Home » Uncategorized » What is the Source? Is it Reliable?

What is the Source? Is it Reliable?

media take I have made some errors in posting and copying news links from unreliable sources. Recently, we have been discussing who is running the Conservative Treehouse and what bias, agendas or games may have been put in play. We are reminded to look at all things critically and be aware before taking opinions and statements as fact. It’s quite interesting to look at the Zimmerman case using the same set of facts and see how each of us interpret them so differently.

Jan L. Jacobowitz, a lecturer in law and the director of the Professional Responsibility & Ethics Program at the University of Miami School of Law and Danielle Singer, a fellow in the Professional Responsibility & Ethics Program and a 2014 JD candidate at University of Miami School of Law, published this paper on August 13, 2013.

In it they write about how slow traditionally, legal firms were to embrace the change in technology. The phone, fax and email. They write how the Zimmerman defense created new ground in establishing a website, facebook and twitter accounts and how social media played a role in jury selection and witness testimony.

Here is their full paper and their conclusions. What do you think? Embrace the change…..Ignore the technology….or establish the rules for fair and equitable use of the new social reality?

Advertisements

211 thoughts on “What is the Source? Is it Reliable?

  1. Most excellent topic for discussion Nettles. I can’t wait to her the opinions on who is reliable and who is not. My 2 cents, there aren’t very many that are reliable. We saw that through the whole Zimmerman saga.

    • Nettles ~ imo, if the alternative for Judges would be questionable political appointments, that sucks. Judge Nelson was first appointed to her Judgeship I think by Jeb Bush, she since has run for that position, but imo, she is too politically connected to be objective to sit on the bench as we all watched. Political appointments imo, many times have a political agenda, just like Governor Scott/Pam Bondi had a political agenda when they appointed Corey to take over GZ’s case, jmho. In an election, everything can be exposed on those running for office & exposed.

      There is a high profile “temporary appointment/Homeland Security” about to take a nasty turn for Obama. Napolitano left to run a University in Ca. earlier this year & her side kick, a Criminal Defense Attorney she brought from Arizona w/her in 2009 that had defended pedophiles, murders, etc. has been recommended for the job by Napolitano. Homeland Security is a BIG DEAL for our nation, complaints flying from former directors of local Homeland Security as well as Senators/Congressman. ANOTHER sweet heart deal for Obama/Napolitano if they could have gotten it in without any flack. What has been pointed out as the biggest problem is that the former Criminal Defense Attorney doesn’t have the minimum requirement of law enforcement of 5 yrs. as well as other specified employment history, too, as many Senators/Congressman point out, some with more than the qualifications needed have dedicated their entire lives serving in Homeland Security in all capacities. The problem, imo, is when politics has an agenda.

      • The proper and ethical alternative is a market-based polycentric legal framework. Law would essentially be the result of the judicial rulings of private courts, rather than of the ‘aristocracy of pull’ of politics/democracy. Poor judges that have a bad reputation for ruling unfairly and arbitrarily would stop being used to settle disputes, and they would go out of business. Nettles once linked to Stefan Moleneux here, who she may not be aware is an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist. Politics (election campaigns or appointments) always contain perverse incentives, so it’s no wonder the results are so poor: insane licensure, anti-drug laws, etc. Even ignoring the results, state ‘solutions’ to social problems are fundamentally wrong at their core, since they are based on the initiation of violence against peaceful people to ‘collect taxes’, and prevent free competition.


        And I realize I’m attacking a sacred cow here so I don’t expect to convince anyone :), but if you’re so inclined also search for Bryan Caplan’s ‘Myth of the Rational Voter’ on YouTube which will better explain why statist democracy will tend to produce bad laws. A good example is minimum wage laws which are disastrous for the poor and unskilled, but politically favorable to buy votes with. Search for ‘Protecting Workers “Rights” Protects Them From Getting Jobs’ by Peter Schiff. You can’t even imagine such a law coming about in free-market legal order. Initiating violence (or threats that will be carried out if they need to be) to prevent any employer from contracting voluntarily with a worker if the consideration is less than an arbitrary price floor? That’s not right or moral, and it doesn’t make any sense on it’s face, unless it’s a government policy of course. For a more detailed discussion of polycentric law, search for ‘Anti-Statism at Light Speed Part 4: Law & Defense’ by Fringe Elements.

        There, I promise I’m done proselytizing 😀

        • And who settles the disputes about whether they are poor judges and whether they have a bad reputation for ruling unfairly and arbitrarily?

          • People would just stop contracting with them, in the same way that nobody would buy something on eBay from a seller with a 7% positive feedback if that same product is being offered by somebody with 99-100% positive feedback. Their job security depends on them being honest and fair. The opinions they render would be fully written up as to their justifications. Judges that don’t do that are not likely get any business, since there would be plenty of competition vying for customers. If a judge cannot satisfactorily justify his/her opinion, nobody will take the opinion seriously.

            It’s all about convincing your fellow man that you’re in the right to take action against the person you’re accusing (i.e. to go in and get your stolen TV back, with some level of force if necessary). If you just get some tough friends to break in and take the TV back, that’s uncivilized. Your neighbours, having seen no good evidence of a crime and a fair trial, other than your say so, will consider YOU the criminal for breaking and entering, even if the guy did in fact steal your TV. The civilized way to handle it would be to contract with the thief to settle the dispute with a reputable judge. If they staunchly refuse to agree to any reputable judges, and would prefer to use their brother Joe as an arbiter or something, then OK it’s looking more and more like this guy did do it and is simply being unreasonable.

            Or let’s say you’re the one being accused of stealing the TV, and you know for a fact you didn’t do it. Your fellow man won’t care if some clown court rules against you based on flipping a coin, or if it’s clear from history that they always rule against black people with shoddy justifications, etc. It’s in your best interest to refuse those judges anyway, since they won’t have good reputations. Those decisions would be considered null and void in the general consensus, and they will afford you the ability to go to somebody more competent. But if it’s a judge with a good reputation for honesty, fairness, and justice, and they rule against you with a fully justified opinion, people will consider you a thief. At this point it’s in your best interest to hand over the TV. If you don’t do it willingly in a civilized way, you will become an outlaw and the courts will blacklist you for not abiding by the decision, etc. It’s in your best interest to go along with the decision if it’s a well justified one, since it’s more costly to ignore it in the long run. And of course the contracts will contain provisions for appeals. You can always try to get decisions overturned by other judges who can better justify their opinion. And if that happens to a particular judge all the time, people will stop using them.

            With any nuanced legal position the judge takes, legal experts and scholars can inspect their decisions and write their opinions of their performance. I’m sure that they would even be independently audited for bribes, since with free competition some judges would agree to submit to that, and so they would attract more business.

    • Not everyone is honest about where they are coming from. I know reading stories about Frances Oliver’s comments on the case ticked me off when the author didn’t alert the reader to the FACT she is Natalie Jackson’s Mom.

      I’m still trying to find out if indeed Velma Williams is Natalie Jackson’s Godmother. She is a local politician and is said to have arranged the family to meet with the Mayor on March 16th. No way, should she be doing anything in the case if she is in any way related to one of the parties.

        • That woman seriously annoys me. It’s difficult for me to believe she even has a law degree. Did you catch her on Greta Susteren’s show back in July?

          Greta challenged Parks on her comments the next day.

          • Yes I saw those. Ms. Rand infuriated me when I watched her performance on Democracy Now on March 20,2012. She knew at that time that Tracy learned of his son’s death an hour after reporting him missing but she didn’t say anything to quell the misinformation that Trayvon laid unidentified in the morgue for 3 days. She wanted that information to stay in the public because it was bringing the public to anger and that translated into action. It is the reason thousands signed the petition.

            Skip to the last minute (9:00 mark) for the question and answer about Trayvon being unidentified for days.

            As a lawyer with the facts, Rand should have had the ethics to bring the truth forward but she spun it for all it was worth. Greta’s interview reveals that Rand fancies herself a social engineer more so than an ethical lawyer.

  2. Sundance has a good post this morning at CTH. It is too complicated for me to understand completely but it covers the issue of unresolved, but resolveable, questions about who and when was material deleted from Trayvon’s phone. The evidence is still on the phone and could provide a forensic answer to whether the there was intentional obstruction of justice by the prosecution in this investigative and trial phases of the Zimmerman case.

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/09/04/the-mysteries-of-the-richard-conner-proffer-hearing-discussed/#more-68801

    • hooson1st ~ IDK, but wouldn’t some of that information about TM’s phone perhaps be answered when the whistle blower does his deposition w/MOM/West & isn’t that encompassed in the “sanctions” BDLR is accused of with holding? I am assuming that MOM/West will do a depo to have everything documented to prepare for BDLR’s lies in the Sanction Motion. It is the with held information on the phone that BDLR is accused of with holding & has his lying butt in a sling.

      I don’t read at the CTH.

      • Yes, some answers should be forthcoming.

        It is kind of tricky and gets complicated real quick, and a lot of it may hinge on a technicality. As I recall, and I might need to be corrected on this, after much wrangling, BDLR handed over the contents of the phone but in a basic form. Meanwhile, the prosecutors had used sophisticated programs to decipher much (potentially) relevant information that was not apparent in the first level or recapture or re-creation.

        Part of MOM’s argument, is that those other portions, recovered by the prosecution should have been handed over as well.

        This logjam is not uncommon in fights between prosecutors and defense counsel. The prosecutor does a “document dump” of sorts, and then tells the defense counsel to use their own time to find what is worthwhile in the dump.

        Of interest are items on that phone that provide a more recent and accurate picture of who Trayvon was in the immediate time period preceding the tragic confrontation and the efforts taken post-killing to wipe damning information off of that phone; i.e. altering and hiding evidence.

  3. O’Reilly Fights Back Against ‘Race Hustler’ Al Sharpton: “Your Day Is Done

    Bill O’Reilly responded to Al Sharpton and the “Grievance Industry” in tonight’s Talking Points Memo. The Factor host has previously stated that George Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin, based on his clothing and appearance, resulting in his tragic death.

    O’Riely is urging the civil rights leaders like Al Sharpton to “stop maligning the country and face up to a huge problem that is directly harming millions, primarily in the African American community.”

    O’Reilly noted that statistically, young black men are the most violent group in the United States. He said the reason is in large part due to the collapse of the traditional family unit. “The civil rights industry and the white power structure basically ignore the problem. They also ignore the entertainment industry putting out vile products aimed at young people, some of whom incorporate the ‘gansta’ culture into their own lives.”

    Well, Sharpton replied on MSNBC, implying that O’Reilly is a racist. “Why is Bill O’Reilly talking about the African American family?” Sharpton charged. He then followed it with a clip from of O’Reilly talking about when they went to Sylvia’s restaurant in New York City together.

    video/article
    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/07/29/oreilly-fights-back-against-race-hustler-al-sharpton-your-day-done#ixzz2dvyiBLL7

    Nettles ~ I posted this here because it is the MEDIA that has promoted much of the BGI & MANY of the sources are clearly not reliable.. Sharpton, imo, is an idiot, continuing to DENY the problems in the black community & FAILING to do anything meaningful to address it, jmho..

  4. I contacted Jack Cashill about two facts I thought he got wrong in the book. 1) Selene’s left to right and 2) Jeantel’s initial statement to Crump about George’s response to “What are you following me for.”

    Jack responded with a thanks and said he got the changes made to the book “under the wire” as the book is now preparing for print. The e-book revision will have the changes as well.

    Great job Mr. Cashill!!

    I’ve also sent some history to O’Connor, the free-lance writer who interviewed Shellie Zimmerman. I hope to peak her interest into digging into the Trayvon side of the story given her inroads with the players on that side. Fingers crossed.

  5. Thought this may be of interest. We may want to dig a little?

    Sheryl Peek, the managing director of State Atty. Angela Coreys office and the individual who fired Ben Krukibos, IT director after he testified about witheld evidence at the GZ trial had suffered injuries from a domestic dispute with her husband back in June. After an investigation, no charges were filed.
    http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-08-08/story/domestic-incident-home-top-corey-staffer-not-criminal-investigation

    Also:

    State Atty. Angela Corey has requested Gov. Rick Scott appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the office of Public Defender Matt Shirk.

    Who is Matt Shirk and related stories
    http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/325916/483/Who-is-Matt-Shirk

    • Interesting story. Corey helps to get her long time protege elected as a public defender, who is then assigned as the defender of 12 year old Christian Fernandez in his murder case, with Angela Corey prosecuting that case, and he gets booted off as the public defender because he has no murder trial experience. Seems to me he would have been Corey’s dream public defender who would purposely throw the case over to a win for Corey, and another conviction on her score board, until someone(s) say hey now wait a minute, this guy is not qualified. So who got Corey’s dream booted from the Fernandez case? And why? Now Corey wants her boy toy Scott to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Shirk’s office? Did Shirk get a few too many questions, or maybe give a few too many honest answers in the investigation of Angela Corey? Has Wes White been successful in requesting the investigation of Corey’s office? Has Kruidbos talked about a whole lot more than her role in hiding evidence from O’Mara?

      Is there anything that Corey comes in contact with that doesn’t have a heavy stench about it?

    • Huh. I didn’t know he was on twitter. He’s using an old but apparently little used account. Created Nov 27 2007 but only 53 tweets. Surprising for a communications director. Maybe he has other accounts.

    • Interesting case Vincent cites starting on page 17… “Lester v. Allied Concrete”

      The plaintiff’s attorney advised him to ‘clean up’ his Facebook account, and the bar subsequently suspended the attorney’s license for five years and ordered the attorney to pay the defendant’s legal fees to the tune of over $500,000.

      Granted, in the Lester case the scrubbing was done ~after~ the defense had formally submitted a discovery request… but at the end of the day advising a client to scrub an account of exculpatory and/or damning content even before such a request is made is still highly questionable.

      Fingers crossed that it’s not a coincidence that MOM’s communications director is familiar with this case!

        • Derp, my bad. The paper used O’Mara’s comments about social media as a jumping off point, but it wasn’t written by Vincent.

          Anyhoo… I must be a geek, I spent the evening last night reading the entire 53 page paper. If folks here have the time, I’d highly recommend reading it! I found their conclusions particularly interesting, i.e. the day is coming where law firms will need to have dedicated social media investigators/members on staff or be guilty of malpractice. Right now the Crumbs of the world can claim plausible deniability, but ABA standards are quickly evolving and the authors of the paper foresee the day where attorneys will be held ethically and professionally responsible for investigating a client’s social media presence to gauge the credibility of a case, client, or witness.

          I was a little disappointed, though, that the authors didn’t explore how bloggers, for better or worse, involved themselves in the Zimmerman case. Now that would be an interesting conversation to have with members of both the defense and the prosecution!

    • He is supposed to be in hiding to save his life. This is the second speeding stop in less than a month? I have to say, this is some poor judgment going on. C’mon George, get it together.

        • Nettles – Tickets are usually issued in all States, it ISN’T customary those that speed get “warnings” in any State, I just didn’t want you to be under the impression that is normal for all States to give “warnings” because it’s not. I’ve never heard of that before GZ was given a warning in Tx., then I read that in Texas if you were from out of town, the first time was a warning as a courtesy which is unusual.

          IF GZ had been stopped the first time for speeding in La. in any parish, the trooper would have KEPT GZ’s drivers license and issued him a “paper stub” for his drivers license & gotten the ticket saying when he was due in Court, only after the ticket was paid, would he be mailed his drivers license in return mail. If you are speeding at a higher rate of speed in some parishes, they take you directly to jail, they don’t play in La., hell, it’s like taxes, it revenue!

          • It IS customary to receive warning tickets in Texas. My husband I received one and we’ve known many other people who have received warnings in Texas. It just depends on the officer. My husband and I were in a small town in Texas on a rural road and a State Trooper pulled us over. The speed limit on that stretch was mostly 70 mph, but we had stopped at a convenience store to get something to drink and when we pulled back onto the road my husband was slowly getting back up to what he thought was the 70 mph speed limit. We must have forgotten that the speed limit had changed by the time we got back onto the road after we left the store. I forget what the speed limit actually was but we were going 63 and the speed limit was either 45 or 55 on that particular stretch. The officer came to my side of the vehicle and I quickly said to him, “What is the speed limit and how fast were we going?” He asked my husband how fast he thought he was going and my husband told him about 63 mph. I think he said, “You were going 60 something.” (I can’t remember exactly what the officer said). He gave us a warning and told us to slow down. There was a speed limit sign that read 70 mph about a quarter of a mile from where we were pulled over. That may be the reason he gave us a warning. It may also be because we were from out of town and neither of us has any speeding tickets on our records as adults.

              • My sister-in-law is a police officer and she gives warnings. She pulled over the captain of the Maple Leafs hockey team a few years back, Mats Sundin, and let him go with a warning. Not everyone is lucky to get one though.

            • dawndoe ~ those small town tickets suck & are speed traps imo, there doesn’t seem to be enough signs giving the NEW speed limit.. Your ticket in the rural area is an example of many La. rural towns. The speed limit can drop 20+ miles p/h. from small town to small town, the biggest speed traps are those that are 60 miles p/hr. on one side of a bridge going over a swampy/bayou area and 40 miles p/hour when you get off on the other side of the bridge, the troopers are lined up to give those unlucky drivers tickets that aren’t familiar w/La. Their expensive, I got one.

              I think your right, it may be at the officers discretion in Tx. on the first time ticket, GZ was given a break by the
              officer, warnings are to teach lessons, sadly I think when GZ has to pay the $ 256.00 ticket, that ticket will be the one that teaches GZ the lesson.

      • lorac – I too agree, poor judgement again in a short period of time, EVERYTHING GZ does will be reported in the news, I say that because anytime KC is even seen out having dinner, it gets reported & she hasn’t even broken any laws, gotten any tickets, etc.

        I assume GZ doesn’t have “cruise control” because he hasn’t used it twice in 6 weeks, he probably too doesn’t have the monies to pay this ticket. The first officier did GZ a big favor by not giving him a ticket, apparently it didn’t teach him anything, his behavior of speeding continued.

      • I agree with you. George, drive the legal speed limits & keep negative publicity that you can control out of your life. You’ve got many supporters who wish you well want to see you recover from our corrupt “justice” system. Your Success is the best punishment towards the haters.

        • Hi Mickey Winner ~ glad you joined us. You make an excellent point, the “negatives GZ can control.” I have a son GZ’s age & he too got a couple of expensive tickets BEFORE it made an impression on him PLUS his insurance premiums went up!

          When GZ visited the gun factory, I didn’t so much have a problem w/it as imo, he didn’t foresee that possibly the picture taken while there would become National News but it did, MORE negative criticism spewed by many in National Media. Just as Don West got caught up in “camera gate” when his daughter posted the infamous ice cream photo bringing unwanted negative attention to Don West during the trial, MANY are just waiting for GZ to screw up. Unless GZ is running from a burning building w/a child in his arms that he is saving the life of, LAY LOW GZ.

    • That area, just outside Orlando (Lake Mary), has numerous speed traps where the speed drops from 60-65 down to 45 or even 30mph in a very short period of time,

    • Most interesting part: “Was Zimmerman somehow singled out along that stretch?”

      George looked like he might get off by just showing his Zimmie license plate. But the cop didn’t seem taken aback. Either he didn’t know Zimmie or he didn’t care.

  6. Asking Robert Zimmerman: Is George really a free man post-Trayvon?
    (September 5, 2013 – The Conscience of a Realist by Joseph Cotto)

    Technically, George Zimmerman walks the streets today a free man. Technically, the multiracial central Florida neighborhood watch captain was acquitted of any wrongdoing in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager. Technically, Zimmerman’s life is his to live without obstacle.

    “Technically is a very precise word,” his older brother and de facto public spokesman, Robert, says. “George has endured an altered reality as many of us have for some time now. I don’t foresee George or anyone else living in the normal of the past.

    “I am certain, in my heart of hearts, he will never be able to move beyond the reality of having taken a life – albeit lawfully & in self-defense – and he will carry that burden for the rest of his life.”

    http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2013/sep/5/asking-robert-zimmerman-george-really-free-man-pos/#ixzz2e1uPlCkI

    • According to Channel 6, Robert Jr. said he would comment on twitter. A sign he doesn’t want to use the media to convey his statement? Who can blame him?

      • Sad to hear. Maybe this is what they both need to move on and recover what they can of their lives. I’m sure the Traybots will be happy to see the suffering they have created for this couple and their families.

          • I too am sad to read about the impending divorce but not surprised after Shellie’s interview, the marriage sounded miserable for the past 18 months living in fear & moving often due to the tragedy, she clearly projected sadness imo. Shellie stood by GZ through the toughest situation imaginable and she too was subjected to the same public criticism as GZ was even though she contributed nothing to the tragedy.

            Shellie can get her life back, move forward using her nursing degree, take back her maiden name & make a new life for herself. Shellie has a future, I don’t know what GZ’s future will be, even if he won the NBC settlement & had money left once everybody he owes got paid, it won’t bring him happiness. GZ won’t ever be a policeman, he may never find a job working in the public, he seems to be a friendly person that enjoyed people, I just hate that although he is free, he may never enjoy the freedom we all take for granted.

    • That’s very sad, but really not surprising after her interview.

      I think it’s pretty clear that George Zimmerman will never get his life back, or not for a very long time. Shellie made the statement that she wants her life back in the interview. Shellie obviously knows that as long as she stays with George she will be marked the same way George is. I guess she decided not to stand by her man, like Tammy Wynette did.

      George was acquitted of all charges brought by the prosecution. He will never be allowed to be acquitted in the American psyche by the BGI thanks to Crump, Parks, NatJac. etc. As O’Mara said, he will always have to watch his back no matter where ever he goes. Shellie would be living under the same circumstances which it seems she isn’t willing to do. That’s her choice to make. For the last year and a half neither George or Shellie could possibly have been living anywhere near to a normal life. I wonder if Shellie blames George for her perjury charges and current position of being under probation.

      As much as I so desperately didn’t want to see Corey, BDLR, Crump, NatJac, Julison, the MSM, and the Martin’s get away with their total destruction of an entire family, I especially now want them to suffer consequences for their destruction of an entire family because George saved his own life, and didn’t just lay there and take his beating like a man. There have been so many that have been killed or badly injured because of the calls for “Justice for Trayvon.” I wonder if all of the injured and families of the murdered in the name of Trayvon can bring a class action lawsuit against the Martin’s and Crump.

        • IANAL, but I doubt she can claim future earnings. They would split what they have now. What each earns after their divorce is their own. Their are no kids to support and they were living off of donations. GZ wasn’t even supporting her. IMO, no alimony claim. Hope a lawyer chimes in.

                  • Rene Stutzman writes in her updated article “The couple separated Aug. 13, according to her divorce filing, and Shellie Zimmerman wants a judge to award her custody of both dogs, Oso, 2-year-old, 120-pound Rottweiler and Leroy, an 8-year-old mixed breed.”

                    So they separated exactly 1 month after the verdict.

                    • ‘Shellie Zimmerman is asking for an “equitable distribution” of their assets, property and debts.’

                      I’m sure the debt she refers to doesn’t include the 2 mil or so GZ owes. Wonder if she’ll claim the work was pro-bono so shouldn’t factor in. Again, could get interesting.

                    • and funny when shellie was asked about her future with george, she said “let’s see” knowing that she was getting divorced; so much for her new found honesty.

                      sounds like her and sybrina might be joining the same church.

                      shellie really seems to be pandering these days. she wants to get on the “hate george” bandwagon; all aboard!

                    • I suspect for that question, Shellie felt that it was premature to discuss the fact that she had decided on divorce and was close to filing the papers. She gave the only answer she could under the circumstances. I give her a pass on that question.

              • Coreshift ~ Shellie could file for bankruptcy after the divorce was final IF she is stuck w/half of GZ’s legal fees & MOM/West would be screwed out of her half of the debt. Hopefully, GZ would do the right thing & PAY the entire legal bill himself.

                KC filed for bankruptcy which dismissed her legal fees owed to Baez totaling $ 500,000.00 & her other debts, some $ 775,000.00. SZ is stuck w/her own student loans, they are federal & NOT subject being dismissed through bankruptcy, you pay it til you die or pay it off one.

                I am reading some that still owe student loan debt are having their Social Security garnished as they still owe for student loans when they started drawing SS. The reason given is usually those that are being garnished went back to school in their 40’s to learn a new occupation if they had lost their jobs & didn’t pay the debt off.

                  • coreshift – I think it will still be simple because there are no assets, the biggest debt is to MOM/West & if Shellie gets stuck w/half that debt. I am speculating, but I assume MOM being the smart lawyer he is, had GZ sign documents guaranteeing payment for his defense from ANY settlement that is awarded by Judgement from NBC after the Beasley firm takes their share.. BUT, regardless if Shellie gets stuck w/half that debt, it will still be simple for Shellie because bankruptcy is always an option, MOM/West will want GZ to assume ALL the debt for his defense because they are aware of Shellie’s options.

                    GZ doesn’t have any leverage imo, SZ could always write a book about her life when she married GZ until the time they divorced, which imo, would be marketable. imo, it would not put many close to GZ in a favorable lite.

                • SS benefits are absolutely not allowed to be garnished or attached in any way.

                  The legal bills for George with Mom and West are GZ’s legal bills, not Shellies. O’Mara/West were representing George. Shellie had no part in his criminal trial expenses.

                  If SZ writes any book about anything, the proceeds of the sales are hers, along with any interviews she gives etc. She can agree to share in those proceeds with George.

                  If GZ gains any money through lawsuits, those proceeds are his, unless he agrees to give Shellie some portion of those monies. The lawsuits will be George Zimmerman v XYZ.

                  Because they are divorcing now, when neither has anything at all, no children, and no jointly owned property, they get to split the kitchen pots and pans, and the bed sheets. That is of course depending on what George agrees to give Shellie from anything he gains in the future, and what Shellie agrees to give George from what she gains in the future.

                  George will likely not owe Shellie any allimony as she is more employable than he is. I also believe they have only been married for about 6 years.

                  I believe divorcing on the basis of “ireconcilable (sp) differences” is considered a no fault divorce. Shellie is not saying that she is leaving because of mental or physical abuse from George. She is not leaving because of adultry.

                    • I believe it is a normal way of asking for the court to rule in your favor. I’m not sure that everyone does that. She isn’t putting her religion in a divorce filing, I have no idea what religion Shellie is. It is a respectful way of making a request.

                    • It struck me as odd but I have to admit, this is the first set of divorce papers I’ve ever read.

                      To see a prayer for an event rather than I ask the court to grant…. just seemed out of place. But you are right, its a respectful way to ask.

                    • It’s legalese, and probably gets used more in some places than others.

                      Used to be you could sometimes get what’s callled a “Prayer for Judgement Continued” on some charges, like driving drunk, depending on the judge and the venue and other variables, which amounted to the judge putting the case in limbo, not ruling you either guilty or not guilty but postponing making that ruling indefinitely.

                  • Minpin SHARED: SS benefits are absolutely not allowed to be garnished or attached in any way.

                    Minpin – that is not correct, the laws changed in 1996. It’s understandable because MANY would NEVER repay their student loans, especially those acquiring loans in their 40’s & 50’s, they possibly didn’t make enough money to repay them or whatever.. Social Security benefits CAN be garnished for student loan debt because it has happened to a friend of mine & I helped her research the law OR I would not have been aware of the law either. Just GOOGLE SS benefits PLUS student loan debt.

                    (1) Social Security benefits are generally protected against garnishments. Social Security, along with just about every other government benefit, is “exempt” from collection. That means nobody can get at it to pay a debt.

                    NOBODY THAT IS EXCEPT UNCLE SAM , by his G-men at the U.S. Treasury. Since 1996, the Debt Collection Improvement Act has authorized the Treasury Department to collect money owed to the Federal government by garnishing Federal benefits and pay. Within the past few months, GARNISHMENTS of SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS HAVE ACTUALLY BEGUN.

                    Only “non-tax” Federal debts can be collected this way. Such debts can result from (among other things) UNPAID STUDENT LOANS, defaulted HUD, FmHA, or FHA mortgages, and overpaid Federal benefits, including Food Stamps.

                    http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=2501

                    (2) Can Your Social Security Check be Garnished?
                    If you owe money on a student loan, it doesn’t matter how long ago you were in school, a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case (Lockhart v. U.S.) determined there is no statute of limitations on Social Security offsets to repay student loans. The government can shave off up to 15%, provided your remaining monthly benefit doesn’t drop lower than $750.

                    http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/11/02/can-your-social-security-check-be-garnished/#ixzz2e85ovGfO

                • You are conflating federal student loans with private student loans. No one has any idea what type of student loans either George or Shellie had. If they were private sector student loans they cannot be attached by the federal government when someone begins collecting SS. Of course the argument is moot as both George and Shellie are at least 30 years away from regular SS eligibility.

      • I posted that tongue in cheek. As Sundance put us all on notice here that O’Mara is only wrapping up the State of Florida vs. G. Zimmerman.

        If that were true, I wouldn’t expect him or his law firm to handle his divorce either. Right?

          • Now that I think about it, MOM probably wouldn’t take it on principle. He is probably cursing at this moment, angry at how this divorce is reflecting badly on him, George and Shellie are making him look bad in the eyes of the Florida legal world. That’s all MOM cares about, looking good to and fitting in with that elite group, you know lol

        • It’s interesting how RM started coming here, and you kept letting him know you thought he was SDC. Then RM stopped, and SDC immediately started coming. Now neither comes lol

    • Nettles – GZ will need representation, but the divorce should be fairly simple, I don’t think they have any assets to split or fight over, they probably have community debt, car notes, etc.

      I hope SZ filed under “irreconcilable differences” & there is not a list of reasons for the divorce, which, would make the news by way of the Sunshine Laws & would be reported endlessly & dissected. Not many couples could stand up to the pressures of the conditions they have lived under.

    • Does someone need to be prepped to just tell the truth?

      Nettles- If you bring back up the portion of O’Mara questioning her, I believe he asked her about money. Didn’t he ask her if they had anything else that could be considered assets, or something like that? If O’Mara was kept in the dark about the funds, which seems to be so on the jailhouse tapes, I would question Simms making that comment.

      • His statement appears to bolster the argument there was no master plan to mislead the court. She wasn’t even aware she was going to be asked about money.

        Everyone telling her its other people’s money sounds like after the fact to rationalize why she chose to mislead the court when the questions did come up. Again she wasn’t aware she’d be talking about their money according to Simms.

        I wonder if how Shelly viewed this and how George viewed this is one of the things that lead to their differences and eventual split. They split up 2 weeks before she pled guilty. One would have to believe that would be around the time the plea arrangement was being sought.

  7. Well, one good thing will come out of this divorce. By separating from George she’ll be less of a target. People will believe that she married an abusive and controlling man. They’ll feel less animosity and more sympathy.

    • She will likely have an easier life starting anew.

      I really admire her supporting George through the trial. To learn they were having problems before the shooting and watch her stand by George so, shows a great strength of character and love.

      I’m so sorry she didn’t get back what she needed. I wish her all the very best. Her learning lesson of telling the truth will serve her well in the years ahead.

      Hugs to Shellie. ♥ You are an amazing woman.

  8. I’m not sure who all of our new visitors are but I’d like to say hi. We normally have about 130 visitors a day and for the past 3 days that has been around 210 visitors. We’ve only had one new commenter this week.

    Not sure what brought the group to the blog but please feel free to join the conversation. Don’t be shy.

  9. “John Donnelly, a family friend who testified in George Zimmerman’s defense at his trial, told Reuters that Shellie was “devastated” when her husband “just packed up and left” after his acquittal and was gone for a month without telling anyone his whereabouts. Shellie had lost touch with him and had grown increasingly upset, Donnelly said. Donnelly added that he and his wife had been taking Shellie to dinner and a movie weekly since the acquittal.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10290414/George-Zimmermans-wife-files-for-divorce.html

    • I was just going to post that. I wanna give GZ the benefit of the doubt and say he needed some alone time to get his head on straight. Even so, he was very insensitive to how Shellie would feel about it.

      • This is just so tragic. They had some issues before this all happened, but a lot of people have struggles in the first decade of marriage and get through it. I really hold the BGI, the media, and the State for the path this all took.

        I simultaneously feel generous towards George, and also exasperated. While I realize he went through a year and a half of something we can only imagine, and also has a forever changed future – but gosh, he was so amazingly stalwart for so long – he couldn’t hang on a couple of more months to be there for Shellie as she had for him…? Even if they had an inkling they might break up, they were still partners. It seems George was such a giving person before this event, always there for others. This case must have been so traumatic that the minute he was free, he had to fly, and self-care. Then my mind goes back to thinking, “oh, that was so selfish” that he couldn’t hang on just a little while longer to be there for Shellie for her trial. So I go back and forth lol

        • I hear you. Can you imagine the terror she must have been under, not knowing where he was with all the death threats out there against him.

          Then the added terror of facing the State of Florida as a defendant alone.

          It’s hard to be too upset with George. I understand his need for time alone but it was inconsiderate. Surely with a little communication of what he needed and why plus a little check in to say I’m safe wouldn’t hurt and help those worried about him.

          In tough times like these, you really learn who you can count on and who you can’t. Who knows what dynamic and what George learned about those he trusted and loved.

          Let’s just hope and pray for both of them they end up happy and thriving sooner rather than later.

          • Yeah, you know it could be that George is very depressed and following from that, self-absorbed. Plus, if he is depressed, he may not feel he has anything to offer anyone else, he may not feel he deserves to really know anyone or be married to anyone. Maybe to get through the trial he had to keep his feelngs in check as much as possible, but once it was over, he was free to feel it all – and it could be really overwhelming. He got what he wanted at trial – and yet it’s not all flowers and sunshine aterwards. That’s got to be tough – to fight and be tough and then win – but then there is not truly relief.

            Darn racebaiters.

            • I seem to recall GZ was told to show no emotion during the verdict, but he broke down after and told his mom to take him home or something like that. Maybe it was he just wanted to get out of there. Sorry, bad memory. I can’t remember where I saw that.

            • I know some people have looked at GZ’s not coming to the courthouse in a harsh light, but to me that would be the last place I would want to be near or in. As for his driving away without telling anyone, might have just been someone who, for the first time in 18 months was free, no curfews, no check-in, just freedom.

              • I get that. I do recall George Zimmerman being at court in those early days and no one from his family there to support him because they were all scared to death to show up. It wasn’t until George’s 2nd bond hearing (June 29th) that Robert Jr. came to court for the first time along with his Dad who testified. Before then, George had to handle court entirely on his own…no wife there either.

                One must wonder, where is Shellie’s support team? Her grandmother accompanied her once to court when George was on trial. I was so sad for Shellie on the days she sat in court alone in the family row. That was during jury selection.

                As she found herself a defendant because of her support of George, I certainly understand her anger and hurt at him not being there or anyone else in his family the day she had to face the judge.

          • It is such a shame and extremely sad to hear of the break-up. Just more victims to the tally of some unscrupulous people. I don’t know the inner workings of what had happened before, during and after so I will reserve any judgment other than to say that it is sad to see them end this way. I only hope that GZ does not end up like the Atlanta Bombing suspect, Richard Jewell who never really got his life back together after being accused of the bombings and died by 44.

              • I am not sure how being labeled National Racist Menace #1 does not destroy a person, leaving them obsessed with deep confusion, frustration and isolation. On top of the challenges of adjusting to having killed a person, I suspect GZ has radically changed, and is consumed by stress and anxiety.

                I think Shellie explained herself when she said she wanted kids and her life back.

                • I agree Cassandra. Both George and Shellie are probably different people now. Their lives have been forever changed. But Shellie wants a normal life again, and it will be possible for her. At this point, George probably doesn’t know how to pick up the pieces or how to cope. I hope he finds a way.

            • That is my sentiment as well Bori. There are always two sides to an argument. No one can honestly argue for or against either side as no one was a part of the married couples interactions on any regular basis, and no one was living under the conditions that this couple was. How many have lived with constant death threats that must be taken seriously, as there really are some that would actually go through with their threats. I took the bounty put out by the Black Panther’s very seriously and had little doubt that they would deliver George dead if they had the opportunity.

              I had come to believe that George was a good hearted soul who looked out for his family, friends and neighbors. Didn’t George’s legal team even speak of his compassion and sense of caring. Remember Mark O’Mara’s statement after George helped to pull the family out of the burning car. He said that that was George just being George. I have to wonder if George may not have pushed Shellie away from him purposely in order to keep her more safe. Shellie would have as much of a target on her as George does if they remained together. On the other hand Shellie may feel that George was spreading his time and attention around too much, and wasn’t giving her the time and attention she needed. Wasn’t it George who tutored the black children in their neighborhood? Wasn’t it George who took up the black homeless man’s cause? Wasn’t it George who volunteered to act as the head of the neighborhood watch? Perhaps that is why Shellie said she felt as though she was so alone.

              BTW, didn’t Richard Jewel wind up committing suicide? Even after winning large monetary awards, the time Jewel spent fighting those who rushed to judgement was something he could never mentally overcome.

              • From Wikipedia:

                “Jewell died August 29, 2007, from natural causes at the age of 44. He was suffering from severe heart disease, kidney disease, and diabetes.”

                One suspects that what the press dragged him through didn’t exactly add any years to his life.

  10. Gosh, this is so profoundly sad. I was suspicious of some sort of trouble in the marriage when he was alone when he got pulled over in Texas for speeding. It could very well have been that he and Shellie were visiting friends or relatives in Texas, but his answer to the officer when asked where he was headed was a red flag for me. He said something like, “Nowhere in particular.” That didn’t sound like someone who was out on an errand while visiting friends in Texas. It sounded to me like someone who just wanted to be alone and roam free, which didn’t sound good for his marriage. Then he was at the gun factory alone and that furthered my suspicion. I’m sad to see that my suspicions were true. I just hope that Shellie doesn’t air their dirty laundry in some tell all book or further interviews. George doesn’t need to be further demonized. It would be great if they could reconcile. You never know. I’ll just continue to pray for them.

      • Notwithstanding that, this interview raises questions that go beyond the mere matter of the divorce filing. It does not change, however, the facts surrounding the events of that fateful evening.

        • hooson1st ~ you are correct, it doesn’t change the circumstances or facts of the tragedy, but the case did IMPOSE unimaginable consequences upon SZ for which she was not involved & only married to GZ.

          SZ suffered the same consequences, there were problems in the marriage BEFORE TM died, the problems escalated afterwards. The divorce rate is OVER 50% in our country & the divorce rate is higher for death, cases such as this, debt. It’s understandable imo why SZ wants a divorce & doesn’t want to absorb the hate, bitterness, slander spewed at her that she has lived with until now & GZ will continue, probably for the rest of his life. No doubt this case has changed both of them. imo, years from now when SZ has moved on in her life, she will appreciate the fact GZ left, he did her a favor, jmho. I pity GZ & his future decisions, his life will unfairly always be difficult.

          imo, there is no doubt SZ is trying to distant herself from GZ, MOST people that divorce do, some stay civil that share custody of children together, but usually there is no love loss in a divorce.

    • She’s young and feels neglected and needy. She shows bad judgment in talking with the press. I think she believes using the press will create distance between herself and the George haters.

      • cassandra ~ jmho, I don’t think the words I would use for SZ would be “neglected or needy.” imo, she feels she has been disrespected by GZ, she has stood by him under the most difficult of circumstances when many young people would immediately separated or divorced. SZ supported GZ & held her head high appearing in Court w/him. That is what a marriage is, SZ suffered the same as GZ, his living conditions were the same as hers, the hate spewed at GZ was too spewed at SZ, she was just as fearful & uncertain as GZ & moving repeatedly.

        There is no doubt GZ has made some questionable decisions, they make National News & will discontinue, hopefully when he chooses to make better decisions in the future. imo, SZ isn’t needy, she has had a GUT FULL of GZ, who wouldn’t? If SZ wants to state her case to the MEDIA, I don’t have a problem w/it. She absorbed ALL the criticism by the MEDIA of herself & GZ, if she wants to clarify why she is divorcing, that’s her right. Speaking out will distance her from GZ & TM supporters spewing hate at her, it is part of her moving forward in her life.

        Too, SZ may NOT have wanted RZ Jr. commentingout or speaking on WHY she is divorcing GZ. RZ Jr. speaks out for the family, Jr. wasn’t in the marriage, he will be ask about GZ/SZ’s marriage & SZ may have wanted to set the record straight. Hopefully. RZ Jr. doesn’t speak out imo.

        • You’ve clearly drawn your line in the sand on who’s “side you are on” haven’t you Art Tart? I suspect you don’t know either personally, nor do you have any idea of the circumstances they were both living under for the last 18 months, nor even the six year period of their marriage.

          • pinecone – ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has to know GZ or SZ for 18 months or 6 years to understand what has been exposed in the MEDIA on the marriage. WHY do we know how hard their marriage & mere existence has been? BECAUSE MOM spewed it in countless interviews & still does as to how “difficult & unimaginable GZ’s living situation was,” BUT, GZ didn’t live alone, he lived w/a wife that suffered the same consequences he was suffering. We know there were problems in the marriage BEFORE the tragedy, SZ wasn’t even staying at the home the night of the tragedy but with her family. YEP! No one has to know the couple to understand how difficult their marriage has been, common sense should prevail, moving endlessly, threatened, living in fear, is a lot to contend with in the healthiest of marriages. ALL of which were not SZ’s fault, but SZ was there in her support as she was the trial.

            GZ didn’t show his support for SZ in court BECAUSE he didn’t want to. Why some even bothered to make excuses for GZ imo was embarrassing especially since GZ clearly made the decision to tour the gun factory enjoying his trip that got endless negative National publicity & as some thought, showed poor judgment. Even MOM’s firm was displeased & made a statement on GZ’s decision, it was GZ’s right to do so, but did he really need MORE NEGATIVE attention over guns & did his decision serve him well? SZ spoke out because she wanted to, WHY anyone would have thought that was a happy marriage is puzzling to me, how could it have been?

            I am a die hard supporter of GZ but I am different than some GZ supporters here, I view GZ & his decisions objectively & I don’t make excuses for GZ’s behavior when he is clearly wrong.
            The ONLY criticism I have read about SZ’s MEDIA appearance has been on this blog, UNLIKE the criticism GZ receives if he should do something & it’s reported negatively in National MEDIA endlessly, I haven’t read any criticism of SZ in National Media NOR has GZ suffered threats or consequences causing him to uproot his life & move endlessly from anything SZ has done.

    • He makes a good point about people who are perpetually uninformed. I spoke to many that followed that did not follow the trial or incident but were dead set that GZ got away with it. All they could point to was some of the bad reporting of the case,

      He makes an interesting point about Cutcher, she assumed that the black guy had shot the other one, but realizing her mistake she went full-bore the other direction, though she saw little to begin with, other than shadows.

        • She should be ashamed as well, for a multi-racial person she bought the whole Narrative hook, line and sinker. It astonishes my mind when you have commentators ( who are supposed to be educated and smart) that are commenting based on race, rather than the facts. Do they not realized the danger that poses? Or do they even care?

          • Mark Geragos had her number. He told her that she was bringing her own stuff to the case. Upon reflection, I hope Sunny realizes she did and in doing so, she did herself a disservice and all of the viewers.

            When it was revealed that Rachel was 18 and she didn’t give Crump a signed affidavit under oath on March 19th, I tweeted Sunny asking her how she felt about being used to bring those lies to the CNN air. Never got a response and she continued to carry the water for Crump.

        • Nettles – did I overlook something that said Sunny Hosstin was leaving? CNN employs many legal analyst, she is probably the most qualified as a “former Federal Prosecutor” but I can’t stand her from years back as I follow MANY high profile cases & she’s always the same, it is as if role is “the devil’s advocate.” Ever notice that BESIDES Mark Garagos, rarely is she ever challenged? Poor Vinnie P., when he disagrees w/her, he presents his side of an argument as if it were a question, then Sonny continues to state WHY she thinks he’s wrong. Sonny doesn’t apologize, ever, NOR does Nancy Grace that CONVICTED the Duke Lacrosse players night after night frothing at the mouth, spewing hate, rabid, slanderous, & having convicted the players without a trial. NG NEVER EVER apologized NOR did Al Sharpton to the Duke Lacrosse players.

          Mark NeJame is too a PAID Legal Analyst for CNN & he records his segments from Orlando as well opinions pieces he contributes to CNN as well. I assume MOM will do the same.

          • No you didn’t miss anything. Her leaving CNN is my wishful thinking but she was on Brooke Baldwin’s show this afternoon. I tweeted Mr. O’Mara that I hoped he was Hostin’s replacement.

            Mr. O’Mara tweeted out he’ll be on the next show at 3:40pm today. He appears to be in New York and going from show to show starting with their morning show. The 3:40p appearance will be his 3rd one. I’m sure he’s signed his contract as well.

            This could provide an awesome opportunity as Mr. O’Mara gets to know the producers and executives at CNN. I note he’s added this personnel in his twitter account the last few days. He has information that he can pass onto field reporters for some possible stories and things that will help society overall ensure all persons get justice and how the media can do a better job critically looking at the statements given to them.

            I hold out hope for the news that Hostin has been fired from CNN. When that happens, the media reporting just got better.

            • Nettles ~ Fla. has so many HIGH profile cases in the news & Fla. Law is different, MOM/NeJame will do a great job on explaining the law & educating the viewers plus commenting on other high profile cases that aren’t in Fla. You’re right, this is a great opportunity for MOM, he deserves it & all the whining/dining he is receiving while in New York. Baez tried to get a job as a Legal Analyst AFTER KC’s trial but failed as the case was even more unpopular than GZ’s, Baez couldn’t even get a book published, Baez would have been detrimental to any Media that used him. Too, due to Baez’s lack of experience as an attorney, a total of 5 yrs. after KC’s case prevented him from doing so & imo, because the Fla. Bar with held his license to practice law for 8 yrs. due to his character & the reasons the Bar denied Baez was available through the Sunshine Laws & all over the internet, even the OS ran the Bar letter/reasons to Baez. CBS uses him some on a few interviews, he surprised me & did well. I hope Corey/BDLR are green w/envy of MOM, can’t you just see the 2 morons scratching their heads at MOM’s good fortune?

              LMAO, I thought that was wishful thinking on your part for Sonny to leave, I would speculate that Sonny retired as a Federal Prosecutor & draws her retirement monies as well as her salary w/CNN. I am afraid she won’t be leaving, she certainly isn’t going to go back to practicing law for a living, that’s hard work PLUS a job benefit she enjoys is getting her face on TV daily. I too hope she leaves & I hope Garagos stays, he’s to entertaining when calling her out.

    • good rene; remember to put in #trayvon to try to get more peeps; #smh

      what does trayvon have to do with that lawsuit rene? get a grip.

  11. Hello Nettles
    First time poster to any of the GZ case blogs. I want yours to continue — the story is by no means over. I hope Diwataman stays on his as well.
    I would like to hear from you which Canadian news sources or figures would you say got this case the “most” right.

    I have my own private list now of persona non grata US journalists and public figures — the case has become a barometer for me as to whom I should take seriously in the future.

    • Welcome Sad Lib. I know how you feel. The list of reliable news sources for the GZ case is quite small.

      I found most of the news reports in Ontario were not written by the Canadian reporters. They picked up Associated Press articles quite regularly.

      I think Hooson1st got it right that it begins with local reporting and the bigger new media just pick up what local news did.

      It boggles my mind how facts just get simply ignored. Like SYG not used in the case yet persists in the public’s mind that the law got Zimmerman off.

      Thanks for joining the conversation.

      • Welcome Sad Lib- What you said must rankle George to no end. He got the trial that he wanted, the evidence was put out there for all to see and yet, he is still seen as the villain. He life is essentially over, he can’t go back to school and finish his degree, he can’t get a job, he is getting a divorce, some of the family’s dirty laundry has been aired and while TM and his family is celebrated, he is still in jail.

        • Rankle, definitely the right term.

          The Martins’ new fame rankles my mind, when I think about the injustices to all of us caused by their lies.

          • The family will get their day of reckoning eventually, as their use diminishes in time. You can’t lied as outrageously as they have and get away with it forever. They are not even good liars at that, as their lies have been exposed, and will be for anyone willing to look.

        • Thank you both for your welcome!
          Should we (soon or eventually) compile a list, a little tribunal of good and bad reporting/commentary. I hope our perspective will be a mere preview of how all will be judged in hindsight. (not sure if that’s what’s happening to Sunny Hostin)

          Perhaps also eventually a list of the questions that dog us and have not been explored elsewhere?

          I feel a little like I did after the news broke of the discovery of Elisabeth Frizl — unable to rest or think of much else until her daughter was out of her coma and reported likely to survive her illness.
          The latest about George and Shellie is painful, and there is still so much more to play out and players to be held accountable. Thank you again I will be following here!

    • This does raise an interesting ethical dilemma…

      If a lawyer takes on a high profile case even if only partly to make a name for himself with his eye on public office and/or becoming a legal analyst for the networks, doesn’t that inherently create a serious conflict of interest between the attorney’s personal ambitions and the best interests of his client?

      How much did self interest. for example, influence the defense’s decision not to pursue and expose ABC’s recording of the Crump/Jeantel coaching at trial?

      Was Gutman even deposed or listed as a potential witness…?

      This was a huge impeachment issue handed to the defense on a silver platter, and not going there ran the significant risk that the jury would somehow find Jeantel credible.

      Did it come down to not wanting to burn any bridges with the media (i.e. prospective employers)…?

      • Similar ethical questions were raised in regards to would O’Mara and West move to remove Judge Lester if they have to go up against this Judge in future cases.

        How can you be sure that the lawyer is acting at all times in the best interest of the client and not what is best for the lawyer’s career or future success?

        Leaving personalities out of the analysis and debriefing on all that occurred, what constraints were the lawyers under, what strategies did they take to affect the client’s acquittal, what did they choose not to do (ie: pre-trial immunity hearing). Were these decisions in the best interest of the client at all times or for the lawyers at times.

        Sundance at the treehouse started to get me to question the lawyers’ motivations in July 2012 over the pay pal fiasco and watching the inaction in dealing with Lester’s motion to grant the 2nd bond. When the lawyers announced on August 13th they were petitioning for a writ to remove Lester I had those suspicions put to rest.

        One could argue that if the lawyers are motivated to get high-profile jobs in the future, they are even more motivated to get a win for their client.

        Do you think Mr. O’Mara would have had this job offer if he lost the case? Maybe, maybe not.

        O’Mara did attack the press. His comments after the verdict was awesome to the press and every member of the press needs to hear it. As a reminder, our own Coreshift put it on video for us.

        • It would be wonderful if this CNN gig actually made O’Mara more independent of the legal sausage-making in FL, so that there would be less at stake, pragmatically speaking, for him if he really pursued the miscreants in this story now to make them accountable. (isn’t that what we are supposed to expect Atticus Finch would do?) I hope that makes sense.
          A smart media outlet would be courting Don West too!

          • Any smart media outlets would be running as fast as they could from Don West. Smart media outlets would be seeking the truth wherever it happed to be. The media outlets that have reported on the Zimmerman case have run as far and as fast as they can from the Don West types who want a fair and honest legal system. The majority of media outlets covering the Zimmerman case have no interest in facts or details. That was very obvious throughout the entire charade. They took the Julison designed story and ran with it, no matter what. That is the problem with most of the MSM. They are only interested in one side of the story, no matter what the issue.

            I’ve clicked on the reply button to sad lib, but for whatever reason this reply is saying that it is to Art Tar. My reply is for sad lib who posted at 5:41 PM today.

            • I am glad to see O’Mara at CNN. That is finally a step up for them. Whatever he has to comment on will be thoughtful, tied to the law, and well-reasoned.

      • Mark O’Mara was a CNN legal analyst during the Casey Anthony legal debacle. This isn’t his first rodeo with being a legal analyst for a major MSM site. CNN and the ABC broadcasts are major competitors.

  12. I was curious as to WHAT Fla. Law was on debt in a divorce so I looked up Fla. Law for the explanation, wondering what debt both GZ & SZ would absorb. Of course GZ could ASSUME ALL legal debt if he chooses to during the asset negotiations of the divorce, even if GZ signed the written agreement w/ MOM as his Attorney solely, it DOESN’T protect SZ even if her name was not on the legal document.

    ARTICLE: :What is Marital Property in Florida?

    Unless a couple has a valid written agreement stating otherwise,* marital property in Florida includes all assets and debts either spouse acquires during the marriage. It doesn’t matter if the property or debt is titled jointly or is only in one spouse’s name. For example, if your spouse opens a credit card account and your name is not on it, you are still jointly responsible for the charges on the card, even if your spouse did all the spending (unless a court finds that your spouse wasted assets, for example, if the spending was reckless – see discussion below).

    What is Separate Property in Florida?

    Before dividing property, a couple must determine whether either spouse owns any of the property separately. Separate, or “non-marital,” property is not subject to division in divorce. Property is separate if one spouse owned it before marriage or acquired it during marriage as a gift (not including gifts from the other spouse) or by inheritance.

    Separate property also includes:

    assets and debts a couple defines as separate property in a valid written agreement (a premarital agreement, for example)
    income from separate property, unless the spouses have treated the income as marital property, by “commingling” it, for example (see below), and
    items exchanged for or purchased with separate property.

    http://www.divorcenet.com/states/florida/equitable_distribution_of_property

    * Pre-nup

    ‘Shellie Zimmerman is asking for an “equitable distribution” of their assets, property and debt” perhaps not because she wanted too, but BECAUSE that is Fla. Law. . Unless SZ had a pre-nup, she is bound by ALL debt as is GZ.

    Since the onset of the case, during the PAY PAL account getting donations & MOM being hired, I don’t see any reason that either GZ or SZ would have gotten a “separate written agreement” that GZ’s legal debt would be solely his own, imo. they thought the PAY PAL account would grow, SZ supported GZ’s innocence & planned to stand by GZ & did during the duration of the 18 month ordeal, , imo, they didn’t see divorce in their FUTURE. 18 months is a long time & neither could foresee the backlash for the continued duration the case would encompass, a lot has transpired, etc., it’s easy to see why it unraveled.

      • pinecone – the link explains WHY SZ isn’t protected from GZ’s legal debt. The ONLY way SZ could be protected is if she had a pre-nup drawn up when she was 20 yrs. old before she married GZ. Neither had assets then or now, that’s why SZ’s student loan debt is so high, they were a young couple w/little money & financed their educations. GZ too most likely has student loan debt as well as other debt but the debts will be combined when the “equitable distribution” is negotiated. It doesn’t matter if one spouse has more debt than the other, they are combined debts.

        A Pre-nup would have protected SZ if she had one, but, since Fla. is an “equitable state” & SZ requested “equitable distribution,” it indicates she had NO pre-nup that would have protected her.

        FROM SZ’s divorce papers:

        ‘Shellie Zimmerman is asking for an “equitable distribution” of their assets, property and debts.’

        “Equitable distribution” is Fla. Law & that’s why SZ stated it in her papers.

        IF SZ had a Pre-Nup in place, she would have been protected, her divorce papers would have read something like this:

        SZ request to be held ONLY responsible for her debt, she has a Pre-nup in place protecting her from her spouses personal debt.

        Quote from above:
        It doesn’t matter if the property OR debt is TITLED JOINTLY or IS IN ONLY ONE SPOUSE’S NAME titled. For example, if your spouse opens a credit card account and your name is not on it, you are still jointly responsible for the charges on the card, even if your spouse did all the spending (unless a court finds that your spouse wasted assets, for example.

        I too listed 2 links above for you to read about the ability of the Feds to garnish Social Security checks for Student Loan debt, the law CHANGED in 1996 making that possible & it happens. The links list the other agencies that can garnish SS checks also, SS checks are no longer a sacred cow OR you can just Google Social Security + Student Loan Debt, countless articles are available.

        • That still doesn’t answer the question of where you are getting Florida law to back your statements. The simple fact of the matter is that the judge has leeway in what he/she decides who will be responsible for what debts. With the student loans for example, there is much taken into consideration of who benefited from the higher education. Since bath were still finishing their degrees, no one benefited from that education. Therefore each student will be responsible for their own student loans, if they both have student loans.

          I just have a problem with some of your very definitive posts that you have looked into it, and this is the way it is, period. I guarantee when it all comes down with the courts decision on the liabilities, it will be on the basis of the Zimmerman’s case/situation. There are no definites in divorce court, no matter what state you are in. Thank God for that. Ever situation is unique and different.

          • pinecone – Fla. divorce law determines what SZ & GZ will be responsible for. I have written “definitive posts” based on Fla. Law & you seem to want to argue what governs divorce in Fla. is a Judge. Judges are bound by the laws of their state, not by what they might like to do for a party in a divorce, especially when the law is clearly spelled out as it is in this case. Judges have to have law to support their decision or it can be appealed. Fla. Law will determine the Zimmerman divorce, it’s just that simple. Both attorney’s are bound by that law when they represent GZ & SZ, GZ could ASSUME all of the Defense debt in the debt negotiations, or he might not, that would be up to GZ. A Judge doesn’t have the ability to dismiss a debt against SZ when she doesn’t have a LEGAL pre-nup that protected her, there is no Fla. Law that would support that decision, imo, a Judge wouldn’t do it. You seem to be under the impression a divorce is like a trial, it’s not.

            Judges have discretion to make decisions in custody cases when one parent might be a better parent to get sole custody or if there is fear one parent might endanger the children, but they order for both parents to be evaluated by professionals, the Judge uses that information to make a decision in the custody/visitation issue but a Judge wouldn’t defy the law when there is no case law to support him in dismissing a debt. Judges have discretion to decide the amount of monies awarded for Child Support or Spousal Support but there is a “legal scale” Judges use to make that determination & the monies earned by each spouse combined w/the legal scale in making the determination.. Judges expect all this to be done BEFORE they enter his court room. Divorce cases are common, the paperwork is done when you arrive in Court, both attorney’s speak & paperwork is signed.

            ‘Shellie Zimmerman is asking for an “equitable distribution” of their assets, property and debts.’ Very easy to interpret imo..

            • Just curious as to which legal debts are we referring to . As far as I know MOM took the case pro-bono, and will not get paid unless there is a separate agreement to cover this.

            • Art Tart- I’ve also read many of the Fla. statutes on divorce law, and who is responsible for any liabilities. Having said that I know that even you don’t believe what you have written is carved in stone.

              Allow me to repeat this once again, Florida judges have the ability to look at every different liability and make decisions on who owes what and why.

              Once again, allow me to give you a little hint- the Zimmermans had no children. When children are involved in a divorce, the circumstances change drastically. The Zimmerman’s have no children.

              America was built upon taking personal responsibility for their own lives. When my grandparents came here from an eastern european country, the first thing they strived for was learning the english languish. They wanted nothing more than to be honorable American citizens. They didn’t depend on any government programs to support them. They lived the American dream. They were not any part of “how can I game the system.” Nowadays it seems that some are all in to finding ways to get money through lawsuits, welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, and any way they can just to get what they consider “free money.” Sorry Art, I am not one of those that will research every law, and find ways to game the system.

              I’m sure you will have much more advise on how Shellie can discharge her debt through bankruptacy or any other means. For me personaly, that is abhorent. I’m all in for the destitute, I’m not all in for finding ways to get free money or a pass on debts.

              • pinecone – Again, when the law is clearly written, why would a Judge make a decision to dismiss a debt against SZ when there is NO LAW that would support that decision, he wouldn’t & there is no reason why he would r should, jmho. SZ clearly married GZ because she loved him, for better or worse, sadly, the young couple have had it rough but that doesn’t factor into a Judge’s decision. One spouse or the other feels screwed over in every divorce. Judges do have some discretion as I listed in my previous comment but that discretion is because the laws aren’t as clearly defined involving children, divorces w/children & accusations from each parent of possible abuse of the children etc., those cases are complicated, Even then, the Judge doesn’t pull a decision out of his butt, he basis his decision on the professional reports/opinions gathered on both parents by professionals to make his legal decision.

                Because the Zimmerman’s had no children, the case is one of a simple divorce, no assets to split, only debt negotiation, nothing complicated. The debt will be negotiated with the couple & their attorney’s. Do you have any idea how many spouses are screwed over everyday in a divorce BECAUSE of the laws in their state? I’ve had plenty of friends screwed over but their divorce is based on our State Laws.

                I hear ya, I too believe in personal responsibility & it was too how I was raised. Every adult should take personal responsibility for their actions & their debts, sadly, that is not the law, that is ONLY our opinion. That’s what the attorney’s are for, to negotiate within the law. GZ & SZ will likely each decide to be responsible for their own student loan debt, hopefully both will be agreeable to that. GZ might “man up” & suck up all his defense debt, imo, he should, he was the only one involved in the tragedy, he was personally responsible for the debt owed to the attorney’s, but so is SZ under Fla. law, it’s a community debt. MOM is hoping to be paid from the NBC settlement but SZ also wants part of any NBC settlement, it could become a negotiation factor as Sim’s knows that SZ would not be entitled to future earnings, that’s the only thing I can think of. MOM knows that SZ would have no ability to ever pay 1/2 of that debt, BUT, MOM too knows that the settlement possibly could pay for all that is owed, he likely has a signed contract. That would take care of ALL that debt, we’ll have to see how it plays out. Sometimes a spouse can be remorseful or feel responsible in some way & ASSUME more debt than they are legally responsible for. We have no reason to think GZ might not want to do so or do the right thing. It is the right thing whether it is the legal thing are not imo.

  13. I found this picture on Lorna Truett’s facebook page of the team that got George acquitted. It was posted the day after the verdict. Channa Lloyd (below) is in the picture but was blocked by Josh Martell. Michael Panella (below) is not pictured with the group. The team was larger than I thought. Great job they did. I hope success comes to all of them for the job they did!

    teamgeorgeThese are the clothes they were wearing as pictured in court for the reading of the verdict. It’s possible this group photo was taken at the courthouse on July 13th.
    Lloydpanella

    • 1. I’ve always thought this Todd guy has a sexy voice. Not that it has anything to do with anything lol
      2. I think he’s mistaken about a couple of things – he kept saying that Shellie “left” George before the incident. I read they had an argument and she spent the night at her father’s house. That’s getting space, not leaving the marriage – unless Todd has heard something more than I have. Also, she said George is selfish, and Todd kept trying to figure out what that meant – seemingly from the vantage point that George can do no wrong – whch may be why he couldn’t seem to imagine any reason why Shellie may *feel* that way.
      3. OMG – Shellie is telling the world that George “has a temper”??? I have no idea if that’s true or not, but either way, her words will sabotage him. What a mess this is.

  14. I was just reading the AP story about Shellie’s filing for a divorce over at the Breitbart Big Government site. The article linked was written by Kyle Hightower. I remembered hearing that name before. Kyle Hightower is a black activist and apparently sent out a tweet that Obama’s drone strikes make him the “Global Zimmerman.” There is a youtube video out there with Kyle Hightower on Al Sharpton’s Policitcs Nation show right after the verdict. I can’t view videos so you all can look for it.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/05/Lawyer–George-Zimmermans-wife-filing-for-divorce

    I promise that the AP reports are not trustworthy on a myriad of issues. It is one of those sites that you better look elsewhere for facts if you want the truth in reporting.

    I had posted that Andrew Breitbart was a truth seeker. He researched his sources before he came out slamming anyone, unless he had the proper documentation to prove his case. Since Andrew Breitbart died, obviously others have taken over his sites. I couldn’t even imagine Andrew Breitbart linking to or depending on much of anything the AP reports. Andrew would be appaled that anyone from his organization would would so very sloppy and misleading with their sources.

    I understand from the article, if believable, that Shellies’s lawyer, Kelly Simms sent a short email to the AP saying that Shellie was filing for a divorce because of “disappointment.” Woooosh. Shellie is giving up her marriage vows because of disappointment?

    I’m really starting to get some really creepy feelings about this whole divorce thing. Either Shellie doesn’t have a clue of what she is doing and saying, or, she is not the person I thought she was. This is truly looking worse for Shellie than it is for George. George isn’t out there in the public talking about his marriage wows. Did Shellie really claim that George was selfish because he didn’t pay enough attention to her during his forced march through hell for the last year and a half? Wow.

  15. Nettles- Do you have access to the filing O’Mara did in response to the Security firms lawsuit for non-payment. I understand that the security firm filed their suit agains George, Shellie and Mark O’Mara. I think O’Mara had some explanation for that non-payment, but I could be wrong.

  16. Did I read correctly that Shellie wants George to purchase a permanent life insurance policy on his own life, at his cost, and that she wants to be named as the beneficiary? Is that correct or true?

    • Nettles – you’re right, it does look like a frivolous filing. Unless you read something differently, I read the HOA settlement went to “the Estate of TM,” the estate monies would have gone to TM’s heirs/attorney’s which would be Tracy/Sybrina & all the attorney’s representing them in the Civil Suit.. LMAO! Sybrina/Tracy want other people’s monies to be contributed to their foundation so they can draw salaries @ $ 40,000.00 in Fla., travel, dine & entertain other’s at the expense of the foundation promoting themselves. ONLY in America!

  17. minpin – I ran across this link dated today about the Life Insurance Policy SZ wants, she too wants GZ to pay for it w/her as the beneficiary forever. She too is asking for more, it could possibly be for equal distribution to the PAY PAL account. I have NEVER heard of anyone being made to carry a life insurance policy on their own life & having the ex-wife made beneficiary. I’ve heard of life insurance policies being imposed when there are children in case of death, there would be monies to support them, BUT, there are no children.

    article:
    She is asking in divorce papers that he pay for a permanent life insurance policy with her named as the beneficiary. Her petition also asks that he pay premiums on the policy.

    She also is seeking an equal distribution of their checking accounts, trusts, partnerships and any unknown assets, and asked a judge prevent him from selling off any property.

    http://tbo.com/news/in-zimmerman-divorce-petition-wife-seeks-life-insurance-policy-20130906/

    Wasn’t the PAY Pal account a “partnership” in both of their names, I assume so she could move the monies when needed & wasn’t it set up to help pay their living expenses? SZ isn’t projecting trust about any possible marital assets in which I am surprised there as some, but imo, it’s common when couples divorce, they want their fair share of whatever.

    • A life insurance policy to cover the value of future alimony is not too uncommon, and the person owing the alimony would be responsible for paying the premiums. Of course, I have no idea if GZ will be paying SZ alimony or not. I’d like to see the analysis used by the underwriter who tries to calculate the premium for GZ’s policy, considering the unusual circumstances of his risks, vis-à-vis death threats. Is Lloyd’s of London still around?

      • Fabi – Doesn’t the spouse have to be employed with the ability to pay alimony/spousal support for a spouse to be entitled to monies? Neither GZ r SZ even have had jobs, SZ imo is more employable than GZ & will likely make more money. IDK, GZ doesn’t even have a job & eventually, whatever is left in the Pay Pal account will run out. I read somewhere the account has been closed but I can’t remember from where. GZ will sadly have difficulty in getting a job.

        I don’t understand this, you make a good point though considering GZ being a high risk client, what a policy would even cost him w/the death threats. The couple still owes taxes from 2011 & I think another year. What a freaking nightmare.

        imo, it appears that SZ has ask for 1/2 of whatever is left in the PAY Pal account, no doubt that money will have to be accounted for. With GZ giving SZ over $ 4,000.00 from that account in August, I wonder if GZ thought that included SZ’s ability to hire an attorney?

        • The financial accounting said Shellie’s monthly expenses were $750 and George in one month has given her $4,300. My thought was that the money is that high because she’ll have to pay Kelly Sims for his work this past month.

    • I want to say thanks for the link Art, but it just pizzed me off even more at the scorned woman.

      As far as the paypal account I wasn’t aware that it was a partnership account. When George went to jail he gave his BIL access and control of the account. Wasn’t there some discussion on one of the jailhouse phone calls where George was telling Shellie something about gaining access to the account, such as passwords or something like that? Weren’t all of the transfers out of the account into George’s credit union account? Then Shellie, or someone transferred monies from George’s account into Shellies account. Hmmm. I wonder why they both had separate bank accounts even before the incident?

      With all of the finagling and moving around of the monies, I wonder if Shellie may have been angry that she didn’t have free access to the “defense fund” once it was brought out into the open in court. Maybe Shellie was miffed when O’Mara took over control of the account which barred Shellie from using those monies as she may have wanted to. If George was telling her on the phone to pay off bills, I wonder how she still has near to a hundred grand in charge card expenses. I wonder if those charge card expenses were made after the incident. I have no idea.

      • pinecone – though I don’t fault SZ one bit for wanting a divorce, GZ was possibly just as equally unhappy apparently & left. SZ is young, just 26 yrs. old, maybe immature but she has a pretty big demand list & some of the things she’s listed are unreasonable & greedy imo. ME! ME! ME! Nurses in my area start out at $ 40,000.00 per yr., imo, SZ may be deluded enough to think she’s OWED a hell of a lot more than she is but she has excellent earning potential & will have no trouble securing employment. GZ’s attorney will be quick to point this out SZ’s earning potential in the negotiations, GZ has very little chance of finding employment, maybe for years to come.

        It sounds like SZ, has unrealistic expectations & is basing some of her request on Pain & Suffering. How does GZ get paid for his pain/suffering, imo, he was in a hell of a lot more pain than SZ, he was facing prison. SZ could have left at any time, she CHOSE to stay in the marriage. It’s surprising Sim’s included some of the demands, SZ’s new “empowerment” is over the top. I had NOT read ALL that she wants including Pay Pal, partnerships, etc. until I read the link I shared. It does sound like they may have a few assets, a lawnmower? recliner? TV’s? I am going to look for more information on the demands.

        I’ve absolutely NEVER heard of anyone demanding part of a settlement that will be decided in the future, the NBC settlement, when surely the couple will be divorced. Upon SZ filing for divorce, it severed ALL future community assets & debts & they are no longer “community,” each person at this point is responsible for their own bills & new debt they incur. WHY in the hell does she feel entitled to part of the NBC settlement, when it is settled, she will probably be gainfully employed anyway? THAT’S NUTS! GZ owes a lot of money to the Defense + sadly GZ may never be employable, if so, it could be years before he secures something. imo, it seems that GZ will need every penny that’s left of that settlement to secure his future which remains uncertain & will for years, he needs a home with tall fencing & razor wire & high tech security, all expensive but sadly necessary.

        As far as the Pay Pal Account, I vaguely remember reading that the account was for SZ/GZ’s living expenses first, then GZ’s defense, but it has been so long, I just can’t remember. Guess we’ll have to ask Nettlepedia. SZ could have had a “power of attorney” to move monies too, maybe she’s counting on that part in Fla. Law that that makes her entitled for debt or assets even if her name is not on the account. Maybe she wants 1/2 of what’s left in the Pay Pal account. I don’t think the account has to be a “partnership” for SZ to be entitled to 1/2 of the monies, but IDK. GZ could decide tonight to write a check to MOM for the remaining balance of the PAY PAL account instead of fight w/SZ over it. There would be nothing she could do. I have to assume they are paying their car notes, insurance, etc. It may be that GZ/SZ were paying the minimum on their credit card debts because they didn’t know how the trial would turn out.

        I just can’t see how in the hell SZ thinks she is entitled to “a permanent life insurance policy” naming her as a beneficiary. WHY would she? She isn’t entitled to alimony, GZ hasn’t had a job in which he would owe her anything, that’s sounds nuts. With GZ not having a job at this time, HOW does she think he is going to pay for an insurance policy? As “Fabi” pointed out, “with the debt threats!” GZ sounds high risk imo.

        The couple owes taxes for 2 yrs., 2011 is one of the years as she listed it as a debt, but it’s a community debt, surely they filed jointly. We haven’t seen GZ’s list of assets/debts, I predict he will owe more than SZ, they will combine the debts & negotiate who pays what. SZ may suck up a lot more debt that she imagines if GZ has more debt which, imo, would serve her right for acting so money hungry/greedy.

        minpin – I have had so many friends divorce, I have seen my friends as well as their potential ex spouses act so crude, inappropriate, cuss/scream/hate & they ALL want EVERYTHING that was earned in the marriage, they want their potential EX spouse to receive absolutely NOTHING! They bad mouth their ex-spouses to anyone that will listen & some in front of their children. SZ is now acting like my friends, demanding, greedy, no doubt divorce brings out so much hate & anger.

        I hope SZ has said her peace & now shuts effing up. GZ’s attorney will file his papers & expose his debts, imo, the Pay Pal account will have a value listed as it stood when SZ filed for divorce as well as his checking account. ALL potentially embarrassing, all to be reported on endlessly.

        Sorry for the rant, I’ve supported SZ, thought perhaps she was young, immature, wanted to state her peace, & move on in her life/career & I thought she deserved to do so BUT there was nothing to be gained by attacking GZ in the media, but that’s how people act that get divorces, their angry & they hate.

  18. ONLY a few weeks ago I posted a link about Chicago joining in to promote a petition along w/Ca. in the name of TM when the death count in the streets of Chicago were mounting & why their efforts weren’t used to help the victims in their city. Besides those being murdered, the wounded count is growing & altering lives, some forever.

    Unfathomable, from every death to think of ALL the family & friends effected by that loss, today an article on Chicago:

    53 HOMICIDES, 224 SHOT AND WOUNDED IN AUGUST IN RAHM’S CHICAGO

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/06/53-August-Homicides-in-Rahm-s-Chicago-224-Shot-and-Wounded

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