Home » Uncategorized » June 5, 2013

June 5, 2013


The Lies told by Benjamin Crump to get the right to sue others in this case are shocking from an officer of the court.

The way this has played out, Mr. Crump will now sit for deposition knowing what the other witnesses for the family said in their depositions as he was present as their counsel.  However, this was a big win.  Justice may be slow, but justice will not be denied.  The truth of what happened will become known.

Donations are still urgently needed. Even $5 helps. We got an update yesterday that $46K has been donated in the past week.  Thank you to each and every one of you who put your dollars into this effort.  If you haven’t given please consider it and even if you can’t help financially right now, please use your network to spread the word and ask others to help.

Thanks to the Captain, he put together 3 versions of a one 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. One version is music by the Buffalo Springfield, one by the Beetles and the popular requested one by Tina Turner.

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

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


148 thoughts on “June 5, 2013

  1. On April 2, 2012, O’Steen and BDLR were told by Tracy Martin that Trayvon was not familiar with guns and had not been around guns and that he , Tracy, did not own a gun.

    Does this mean that by this date, the prosecution was aware of the contents of TM’s phone, including the gun pic? If not, why did they ask these questions? Did Tracy Martin tell the truth?

    • When has Tracy Martin ever told the truth? Maybe in the first interview is the only time he told the truth but the rest of the time has been lies.

    • I’m not sure this one in particular is evidence of a conspiracy regarding the phone contents. George had told investigators on day one that he thought Trayvon had seen his gun and said “you got a piece, you’re going to die tonight” or some variation of that. So, investigators may have wanted to know if there was any vaidity to the idea that Trayvon would know how to operate a gun if he got hold of one. That doesn’t mean Tracy didn’t lie, because he probably knew that Trayvon had a fixation with guns.

    • “the well established [rule] is that counsel should be restrained by the court … from indulging in appeals to sympathy, or passion, or prejudices in cases where the feelings may be easily aroused”

      In other words, BDLR, don’t take your cues from the media… you don’t have papers to sell, your only obligation is to seek the truth.

      “It is also held that any remark made by counsel in his argument calculated to arouse passion or prejudice may warrant REVERSAL and will do so in a close case.”

      MOM waives ‘Hi’ to Judge Nelson 😉

      • …kinda makes you wonder, too, about Nelson seating Trayvon’s family directly in front of the jury.

        …and reserving space for AA clergymen in the courtroom.

        These actions will have the same sympathetic and prejudicial effects on the jury.

      • Other words and phrases not mentioned, but should have been:

        Child (Trayvon was not a ‘child’ in the traditional sense of the word)

        Fight (there is no evidence to suggest this was anything other than an assault)

      • Mr. O’Mara wrote about the reversal one day before the 5th DCA reversed Judge Nelson and then the granting of the Writ on Monday. Nice touch that she likely read that on the day she found out she had been reversed. Love it!

    • Nelson: Mr. De la Rionda, do you need to be able to say these things to prove your case? Some of them are used in your probable cause affidavit, which Judge Lester thought was a strong document.

      Bernie Blowhard: Yes, your honor, these are essential elements of the state’s case. If I can’t gin up emotions, I won’t be able to get a conviction.

      Nelson: I’m going to deny the motion. Mr. De la Rionda is an officer of the court. He wouldn’t use these terms unless he really needed them to prove his case.

    • Wow! The other side is quite pissed off with our post here calling for suggestions for Motions in Limine. As they are apt to do, they included me and GZlegal in their twitter conversation last night, mocking and ridiculing my effort to help the defense team.

      A short response directly to them: You have a right not to like it that others are helping to expose the scheme. I understand that some of you genuinely believe the narrative that Mr. Crump and the PR firm put out. I don’t. You already know that. I will continue to try to help the defense team as best I can with this blog. That’s why it was created. I didn’t ask permission of the defense and I don’t take direction from the defense.

      To clear up one misconception you tweeted about, while I am a donor to the GZ legal defense fund, I certainly don’t think that gives me the right to boss around the legal team. As a matter of fact, I try to stay out of their way as best I can. The idea to get suggestions for motions in limine came from the State’s submissions and then from a tweet I saw from Coreshift. I didn’t even know what a motion in limine was and when it was discussed in court, I realized I wasn’t pronouncing it right either.

      I have no legal understanding. I wouldn’t presume to tell the defense anything. I monitor the online conversations and when I see an opportunity to help the defense team, I take it. I know you have referred to me as being “nutty” along with the folks at the conservative treehouse, but to think that the post here directed this team of experienced lawyers is way out there. The news told us at the time the State filed their slew of motions in limine that they are quite normal and reasonable from both sides. It doesn’t take a rocket scientiest to figure out then the defense will likely file some as well.

      This case should put all those in power on notice. If you are not performing your jobs with integrity and honesty, you will be exposed.

      For the case to get this far, its been uncovered that Miami-Dade schools were letting down students by not holding them accountable for their behavior. To bring this charge, the governor had to go outside the county to an office that would file charges where by all accounts, no charges should be filed.

      Self-defense is not a crime. Citizens are allowed to use deadly force in a case of self-defense. Even the biased HLN last night asked the question, why didn’t Trayvon just go home. The answer is because he chose to attack George Zimmerman. He didn’t have to, he chose to. That choice cost him his life.

      That is why there was no arrest. Self-defense is not a crime.

      • I don’t know, Nettles, I think I’m going to take credit for this one. note the following post that I made on May 20th:

        #1 – MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT PREJUDICIAL TERMINOLOGY – Seeks to prevent the state from using the term “profiled” since it has the capability to prejudice the jury without providing any evidence that it is illegal. In other words, even if Zimmerman did “profile” Trayvon, he didn’t commit a crime in doing so, and so it would be unfairly prejudicial to him for the state to use that term which carries an implication that the “profiler” is doing something wrong or illegal.
        #2 – MOTION IN LIMINE TO PREVENT PREJUDICIAL MISCHARACTERIZATION OF DISPATCHER COMMENT – prevents the state or any witness from saying that George Zimmerman was told or commanded not to follow Trayvon Martin or that he was told to get back in his truck, etc. – not only because it was not a “command” from the dispatcher, but also because following Trayvon Martin was not a crime. George was simply following the dispatcher’s earlier instruction (which actually was a command) to “just let me know if this guy does anything else.”
        #3 – MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT WITNESS SPECULATION AS TO MOTIVATION – to keep any witness and the state from offering any speculation that George Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon Martin because of his skin color or because of the hoodie that he was wearing. There is no evidence that suggests either of those is true, and it would be severely prejudicial to George for anyone to speculate in front of the jury that George was motivated by those factors.
        #4 – MOTION IN LIMINE TO LIMIT MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS – seeks to prohibit the state or any witness from using the terms “murdered,” “in cold blood,” “like a dog,” “hunted,” and other terms that do not reflect the facts of the case but are severely prejudicial against defendant.

        Clearly, the defense used these suggestions to create their motion. That’s okay, I wanted to go to law school once and I watch a lot of Court TV, so I think that they could consider me in a way to be a kind of co-counsel.

        I’m just disappointed they didn’t use my other suggestion to limit extraneous courtroom movements and to limit the shine on Bernie’s forehead.

      • Where did you make this post and what was the reaction to it?


        You said: I didn’t even know what a motion in limine was and when it was discussed in court, I realized I wasn’t pronouncing it right either.

        I didn’t either and it’s why I sometimes say sublime instead of limine. Only one person has noticed that so maybe those 2 words are much the same. LOL.

        Spell check in every app I use says it is misspelled or no such word exists. Why does that not surprise me?

    • There others but he did not include them for some odd reason.

      As party of an opening and closing statement to the jury, I think O’Mara should read the probable cause affidavit and show how each point is a lie.
      Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, George is here today because the corrupt SA found a drunken judge in his mistress’s bedroom in the middle of the night and coerced him into signing a malicious, untruthful probable cause affidavit to have George falsely arrested for the crime of second degree murder.

      You have in front of you a copy of that charging document with each lie highlighted in yellow by It’sMichaelNotMike.

      Ask yourself if this is how you want our justice system to operate and what you can do to put Angle Corey, Pam Bondi and Bernie De La Ronda, the real criminals, behind bars for the rest of their lives so that they cannot ever do this again to your friends and family. This is not their first time and unless they are muzzled and put in cages, they will do it again.

    • I have no idea who the larger donors were but, just maybe the emails I sent to individuals who I believed would want to help see that a man has a fair trial may have listened to my plea and sent those larger donations. I don’t know, but I have every reason to believe that the individuals did come through. Of course the donors names are kept secret and that is as it should be. Yipeeee!

    • Way to go Team! $77K in a week. We can hit the target of $120,000. The State of Florida will know that over-charging a man of no means will not stand in this day and age. People will not sit back and watch you railroad a guy who only tried to make his community safer. He got beaten up for his efforts and put in fear of his life. Sadly, he had to defend himself and thankfully he did. Let’s take at least one worry off of George Zimmerman’s shoulders. Let’s give him the money to fight this unwarranted charge.

      dancing bear

      Great Job Team!

      • I thought of him when I read this. I thought of Captain and his videos and the many pleas we’ve put out in emails, twitter, some blogs, facebook. It all is helping.

        We are making a difference. Keep doing what you’ve been doing and challenge others to join the effort.

    • Who cares what some unscientific polls on the HLN webpage say? I think those polls are GOOD news. You know why? If an unscientific poll on the webpage of a channel that portrays George in a negative light regularly cannot get 80-90% to say they think George is guilty before the trial begins, the prosecution doesn’t stand a CHANCE of getting a unanimous jury to vote for conviction.

      Not that I think a hung jury is a good thing – but honestly, I don’t think the state would take it to trial again if the jury hangs 3-3 or something like that. If the jury were to hang 5-1 in favor of conviction, maybe, but I can’t see that as a possibility. If anything, I see it being more 4-2 or 5-1 in favor of acquittal, if it’s not unanimous. The key to this case is going to be jury selection. I hope that MOM/West have hired some good jury consultants to tell them who to pick and who to reject.

      • I hope that MOM/West have hired some good jury consultants to tell them who to pick and who to reject.

        No money for a consultant could mean they might have to use the old meenie miney mo technique but then there’s always the dart method.

  2. When I see polls like this, I am reminded GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. People have been fed so much garbage for over year, so it is to be expected. Aside from anomalies, rabid supporters of TM, I have noticed that when people know the details of the case they are more than likely to vote in GZ’s favor.

    • There is also a natural bias that filters into that polling on this issue.

      There is a larger anti-GZ net population out there, not because of the facts, but because of the racial overtones that have been introduced from the Crump/Julison narrative. So you have a spillover effect from the purely social media part of the net into the legal/political section part of the net which is far smaller part of the net.

      • Last night on HLN they played the part of the tape where Sean asks “Are you following him” George say “Yea”, Sean says “We don’t need you to do that” as they usually do, GZ’s response was not played.

        Then Ryan turned to the mock jury and asks so who do you think was the aggressor. All but one thought George was the aggessor. The one who didn’t think it was on the fence with who the aggessor was. It could have possibly been George but he said he’d need more information than just that clip.

        It’s no wonder people believe what they do.

        • Nettles and Hooson both of you make good points, it a combination of factors, I think this point was mentioned earlier but the media have a vested interest in maintaining the story controversial. This is a fairly straight forward case, the controversy is mostly contrived by outside forces. If the reporting did reflected the simplicity of the case, all the interest would diminish.

    • Weiner says:

      “The judge in the George Zimmerman second-degree murder case today ruled that his jury will remain anonymous throughout the trial.”

      How about anonymous for a day at most? Those jurors will be recognized and identified within 24 hours by those who are in the court room, unless Nelson makes them dress up in Klan garb. Wouldn’t it be something if they voluntarily wore such outfits. We have seen it before in other trials so I guess that means it’s legal.

      We also know that her decisions do not apply to the National Inquirer.

  3. Jeralyn answered a question on the difference between a re-dacted witness & sealed witnesses in her answer to our friend, PUGFRENCH!

    (Jeralyn states the law)

    I REALLY appreciate Jerlayn, Cboldt, others that help us navigate legally.


    imo, Judge N will likely grant this to the Defense, the consequences may be greater to Judge N if a dire consequence is suffered by any of the “confidential witness identifications” MOM is requesting if Judge N DENIED the MOTION. Judge N would again suffer another well deserved beat down in the MEDIA.

  4. GREAT NEWS! Will MOM/West NOW ASK Judge N to use the Daubert Standard, a higher standard than Frye since it is the law today?

    Rick Scott Signs Expert Witness Standard Overhauls into Law

    On Wednesday, Scott added his signature to HB 7015 (“Expert Testimony”) and SB 1792 (“Medical Negligence Actions”), two legal reform bills that were major priorities of Florida’s business community, and whose passage was vigorously opposed by the state’s trial lawyer lobby.

    Florida has now adopted the federal “Daubert” standard (named after a 1993 Supreme Court decision), which means experts will only be allowed to testify if they can prove to a judge that their theories or techniques have been tested, have been subject to peer review, have a low rate of error, and have received general acceptance in the scientific community.


    I don’t think Owens can pass the Daubert Standard.

          • If you pronounce evidence as “ebidence” how can you pass the bar? Is there an exception for ebonics in the law schools in Fla. How could he have ever written any papers in law school when he can’t even pronounce the words?

      • Nettles – because Fla. had used the AGE OLD Standard, the “Frey Standard” which is the lower standard for an expert witness. (notice case of Frye was from 1923.) The Daubert Standard is used by most states, (named from 1993 Supreme Court Decision,) a HIGHER Standard for an expert witness to pass. I had posted on this before, but it was rumored it would not be in effect until July 1, 2013. BUT it is LAW TODAY!

        Great News for the defense, I don’t think Owens has passed Peer Review which is a requirement under Daubert.
        (from above Sunshine Link)
        With Scott’s approval of HB 7015, state courts will now only be allowed to admit expert testimony if the judge finds it to be based on scientifically sound principles. The new law abolishes the 90-year old “Frye” standard (named after a 1923 U.S. Supreme Court case), which allowed expert witnesses in civil cases to offer mere subjective opinion (a type of testimony never allowed in criminal trials). Florida has now adopted the federal “Daubert” standard (named after a 1993 Supreme Court decision), which means experts will only be allowed to testify if they can prove to a judge that their theories or techniques have been tested, have been subject to peer review, have a low rate of error, and have received general acceptance in the scientific community.

        (from Governor’s website)

        Nettles – do you have Rene’s email address? The OS needs to REPORT on this to apply pressure to Judge N, surely the DEFENSE is going to request this Standard be applied as it is law today OR will blow hard arm flapping NUT JOB BDLR claim it’s too late, the Frye Standard had to be used.

        • Art- From reading your link I picked up this in the beginning of the article-

          “Today, Governor Rick Scott signed into law HB 7015, regarding expert testimony, and SB 1792, dealing with medical malpractice litigation.”

          Wouldn’t that mean that the bill only has to do with “medical malpractice litigation”?

          Is there anything in the newly signed law that involves any other expert witnesses? I haven’t read the bill so I really don’t know.

          • Minpin the bill HB 7015 changes the rules of evidence in regards to expert testimony and establishes the Daubert standard and it is separate from the other bill that deals with malpractice.

            • Bori- I just realized there were two different bills. The link I read above talked almost exclusively about the medical issues involving the law. I read the summation of the other bill and realized it did in fact involve all expert witnesses. It would have been helpful to state that there were in fact two different bills concerning the expert witness testimony. When I rear the article linked above it only talked about the medical community. Glad to know that there is movement in Fla. dealing with bogus so-called experts.

        • Art- I just read a summation of the bill itself, and yes it does seem to involve all expert witnesses. It will be interesting to see if Nelson applies her decision by the Frye standards. I think she will have a hard time trying to apply a standard that has been overturned, but coming up just a few days short of the standard changing. Should be interesting.

          • pinecone – imo, It’s easiest to understand if you read Hornsby’s article on what the Daubert Standard means to this case.
            ( look @ Nettles18 June 5, 2013 @ 4:08 pm for the link)

            It’s all pretty complicated, someone else stated Hornsby had tweeted about the Governor signing it into law. I am assuming MOM & West will bring it to Judge N’s attention although I’m sure she is aware of it and the complicated consequences it could mean in this case.

      • Nettles – the short answer is that “Frye” had been the accepted standard for Experts UNTIL today, to change it, was changing the law for the state.. TODAY, Governor Scott signed into law, the Daubert Standard to be used in Criminal or Civil Cases.

        Possibly some of the States experts wouldn’t have gotten in under Daubert NOR some of the Defense Experts. IF Owen hadn’t passed “peer review,” he would be disqualified, I have to go back to read his qualifications to see but I don’t think he has.

        • Sorry should have kept reading, but Owen is using a new untested system, that is proprietary to him, not peer-reviewed yet. Is in the Motion that MOM filed.

      • Prosecutors and their trial lawyers have a lot of power here as we have witnessed in this case. It might even take a while for them to behave themselves and honor this new law. It is the STATE that is the real vigilante.

        • jordan2222 – I think you are right, they should too never be under estimated at the lengths they will stoop to accomplish their agenda.

          The problem is, after July 1, 2013, those not willing to comply may be over ruled by a Judge, because it will be effective.

    • So if the voice analysis ‘science’ passes the Frye test, and the law changes on July 1, can MOM say..”Objection! This expert’s ‘science’ doesn’t pass the Daubert standard!” and call for a Daubert hearing?

      • It seems to me they’re going to have to decide on one standard or another on June 6th and stick to it throughout the trial. That decision may not be up to Nelson since it’s a matter of law. So, the decision on what standard to use will have to be approved of by whoever would do the approving. Which may well require a continuance until they decide. IANAL and mostly just tossing out my thoughts on how it should/will be handled.

      • This is one of those gray areas as the law of the land at the time of the trial is the Frye standard, the legislators did not make the law retro-active so Judge N. can use her discretion and let the Appeals Court fix it later.

    • We have been expecting this but it’s a little bit earlier than what others had said. However, Nelson will say it does not apply in this case since only the law that existed last year when George was charged can be used in her courtroom.

      Howie always says she can do whatever she wants and we have already seen her disrespect our laws, as well as both the US and Florida constitutions.

      If this is valid now, there would be no need for a hearing so if there is one, then we will know if Nelson respects this new law or not. If she does, then she should cancel the hearing with an explanation as to why but she does not like to explain her decisions. There can be only one reason for that.

      Her claim to fame will be judge nullification.

      • I actually believe that Judge Nelson will apply the Daubert standard to all expert witnesses in this case. Having been overturned twice in one week by the 5th DCA, I doubt she has much appetite for that again. This case is almost guaranteed to go beyond July 1st, and the situation Richard Hornsby describes where the state experts are held to one standard and Zimmerman’s experts are held to another is simply not feasible. There is no way in hell that will happen. The 5th DCA would laugh at a judge that allowed that. Consequently, I think that a judge in Nelson’s position would almost have to be realistic about the case before her and go ahead and apply the new standard now so that any experts who may testify after July 1 will be held to the same standard as all other experts in the case.

        • ackbarsays – I wish you would be right. BUT, I think BDLR would have to agree to the new standard & since his Expert can’t pass the Daubert Standard, why would he agree with Judge N? BDLR doesn’t have a case as it is, BDLR objected to the lower Frye Hearing maybe because he didn’t think Owen could even pass that.

          BDLR’s butt is in a sling on a number of issues, he could care less. imo, he is offensive/obbnoxious, I wonder if he adapts a more likeable persona during trial. In KC’s trial, one of the juror’s stated they didn’t like Ashton. What the jury perceived of the aggressive Ashton, I perceived as compassion for Caylee, he/Burdick/George were Caylee’s voice in demanding Justice for her murder. Her mother murdered her, KC’s brother NOR either Grand parent demanded Justice be served for their murdered grandchild or niece.

          Courtroom persona matters, we saw it happen.

          • Why on earth would Martin cry out for help and say “stop” and “I’m begging you?” In what position, relative to George, was Martin when he was doing all of this yelling? Exactly what did he want George to stop? Have folks lost all of their common sense?

            I hope the jury DOES get to hear the state’s expert. The jury will easily conclude that Bernie is nuts for wasting their time in court.

    • From reading the article, the law only applies to “medical experts.” I don’t believe it reaches into voice experts, or any other experts at this time. It is a great move forward for Fla. in that particular area but, it has no bearing on the voice experts in the Zimmerman trial, and I don’t see it affecting the Frye hearing tomorrow. Maybe one day it will be expanded, but this law doesn’t get it there for Zimmerman, unfortunately.

  5. coreshift :
    FROM Hornsby’s article:

    “And if Zimmerman was convicted under this unique set of circumstances, it could set things up for a very interesting appeal.”

    coreshift – I too am brain storming at the possibilities. I would expect the Defense to challenge Judge N if this case goes past the 7-1-13, that the Daubert Standard be imposed though this would delay the trial. She could refuse, the Defense could APPEAL her decision. It would be law, there is nothing in the law that states “unfinished criminal or civil trials” must continue with Frye, Hornsby hints that it could be appealed.

    imo, the blow hard arm flapping POS BLDR is going to raise HELL about this, he won’t conceded EVEN though he knows it could be appealed if there was an unlikely conviction. BDLR isn’t going to agree to the Daubert Standard because if he did, his witness wouldn’t PASS the Daubert Standard. The State has very few witnesses. imo, Judge N may well let in BDLR’s expert, but then she can be appealed yet again, I don’t anticipate Judge N doing the right thing BECAUSE it’s right!

    Can’t you just hear Judge N say tomorrow: “OH! This case will be CONCLUDED BEFORE 7-1-13! DENIED!”

    • Hilariously, on the Leatherman blog, Fred Leatherman said that he thinks Reich would easily pass the Daubert standard. He thinks the other guys are the ones that will have trouble. LOL

  6. I hope it’s ok to do this, for those interested in the police report/FOIA document at TCTH, there is an update. I understand if this is not the place to post this and if this is deleted. My apologies if so.

    What I would like to know, though, is from a legal perspective how can they use it/allow it into trial and what ‘limits’, if any, would be placed on them?

    • It’s is absolutely ok to share information from the treehouse. Thank you for doing it. Never worry about posting their links here. I have no quarrel with the blog or its commentators.

  7. Pipitone – surprise, what a disappointment.

    He ignores the important false information, and focuses on less important items that in sum favor the TM side.

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