

  12. Here is another article by atty. Andrew Branca where he claims that there is no possible way that GZ’s defense team gave up his right to an immunity defense request. It is a good read, and hopefully dispels the opinions of those screaming because the defense gave up some kind of rights for GZ-


    I thought I read somewhere where O’Mara said that he would allow the prosecution to put on their circus, and then may possibly ask for a dismissal and immunity. If the state has nothing, and so far I haven’t seen anything more than nothing, a dismissal at that point is possible. Maybe the DCA ruling today against Nelson will make her think again before denying the defense, and GZ, his due process rights under the law.

  13. Lawyer Diana Tennis on The Don Miller Show June 3 2013 talking about using social media in the George Zimmerman case. Recorded by our very own Coreshift, again with thanks.

  14. George Zimmerman Trial: Experts say self-defense claim could be tough to refute in Trayvon Martin killing!

    Among the strongest evidence in George Zimmerman’s defense may be George Zimmerman himself, several experts say – in part, because it may prove difficult for prosecutors to refute his claim that he killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense.


    • “The state is going to have a hard time refuting the claim of self defense- that’s where the case can easily be won by the defense,” Baez said. “The state not only has to put forward their evidence, they have to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and do so beyond a reasonable doubt – I don’t think they can.

      That’s good Jose, but who believes Nelson will instruct the jury properly?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s