Home » Uncategorized » Email Author

Email Author

email-integration-2 This thread has been developed to host an online discussion about the incident and circumstances of an anonymous sender of an email being sent to the treehouse, that had an impact on its’ owner Sundance.

We are not looking to find out who this sender is in the real life world, but who was it among us in their online identity and what impact did the vetting or not vetting have on the George Zimmerman case.

This is a work in progress. In order to get answers, we need to ask questions. Please don’t get offended if you get asked about any possible role you had in it. Simply answer honestly and let us move ahead. We are only as good as the information provided us and as we all know it is very easy to be misled online so caution is the driver.

Feb. 20th at 7:32am the Treehouse rec’d an email with the Subject: Confidential for Sundance.
(not sure if the author knows, but this exposes the information to 8 people we don’t know a whole lot about)

Dear Sundance,
I was reading one of your blog threads on George, after all, and found it both curious and coincidental that you had a link for Jonestown in there.

Curious and coincidental because I found out yesterday that O’Mara has forbidden George to associate with me. Isolating him from friends and family like he’s a child. He goes along to meetings with George’s pastor also. We are deep in the jungles of Guyana for sure.

Also, I understand XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX redacted by SD XXXXXXXXXX. Symbolically what happened.

For so much fear and control to be happening, something big is going to go down. Keep up with the sunlight Sundance. Don’t give up. You have always been George’s guardian angel with the blog threads and exposing the truth.
PS. I am going to keep XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX with Shellie at least.

The redactions above were done by Sundance before forwarding the email to me and two other contributors at the treehouse.

A few days ago, Sundance dropped by our blog and provided more information and in typical fashion, conflicting information regarding this email.

In this comment (Oct. 4th at 2:49am) he writes

“Go back and look at the construct of what’s written up there ^^. You’ll note I never said who wrote the e-mail, and redacted their information at their request. It was not from Ken/Scott, I never said it was from Ken/Scott, I never inferred it was from Ken/Scott…”


However, in discussing the email with me on August 23rd at 12:31 am Sundance wrote to me:

“However, I do know, with absolute certainty, you pissed off Ken/Scott because you used information in a cc’d email I sent you and D-Man -after I told you to retain the confidence- but I don’t remember the content of the email I forwarded.”


This is the only email I ever received from Sundance in which D-Man was also copied. So why does he invoke Ken/Scott here? What does he mean? Ken has denied he was ever upset with me regarding this email.

Sundance, who really is suppose to be a blogger who is helping us sort out the truth in the George Zimmerman case has become just as mysterious and confusing as the media, lawyers and politicians surrounding this case. Most, if not all readers and participants here, were contributors to his site and we all had a goal to uncover the truth and stop the injustice and abuses being heaped on a citizen of the United States. Where was Sundance’s loyalty to us, the contributors, to uncovering the truth? Why does he always seem to leave more questions than answers? I invite you Sundance to have a honest discussion with us. You owe us that.

Also included in his Oct. 4th @ 2:49AM post, Sundance drops a tantalizing clue as to who the sender of the email was: “The actual email, at the heart of all this silliness, was written by minpin06′s biggest GZ fan. Who was, according to their presentation, a *close* (daily contact) friend of GZ, who used to post at TCTH.”

Last Refuge
22/02/2013 8:21PM
To: Diwataman, Chip Bennett, Annette Kelly

“An E-Mail rec’d from a person who knows what I just outlined above, yet they do not know my full awareness. (I am also protecting their identity).”

“a person who knows what I just outlined” “I am protecting their identity” – Doesn’t this convey he knows who the sender is and he is protecting them?

In a response to Unitron, on October 4th at 2:59am, Sundance wrote “I was openly soliciting opinion. It was shared merely as an FYI…. Nor did I vouch for the content as accurate, or establish a belief the “signing” of agreement thing made sense.”

One does not openly solicit opinion by writing – “Under NO circumstances can it be discussed, shared or forwarded.” I’ve never discussed the contents of this email with Sundance, Diwataman, Chip, or anyone else due to these instructions. It was Sundance who brought the subject here in August, opening the door to finally having a discussion about it.

Sundance absolutely conveyed he thought this material was explosive and that he thought it authentic by writing he knows this and the writer knows the same thing. Confirmation if you will. Now, he says it’s just silliness.

This email also did not come with instructions that I was to be totally convinced of its accuracy and authenticity or be banned from the site. However, when I posted on the O’Mara Feb. 23rd site, I received an email from dear leader accusing me of being wilfully ignorant.

“From: thelastrefuge@reagan.com
Sent: February-23-13 9:56:25 AM
To: Annette Kelly (nettles@bell.net)

Obviously I made a big mistake in corresponding to you – Lesson learned.

However, obviously from the comment you posted you just don’t “get it”, and it appears this is an intentional decision on your part.

I take exception to the tone and disparagement aimed specifically toward me, in my house, within the comment, and have deleted it from view. You show a keen disconnect from grace or mannerly behavior.

Farewell and following seas.

The TRUTH Has NO Agenda.”

Let’s be reminded here that Feb. 22nd was a scheduled court date for the case. The issue of Crump being deposed was on the agenda. If you read through the Feb. 22nd thread, we are all commenting how important this is to uncovering the truth. I write, it’s going to be a defining moment. Unknown to me at that time, Sundance has this email in his possession. Then he starts dropping hints in the early morning hours of Feb. 22nd that if this day doesn’t go well, he has some goods on O’Mara and if he has to disclose it he will. People start asking him to disclose it anyway.



example3I think one can infer, the day at court, did not go O’Mara’s way and Sundance thought that was by design because he was part of the pie, baked right in.  So at 8:21pm that night, he forwarded the emails to Diwataman, Chip and I and constructed his Feb. 23rd post attacking Mr. O’Mara.

So, Who is the sender of this email that Sundance put so much trust and credibility in?

Recently, the members of George’s family and the defense team, have had a chance to review the email.  In one case, someone else copied on the email sent it to a family member who was able to share it and it’s been posted on this blog so everyone has had a chance to review it.  I got feedback from a source close to team defense that their best guess is the writer of this email was a person who became a friend of George’s after the shooting.  They wrote a letter to the judge and O’Mara and George thought it best to distance themselves from the new friend.  I’m told this friend is a woman.

The email talks about the writer contacting lawyers in Orlando and low and behold a new contributor shows up on the Feb. 23rd thread, talking about what Orlando lawyers think of O’Mara.  By all accounts, this person and Sundance are the only two who have come up with people with an unfavorable view.  From my research I’m getting feedback Mr. O’Mara is quite respected in the legal community in Florida.


In the email, the writer conveys that they have stopped posting at the treehouse and was grateful that the other contributors noticed their absence.  So I did a search of comments at the site and found this:


It appears a contributor by the identity of Gbishop fell off the radar screen and was noted by some.

For those of you who have been reading the treehouse, you’ll know that GBishop started most threads with a really nice calming youtube song to give George and the family an uplifting start. He would wait for Sundance to post his open George Zimmerman thread and then he always tried to be the first one to post a calming (usually religious) song. Oddly, I can’t find those posts now.  Did Sundance take them down?  In the email, the writer talks about a tradition at the treehouse and they were glad to see it continue.  I think this is the tradition the writer spoke of.  There are only a few GBishop posts left at the treehouse.  Here, she weighs in on that July 6th thread where Sundance can bite his tongue no more.


When I read on that same thread, GBishop’s comment about the homeless and poor, it reminded me of Rick Madigan’s comments on his blog.  What do you think?


Some of you may have witnessed a recent conversation Sundance and I had about whether or not the treehouse called for people to not donate to the defense site.  Sundance said that was untrue.  Had I seen this post at the time it was made, I never would have participated there.  How does one think O’Mara can be successful without support?  Why did the family continue to be thankful and grateful to Sundance after a post like this?


It appears to me that this true supporter and friend of George’s played on Sundance’s known bias and used it to retaliate against Mr. O’Mara and it worked like a charm.  In her email, she does convey that she wrote letters.  Perhaps her letters to the Judge caused George Zimmerman to have to cut her off.

I remember Robert Jr. talking about how difficult it is for the family to socialize now with people they don’t know.  George and company had to be very careful not to trust the wrong people or say anything that could be used against him.  I can’t imagine the stress this family lives under due to absolute smearing of their family name.

Click here to download or open a word document of the anonymous email .  How much weight would you give the details outlined in it? What would we have revealed if we all could have vetted this as we did other information that came to us in the case?


436 thoughts on “Email Author

  1. There would be no need for Sundance to infer who the author was unless he himself did not know, therefore I’m going to assume he meant that he did not imply who it was.

    Those with only theories as to the identity of the author are the ones inferring.

    And my only role in all of this was not knowing anything about it until recently.

    : – )

  2. I was hesitant to mention Gbishop but they also went by Gbishop1 as well. You can find more comments under Gbishop1.

  3. Maybe the author of the email didn’t want GZ to have a a competent and experienced defense attorney or the funds to defend himself. Maybe someone that wanted to see him convicted. Just a thought.

    • If and it’s a big If, I am on the right track about the sender, in reading both Froggie and Bishop’s posts they really do appear to care and want GZ to prevail.

      It seems to me, that Sundance’s unproven allegations in July had an affect on the supporter but they were ok to go along up until George cut contact. Then she baited the hook and reeled Sundance in.

      Sundance gave it credibility for a reason. If the sender was GBishop and you see her heart-warming tributes every day, you tend to think there is no agenda.

      Team defense doesn’t for sure know who the sender is either (or if they do they haven’t shared it with me) but I did get a probable that is was a person who got cut off talking to George.

      The writer actually describes that in the email.

      Regardless, I’m really interested in hearing why Sundance gave this so much credibility that he banned me when I didn’t buy it and he posted a thread smearing the lawyer.

      • You are so wrong about me Nettles. I am not Gbishop or anyone else. As a matter of fact, if you must know, I had 1 email session with Sundance and he asked me on the blog to email him. I did and it was to see if I could find info on what was thought to be Dee Dee. I could not and that’s where it ended. I never emailed him again. Do not try to put me into this. I know nothing of this email until just now (I just downloaded your link). Oh and it might interest you to know that I was and have been a supporter of MOM’s, I never called him Mr Pinky Ring, I did have issues with him defending Trayvon and showing him and his family pity on news videos more so than George but I have never not trusted his ability to win the case! BTW, while I am someone who says to a sick or ill person that I will keep them in my thoughts and prayers, I am NOT religious to the point where I would post a religious video. Also, if you read any of my posts on the treehouse you will see I have often said that my main reason for following this case was not George but rather his parents because my son went through something similar (although not criminal) and there was nothing I could do to help him. I know what his parents went through and are still going through trying to pick up the pieces of their lives. Again, look back to when you Tweeted me along with VP when I tweeted VP the screenshot of Shellie’s text message showing that Shellie had George’s text listed as “My Husband” that was Sept 11th!

        That is the reason why I came here. I noticed people referring to your blog so I decided to check it out. If I knew I would be walking into a crap storm of let’s see who we can blame for something they didn’t do, I would of stayed away.

      • Sundance gave it credibility for a reason.

        At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I just want to point out another possibility with a couple of questions:
        1) would he have given it “credibility” if he had written it himself?
        2) if he did write the letter to himself, would your doubting the letter have been seen as a kind of personal attack, of you further doubting HIM, and had something to do with the sudden ban?

        Again, I’m not wedded to this interpretation, something is just not right, and it *feels* like it all leads back to the person who was being pressed for “proof” of all he was reporting….

        • That’s what’s got me stumped? Why then? He had his dust-up in July. Got solid feedback, not a good thing to do. Seemed to decide to let it go and for some reason when O’Mara/West are fighting to get Crump deposed he brings up the Pay Pal issues again. I don’t get the timing if he wrote the email himself.

    • YOU said: I can see lots of ways this could be detrimental to GZ as well as MOM.

      I hear that. I also cannot think of any way this will HELP George. Can you? Maybe someone else has an answer?

    • I do not see it being detrimental to GZ, nor to MOM.

      GZ was sitting in the crosshairs of the prosecution. MOM is just trying to do his job and he knows better than to be distracted by all kinds b.s. and speculation going on over the internet.

      This would seem to be detrimental potentially to Sundance depending on what else is yet to be revealed. This is also detrimental to whoever the originator of the email is whether it was SD or someone else. Right now concensus is coalescing around someone else being the originator.

      • Just my opinion but with the size of the CTH audience and the fact that both the scheme team and state prosecution were monitoring the Treehouse, there were times that Sundance was pretty reckless and irresponsible considering what was at stake

  4. I’ve noticed a lot of people (not unitron) on blogs use “imply” and “infer” backwards, or sometimes interchangeably. I thought I’d share something that helped me, in case it’s of help to anyone else. Picture a pitcher throwing a ball, and someone else catching it. The pitcher is implying, and the catcher is inferring. In other words, the speaker is implying (suggesting) and the listener is inferring (interpreting/deductingdeducing).

  5. “Well, that’s curious! FroggieLeggs came up on our radar as she just recently joined our blog on Sept. 13th, around the same time Rick Madigan exited. Danny has told us for a strange reason FroggieLeggs has shut-down her gravatar account. That’s quite odd. Is it possible, that GBishop and FroggieLeggs are one person using the same identity? FroggieLeggs posting here is the very first posting on the October 14th open thread.

    Was the person using the FroggieLeggs account trying to call O’Mara’s attention to the fact that GBishop wasn’t posting anymore?”

    OMG you say not to be offended but I’m sorry I am extremely offended and hurt. I am only ME!!! I didn’t just recently close down my gravatar account. I don’t even know how to!!! As far as I know Gravatar is only where you have your avatar for wordpress. If you look at the time I started posting here, you will see it is the same time you were Tweeting me in a multi person tweet session!! I only found your site from those tweets. Obviously Danny’s sleuthing skills suck or he would of noticed that! I decided to post here because unlike the Treehouse, you were still covering the GZ case which interests me more than politics.

    I asked about GBishop back then only because I was use to seeing them on the Treehouse GZ topics everyday. I can’t believe you have even suggested this. I have never emailed anyone with supposed inside info on George. I don’t know George personally or online nor do I live anywhere near him. I seriously can not believe this. Is this how you welcome people to your site by insinuating to your members that they are some sort of asshole that would create lies If this is how you truly feel about me, please let me known and I will be sure to never come back.

    • Froggie –

      I think you have provided a very good example how having too few verifiable facts can lead to over speculation, result in hurtful feelings and lead to rounds of accusation. Thanks for clearing this up.

      It seems that Sundance could clear a lot of this up pretty quickly, if he would choose to.

      • You’re welcome. Personally I think something like this should be done in private so that the person being accused doesn’t feel publicly humiliated for something they didn’t do.

        • That’s a very good point. I could have asked through email first. the thing is, the person who raised the POTENTIAL doesn’t have your contact info.

          I don’t have any contact information for Gbishop. In that case, how can we ask?

          I’m open to suggestions.

          • I am unsure why she is mentioning me looking @ her in another way.
            She was mentioned because she was one who asked where someone went. It was SD who threw those breadcrumbs! You were looking for who may have left. Just so happens froggielegs is the first one to mention who left in that time frame. I assure you I am not just throwing out usernames. The research is within specific time frames. I was aware what you were looking for in regards to bishop, because I did the research. That is the reason why I mentioned froggie earlier today. Did not want to mention bishop until you confirmed what I found on your own. After all youbdid ask me to drop it yesterday.
            She was just inadvertently there, mentioning that person! The purpose of that find was to look through the thread to see who was minipins biggest fan. That is about it.

            • I am getting an appreciation for why not every conversation should be held in front of everyone.

              When I think of reporters holding onto info, the lawyers holding on to info, the police and government, holding on the info. I’ve been about let it all out and let the chips fall where they may.

              So when Sundance got the email, he couldn’t have made it public and said let’s sort through this. Look what doing so 8 months later is doing.

              What if though, he had of kept an open mind and had the 4 of us talk it through to learn more before taking it as fact and posting a thread using some of its information.

              I remember Mr. O’Mara giving a speech in which he said he wished he could turn the internet off, but that’s not reality. He had to deal with a group of strangers trying to pry everything into the open.

              Like most things, it needs balance I suppose.

    • First of all your username was mentioned by me because the CTH thread we were discussing had your presence and you disappeared and recently began posting again. I hesitated to mention bishop until Nettie mentioned him. Second of all. Only a gravatar account holder can delete their profile. Maybe you did so by mistake?

      • “you disappeared and recently began posting again”

        When did I disappear and start posting again? On here? I haven’t been here that long to disappear. I stopped posting here when the topics started getting about sundance and the treehouse because none of it had anything to do with me and as I said, I am in the dark about all this and wished to remain that way. I don’t want to get involved in an argument between 2 blog owners when I like people on both blogs. Especially when it has nothing to do with me personally! I’m just not into getting involved in other peoples pissing matches. I assume others here feel the same way as Nettles said she has received emails from people about opening a topic that isn’t about this.

        If you are saying I disappeared from the treehouse and recently started posting that would be because I do not normally get into the political topics at all. I am now because of the shutdown and Obamacare bullshit but here’s a clue to everyone… I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE! I am probably one of those people that Sundance would not want to meet in real life or do business with because I am not in any way affiliated with any particular party. As for the Gravatar, I have no clue. All I know is I signed up for WordPress and put a frog on my avatar. Anything beyond that I am clueless. If the account is gone how do I still have an avatar? I have no clue.

        • HI my friend Froggie!!!

          Also, you have to remember Nettles, and I don’t know when, but remember when SD made it where people had to open a WP account or at least that’s what I understood it to be. I did but only to be able to post and honestly have never to my knowledge been back to that page. But that could be reason for change in some nic changes. LOL (((Waving))) I think that is ONE reason Jordan has so many sign on names lol. Also, I remb there are a few that have couple names, Howie, fts something, are 2 off hand.

        • I’ve edited the information on the thread to update it with the info. you’ve enlighten us on. Again, I’m very sorry to have tried to connect two wrong dots.

          I don’t see this a fight between Sundance and I. I joined an online community to discuss with other like-minded people, how we could bring truth to the discussion when there was so many lies and distortions being told about GZ and his family. The motives and circumstances that surrounded them.

          One thing that intrigued me was Florida’s sunshine law. Here I am in Ontario sitting reading a police report an officer wrote the night of Trayvon’s shooting.

          The debate over how open to be with information rages on. Through this exercise with the email, I’m getting some sympathy for reporters. They have their “sources” and the reporters take can only be a good as the source.

          Sundance started this conversation in the public here on this blog. After deciding not to share it with his readers and contributors, he put me in one heck of a spot, talking about something, he told me, he wanted to stay private.

          What if we had of all discussed this openly back in February? Could we have prevented a division of George Zimmerman supporters? Would it have divided us more? Should that have been an option?

          I can’t relate to asking a stranger online a question and them getting all offended because I could even think that. Why not, choose to not make it personal, because after all, how can it be, we don’t know each other. In having a conversation, respectful always, we learn more and develop a greater understanding.

          How do we get answers if we can’t ask open questions? Is it possible for a group of strangers to work towards a goal without becoming fractured and angry? I hope so.

          Can there be any lessons we learn from this to help bring truth to the sunlight?

        • “As for the Gravatar, I have no clue. All I know is I signed up for WordPress and put a frog on my avatar. Anything beyond that I am clueless. If the account is gone how do I still have an avatar? I have no clue”

          Depending how you sign in to make a comment you can have the same avatar. You have the same twitter avatar. If you sign into wordpress with your twitter account you bypass a gravatar account. Same thing if you sign in to comment using facebook and g+. WordPress uses Gravatar not the other way around.

          • All Greek to me. I log in with my wordpress account to post here and on the treehouse. If you used your super sleuthing skills you would see that my avatar on Twitter is slightly different than this one. This one has eye lashes because someone (I can’t remember who) asked me at the treehouse if I was male or female cause they couldn’t tell from my avatar. So I put eyelashes on my wordpress one to show I was a female and kept the one with out on my Twitter.

            • Even if a profile appears to be deleted or abandoned, comments and interactions from around the web could still be associated with it.

              • I don’t get the gravatar thing either. I used to use email address to post at the treehouse and then about October 2012, the site wouldn’t accept it, prompted me to open a word press account so I did.

                I didn’t even know that was a blog until Diwataman kept pushing me to express my views here instead of at his place.

                • Yes. It seems confusing to manny. Until I got my blog I posted at Dmas with just my email and username. I poster without a gravatar or WP.

        • I don’t recall you ever disappearing from Twitter. I follow you there. I have posted on the Treehouse in the past, but no longer do because I was insulted by a couple of administrators there. Like you, I am mostly interested in the Zimmerman case and like you, I hold special sympathy for his parents. I have been praying for them and for George every day since the beginning of the trial. Right after the trial was over, I started praying each day for God to protect George and Shellie from those who threaten to murder them. I also pray for the family to have their lives restored and be able to be productive citizens again. I hoped that George would stop getting media attention so that those who hate him would forget about him. That didn’t happen.

          When Shellie started badmouthing George to the media, I was concerned because that ran counter to my hope that he would drop out of media attention and those threatening his life would move on. I expressed that concern in a thread about Shellie’s appearance on NBC in which she said she had doubts about his innocence. I was insulted by two Treepers. I also did not get the impression that those folks were extremely concerned about George’s safety. That surprised me since they seemed to be so involved in trying to get him acquitted. I stopped posting there, so I suppose I disappeared, too.

          People stop posting places for various reasons. Sometimes they just lose interest or start posting somewhere else. Sometimes their lives just get busy. That doesn’t mean they disappeared.

          I’m bothered by things I’m reading. My concern is for all the members of this family to have their lives restored and no longer live under the threat of murder. I hope both George and Shellie can finish their college programs and secure meaningful employment and live private lives. I hope the parents can relocate to a home where they feel safe and that their living expenses become reasonable again. I guess when I went to the treehouse, I hoped to visit with others with the same hopes.

          • Hi Pondering Observer!

            Welcome to the blog. We are entirely made up of those who want to support the Zimmerman family.

            I can’t speak for everyone, only myself, but now that the trial is over and George was thankfully acquitted, I’m hoping to be able to help right some of the wrongs that occurred so there won’t be a future George Zimmerman.

            When I started posting, I was so naïve and every day I learn more things.

            I’m glad you have decided to join the discussion. As you can see from reading, although we have the same goals, how to achieve them is not always agreed upon.

            This site has banned no one. Every post has been made visible and the only edited posts you will see were edited at the request of the person being discussed.

            You are free to disagree with me. I’m the only one with the admin. control of this site however, I see this as our blog, not my blog. Honest feedback helps in making better decisions.

            Know that everyone here is a good person and came here to make the world a little nicer.

            Welcome again.

            • “You are free to disagree with me. I’m the only one with the admin. control of this site however, I see this as our blog, not my blog. Honest feedback helps in making better decisions.”

              And yet Danny seems to know what IP’s Sundance and others have used to access this site. Which could only mean you share IP’s with him and possibly other members. That in and of itself is very unethical and a violation of ones privacy.

              • FYI. I was on the forefront of opening discussion about sock accounts, and how SD doxs. Go to my blog and read! I also began discussing proxies.
                Once SD and RM began posting here I OPENLY discussed the IP issue. I then emailed Nettie with info. on another program she may add WP to disuade sock puppets so she can 1. Call them out. 2. Decide to ban them. She was not interested. She did PUBLICLY tell everyone that my suspicions were likely.
                It best you do not embarass yourself with speculation. After all was that not your complaint?

              • At this point froggielegs I have no clue why you are being hostile with me. I simply directed people to an answer. I made no accusations against you about being the author of this email. The fact that you take such offense that I have pointed to prior public comments you made, a deleted gravatar account, and your recent return is a lil overboard!

                You have been welcomed here. I will not kiss your ass. I owe you nothing. If you have issue with me take it to my blog!

                • No thank you. I’ve seen enough of your posts here to know your blog is not something I would even want to read let alone participate in. If you don’t want to speak to me here in the blog that was in part, about me due to information you supplied the admin, then stop replying to my replies to others! Simple as that!

            • Haven’t I recently seen speculation as to who ponderingobserver is and under what other names he or she may have posted previously?

              • I am not even going there. But yes. We had that discussion. They use the same avatar. Maybe Nettie can direct you to that discussion. I do not have admin. privileges. 😉

              • Yes you did recently see speculation on Pondering Observer.

                I posted a screen shot of her comments at the treehouse that showed two different names but same picture. That’s when I learned we can change our names on wordpress and unlike facebook when you change your profile picture, it doesn’t change any previous posts. https://annettekblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/congratulations-mark/comment-page-1/#comment-16359

                Someone else noticed Pondering Observer had started a blog and wondered if it wasn’t another attempt of Rick Madigan hiding behind yet another identity.

                We concluded that we were wrong on all accounts. Her twitter account shows a long and stable support of GZ and his family.

                • I learned the hard way about WP name changes when being impersonated in the spring/summer of 2012 over at the lounge, and eventually found out why my impersonator had a different graphic thingie, but I though I confirmed later on after changing to my present avatar that the change was retroactive–if you go back to those threads and find the ones actually from me, the avatar now is the same as accompanies this post.

                  I wasn’t accusing Pondering of anything*, I just thought that the speculation was what drew my attention to her screen name in the first place.

    • My deepest and sincerest apologies. I don’t know if you’ve seen it yet, but on the Whispering thread, we are brain-storming about the sender of the email. In floating ideas, we may come up with a totally wrong assumption. But if we can’t ask the questions and have the person say, no wait a second, you are barking up the wrong tree how can we figure it out?

      We can’t resolve it if we can’t brain-storm. Perhaps its 2 coincidences that you arrived here when you did and you happen to be the person who noted someone was missing.

      I’m still looking through the comments. I’m sure over the time, there were others who stopped posting and people asked about them too.

      I sincerely mean it when I say, I am not looking to accuse anyone of anything. We are having a conversation to try to determine if Sundance got caught up in someone else’s agenda when he received that email.

      I hope you take me at my word and continue to participate in the online discussion. Again I apologize for any offense you feel.

      • As I said, I personally think this is something you should have done in private instead of publicly where the person (me) feels as though they have to defend themselves against everyone who now feels they are a liar and a shit stirrer. If you wanted to know if it was me you could of asked me to email you and asked me in there and I could of answered you. But instead you decided to create an entire topic about me possibly being Gbishop and or the sender of this email. How can I ever trust that you and Danny will ever look at me in any other way? How can I ever feel comfortable coming here knowing that there is a topic accusing me of something I didn’t do?

        • The whole thread wasn’t about you.

          I leave it to you if you want to participate here. To get answers, I have to ask questions. You make a good point, I could have inquired privately, I had your email address.

          I will however, keep asking questions and doing it with a group, helps me get better answers. Especially with something like this.

          Arkansasmimi just related an experience with you that debunks what I was thinking was possible. Had this been handled quietly, I wouldn’t have that extra bit of help in getting a fuller understanding.

          • So you believe froggie, but you do/did not believe LBFTGZ, SD or RM? How do you decide who you are going to believe?

            This is so ridiculous.

            • I realize the question wasn’t directed at me, but here’s my 2 cents. The others you mentioned seem to be agenda driven and somewhat deceptive about those agendas and their true goals. Froggie seems pretty upfront about things. Just my opinion.

                • SD, for example, was very insistent he was in it for GZ. But as time went on he eventually made it clear that there were bigger issues and it wasn’t about GZ (diwataman was more upfront about that). It’s scattered throughout his blog so I don’t immediately have direct links to relevant posts. But anyone that was following his blog closely would have seen it. IMO he lied about his reason for becoming involved. He saw the involvement of progs, the BGI, etc, and just used GZ like others had.

                  Another example is his removing Cracker from his name and his insistence racism wouldn’t be tolerated on the blog. Yet it does seem to be one of his primary focuses. I’m not making an argument he’s wrong, just that he was deceptive and dishonest about his motives.

                  • I didn’t see any deception, but I never went to the TH before GZ (that I remember).

                    When was the Cracker removed?

                  • Maybe he removed the Cracker to give himself more credibility? I surely would not use the name DizzyMissL if my blog got into the position the TH got in. Maybe I would change it to MissL for cred?

                    • Why would it give SD more credibility. Using Cracker in his posting name actually makes him more open to racist accusations. Wasn’t that discussed with Rachel Jeantel who proudly said that TM thought GZ was a “creepy azz cracker.” Didn’t SD have a bit of a problem with TM calling himself a “no limit nigga”?

                  • SD also talked about O’Mara in a negative light, and promised that he had inside information that he would reveal when the time was right. He never revealed any further information. How many times can you promise that you can’t release something right now, but will in the future, and then never do it. Didn’t SD say something about getting a copy of the Bond agreement that would prove that GZ was bound to O’Mara and couldn’t get rid of him. There are plenty of other similar instances. I’m sure others can name more.

              • +4

                I will also add that SD has come here, on his own, and accused those here of being unable to accept the truth. Problem with SD is you have to accept what his version of what truth is, or you are comfortably clueless,as he called those in the Zimmerman family. There have been some that have accepted whatever SD has written as truth and fact, but are unwilling to give the same credit to many of us here who have had access to the same facts that SD has.

            • Your opinion is duly noted.

              I don’t recall having that many conversations with you. Why did you join the GZ online effort?

              What we choose to believe is up to each and every one of us. The more information I can get, the better chance I have of believing the truth and knowing a deception when I see it.

              You lost me on me not believing LBFTGZ. What was it I didn’t believe?

              Why are you so upset?

              • I can’t remember exactly when I figured out what was going on with GZ, but I joined the effort for the same reasons as the rest of you. I am upset because I think your posting this stuff could potentially be detrimental to GZ and his family/friends. And re: LBFTGZ, you called him semi-honest.

                • I said semi-honest because at the time I made that comment I was saying he was a family member but posting as one of the crowd.

                  I was talking about what family members were totally honest and posted as themselves. As it turns out, I was right. He was a member of the family posting as one of the crowd.

                  2nd request, how is discussing the possible deceptions and manipulations become detrimental to GZ or his family/friends? Enlighten me, I don’t see how.

                  • 1. It looks horrible if MOM made someone sign a contract never to say anything about GZ.

                    2. If, as stated in the email, there were financial manipulations by MOM, he could be subject to bar review.

                    3. If MOM takes offense to the emailer talking smack about him, the emailer could be sued as well as those folks who the emailer talked about. If I was MOM I would go after that emailer and the other who said he was unethical. And if the emailer is who I think it is, it will not be good for the Z family.

                    • From what you say here, Dizzy, it seems to suggest that stuff might be detrimental to MOM, rather than GZ.

                    • Coreshift/hooson–have to reply to myself because there are no reply boxes on your posts.

                      coreshift–if I was MOM, I would want to explore those ifs

                      hooson–that was part of my original point way up at the top–posting this could hurt both.

                    • “coreshift–if I was MOM, I would want to explore those ifs”

                      Why? I get the impression MOM is very careful and ethical in his practice. Should he address every accusation and by doing so draw attention to what is IMO likely an attempt to smear him? What’s his gain? He knows what he did/didn’t do.

                    • I think the people more at risk here are the sender and receiver of this correspondence.

                      The sender sent it to a site where 8 people have access to the correspondence. Then, if Sundance is to be believed, gave permission for it to be shared with more people.

                      The receiver, with the megaphone you spoke of, used it in a detrimental way against GZ and his lawyer.

                      This from two people who think they are supporting GZ. It’s pretty mixed up and twisted.

                      If you’d read Sundance comments here about the Zimmerman family, he in no way felt any duty or responsibility to help them. If they got hurt in his agenda, well them’s the breaks.

                    • There is simply no such thing as a contract that would prevent ‘anyone’ from ever speaking about GZ again. I’d have to have some examples of such a contract to change my mind. Even regarding the employees of celebrities, et al., there is a monetary incentive, re: an employee contract. That wouldn’t apply to a non-employee such as the alleged email author.

                    • There is also no such thing as video and audio of taped conversations between a lawyer and his client. Even with my very limited legal knowledge, I know that if it existed, the person who has it broke the law. It’s illegal to listen in on them.

                  • Nettles, I think I should point something out, that may or may not help but you should know. I was a very involved member at the CTH, read every comment participated in practically every conversation, so there is a chance I have read comments that others might have missed.
                    This applies to LBFTGZ but others as well, sometimes the person would identify properly but were instructed by the Mods at the CTH not to mention their connection and deleted references to what their connection to GZ was.

                    By August of last year, SD was practically the only Mod that actively participating in the GZ discussion, the others were more active in the other conversations and at points were even hostile to the GZ followers and their comments.

                    By then there are many who had stopped participating, the lack of new news, the revelations leading to the second bond hearing, dissatisfaction with the whole process, whatever, but many left, only to return as the trial neared with some not returning at all, it seemed. But as I found out later some were commenting under the earlier rules were signing-in to an account was not necessary. When that changed so that the posters could be better tracked many users had their names changed.

                    Here is what I knew or thought I knew about GBishop, in his fifties, some sort of teacher, a fan of HItchens and others as he would quote them, repeatedly, Dawkins too. He would talk in manner similar to Hooson, but did have a mean streak at times but I never got the indication that he was in contact with GZ though he was a big supporter.

                    • Thanks. That’s a great point. I do recall some were encouraged to be on the down-low. It doesn’t mean that was their decision, it was the feedback they got from the mods.

                      If any family/friend member here is posting, I’d appreciate knowing the relationship you have with the case. I’d give your posts a different consideration than some random commenter on the net.

                      For example, if someone posted they thought this discussion could cause harm to the family and I knew they were a member of the family, I’d take that more seriously than someone who is in the same boat as me; a stranger to the principles in the case.

                    • I agree, but imo that a conscious decision made by the mods they did not want that information on the posters known. While it protected them, the mods knew who they were and wanted it to keep it that way. I am not saying that it was done with nefarious intentions but it was done intentionally.

                    • Sundance did share that he was totally confused by who was who and he reached out to Robert Jr.

                      In a later post he said even Robert Jr. didn’t know.

                      I thought LBFTGZ was maybe Robert Jr. so I emailed and asked him. He said it was not and he had no idea who it was.

                      So, if taken at face value, Robert didn’t know the identity his brother-in-law posted as on the blogs.

                    • Very possible, and like I said before while knowing who is posting can help in the understanding and weight we give a comment, not wanting to reveal is up to the individual as is how much we value their thoughts, insights or facts.

                    • I remember reading a comment by a mod way back when that they didn’t appreciate all the new posters, there because of the GZ threads, and they wanted “their treehouse back.” I took it that they were not all in support of SD covering the Zimmerman case as he did.

                    • I think a time came when that feeling was expressed, just look at the people who posted in the Morning thread and compare the names to the ones in the GZ thread.

        • I don’t blame you for being offended.

          The paranoia on this site is absurd. I don’t get the point of all of this. How does it help GZ?

            • Same as many other websites–there are things I like about it and things I don’t like about it. I do feel they did more for GZ than any other site by publicizing the BS.

                  • That’s why it’s important to understand when reading there, the guy with the megaphone. How does he determine who is believed or not and what affect does that have on the direction of the discussion.

                    • And why would some posters that didn’t go along with the agenda get banned?

                      Something else I would like to add to one of Bori’s comments above, as there are no reply buttons above. The mods may have gone all out to protect the identities of some of the posters, but, SD literally sent the “treepers” out to find out who certain people were with little to go by. Crump said the name DD, or Dee Dee. Everyone went out searching for the identity of DD. Someone else had mentioned the name Francine. SD again asked that the treepers go out and try to identify who Francine was. So they protected the posters, but actively asked to research some by even just a first name.

          • What are you doing to help GZ?

            Imo, this helps the online community become better informed on the games and manipulations that can occur and make us better supporters.

          • Does this author sound stable to you? Does the fact SD and this author have the same beliefs not concern you? Does the fact that it was SD who vetted this email here is not come to play in your conclusion we are paranoid? Nettles did not initially bring to light this email. Sundance did right here on THIS Blog.

            • I don’t like anybody publishing private correspondence that could have a potential negative effect on GZ or his supporters. Have at it, though if it negatively impacts the other side.

                  • Dizzy-
                    Here is the problem with that, if this communication did influence things, it was flawed if not outright disinformation, you say:

                    1. It looks horrible if MOM made someone sign a contract never to say anything about GZ.
                    This is silly on its face, though it may sound omminous, what or how would MOM enforce it. Then there is the question of legality and the consequences of leaving a paper trail which could be construed as a conspiracy to deceive and suborn perjury, among other things. This is a red flag that the contents are questionable.

                    2. If, as stated in the email, there were financial manipulations by MOM, he could be subject to bar review.
                    It actually says that a review in underway, which is something that even MOM would not be aware of, until the Bar has decided that there is sufficient basis for it at which point MOM may be questioned but how would someone else know this.

                    3. If MOM takes offense to the emailer talking smack about him, the emailer could be sued as well as those folks who the emailer talked about. If I was MOM I would go after that emailer and the other who said he was unethical. And if the emailer is who I think it is, it will not be good for the Z family.

                    Now this is partly true, MOM could waste his time while he is busy trying another case to fight baseless charges. But this only puts the e-mailer in danger as he is the one making the accusations, not GZ or MOM.

          • Dizzy –

            I would not characterize the discussion here as paranoia.

            It is an interesting, and perhaps solvable internet puzzle, and maybe of interest to a handful of people who are steeped in the minutia of the Zimmerman case.

            Did Sundance get played? If so, who played him? Sundance has dropped hints here and there. Perhaps this is a playful diversion for Sundance.

          • I don’t see it helping George in any way. As for the paranoia here. I agree there is plenty of it and from someone who just started posting here (me) it looks more like an all out effort to discredit and blame Sundance than anything else and anyone who gets thrown in and hurt, well that’s OK because this is all in the name of supposed truth. To think, my crimes were asking over a year ago on another blog, where a constant poster was when they stopped posting, supposedly closing a Gravatar account, and joining a blog after having a day long conversation on Twitter with someone who tweeted me first which happened to be around the same time someone else left here! Well hang me out to dry I must be the emailer.

              • You created a blog that was in part about me questioning year old actions and comments on another blog, I reply to people who are asking me questions or replying to my replies and that makes you want to reconsider taking me at my initial word? So I now don’t have a right to reply to others asking me something or commenting to me for fear of you not taking me at my word? That makes sense. smdh!

                • You said about 12 hours ago that you want nothing to do with the thread. It has nothing to do with you.

                  In part, because of that feedback, I created an open discussion thread where you are free to go and talk about what topic you do think is helpful or useful.

                  I’m not sure why I’m still reading about how offended you were by the question. I’ve apologized for your hurt feelings numerous times and still you post your disgust.

                  Now I’m wondering, is it a coincidence. Are you trying too hard to convince us we were wrong for putting you on the radar. Maybe, maybe not.

                  You’ve been following me on twitter for over a year, so why a recent exchange makes you decide to come to the blog at a time another person, Rick Madigan was leaving. Is it possible that you post using all 3 identities?

                  Of all the people who noticed the guy was missing, it was you. Perhaps it is all just a coincidence. I’ve been wrong before.

                  You are trying too hard. If you are really pissed that much, what are you doing here today?

                  I don’t know but you are confusing me.

                  • So replying to people is not something I should do? I should ignore those who reply/comment to me because it makes you think bad about me? What am I suppose to do Nettles to make you feel better? Want me to stop replying to people who comment to me? Then either delete the topic or make a post asking people not to comment to me. That way I don’t keep getting notified of replies to me. I have already removed your blog from blogs I follow but that doesn’t stop the notifications when someone replies to me.

                    As for twitter, I followed a lot of people that tweeted about George’s case and yet rarely communicate on there with them. In a year I have about 1600 Tweets and most of them are retweets and about the Gov. Shutdown. And fact is, the day in question, I tweeted to VP a screenshot, YOU are the one who decided to make contact with me on twitter by replying to my tweet to her. I did not seek you out. Sorry for assuming that when someone places themselves into a tweet conversation I am having with someone else and continues a day long tweet session with me means they are like minded and I should check out their blog. I won’t be making that mistake again.

                    Just so you know, I follow Dman on Twitter too yet never tweeted with him and have never posted on his blog. I don’t even think I have ever been to it. I also follow VP on twitter and a few times I have even sent her screenshots that she has used on her blog and yet, I have never posted there either.

                    Just to fully inform you I also joined Rumpoles forum recently too but that was because he suggested at the treehouse that I should. I’m sure if you look for that comment you will find it. It’s in one of the topics about Shellie calling 911 on George. I have about 5 possibly 10 posts there about Shellie’s actions on the day of her calling the cops on George and 1 maybe 2 elsewhere under other topics on the forum. I haven’t posted there in a while because the George topic is pretty dead. I have 1 post on McDaniels site too that is in regards to his transcript of Dee Dee’s phone conversation with Crump. He missed a vital part (I think) and I told him it. I also have a few posts on TalkLeft. That should bring you up to speed as to where I post.

                    Sorry if my lack of constant posting on various blogs and twitter and replying to people who comment to me on your bog, makes you feel suspicious of me. I do have a life outside of the internet and don’t feel I need to comment everyday on a blog and as I said, if you do not want me to reply to people that specifically reply to me, then I suggest you either delete this topic or make a post here asking people to stop commenting to me and I can stop replying.

            • Froggie –

              Would you agree that if Sundance, or anyone to include me, posted something here, and if within the one post, there was illogic or contradiction evident, that this would be a legitimate topic for some dissection?

              • Of course it is but, if it’s something that happened over a year ago and holds no bearing on the here and now? Then I would say no. What does this email have to do with George today? We know George didn’t dump MOM like I believe some wish he did including the sender of the email. So why dissect it today? Do we know for a fact that Sundance was not conned into believing this person? Do we know for a fact his sharing it with a few others was not done just to see what others thought? Is it really that unlikely that someone who obviously didn’t like MOM would choose the 1 person who was open about their feelings regarding MOM, to send the email too? Especially someone or some blog that played a huge role in the online discussion of the case? Do we know for a fact that the sender wasn’t a Traybot who knew if they mentioned their dislike of MOM Sundance would most likely believe them because of how he feels about MOM? We don’t know any of that and most likely never will and at this point, it really doesn’t matter. It’s water under the bridge. George was found not guilty and now we move on to the civil cases and the sanctions hearing.

                • All of your questions are valid and deserving of answers, and I, for one, don’t know the answers. Sundance knows at least some of the answers.

                  The primary reason I believe that it is still being discussed is because of Sundance’s comments here, regarding this. These are comments he made within the past few days, and not from a year ago.

                  • To be honest, once I saw the topic of a blog being about the emails, I moved on. I said I knew nothing about them and wanted to stay out of it. I like people at both blogs and chose to stay out of it because I didn’t want to be in the middle of a an argument between people of both blogs and risk being banned at either of them for what could be misconstrued as “picking a side”. So I figured I would let people know I know nothing about them which I thought would also let people know why I was not posting on the subject. I have visited the blog to see if there is anything new on the cases but find myself just leaving because I can’t comment on something I know nothing of.

                    • “…because I can’t comment on something I know nothing of.”

                      Why not? It never stops any of the rest of us. : – )

                    • Actually I did comment on it twice saying I know nothing about it and liked it that way and that also caused suspicion towards me. So while I like many people here, I’ll stick to the Treehouse where I am not accused or under suspicion of doing something I never did. Especially with such ridiculous reasons as those listed in the original blog or now because I reply to people who specifically comment to me.

                      It only makes me wonder now that if the admin finds me even more suspicious for replying to people who specifically comment to me as she said, then does she also find those commenting to me just as suspicious? If not then why not? Just some food for thought, 🙂

                    • I’m still finding your name comes up a lot in trying to find out the writer of this email. You’ve commented 29 times so far on this thread you told me you want nothing to do with.

                      On Sept. 12th a potential sock puppet account had a melt-down and got banned at the treehouse

                      A few hours later, on Sept. 13th you decided to join our blog for the first time and just like Rick seem to keep early morning hours (4:18am). I welcome you to the blog at 4:24am and wondered to myself why are you just deciding to join us now, but hey, nice to have you, good deal.

                      Then I revealed the email Sundance talked about in front of everyone, suggesting that someone we used to know may have posted under a different identity other than Rick and there are some clues in the email. They stopped posting, other commenters noticed, after they left, they were glad to see the tradition continued.

                      Danny checked the contributors on our blog and find that LBFTGZ and Froggielegs have recently closed their gravatar accounts.

                      It comes back to me that Froggielegs just joined us around the time of Rick’s departure (now looking at rick’s thread, literally hours after getting banned at CTH) and I wonder why. I’m getting a little suspicious now hearing you closed down your account and I post a question to you (which I should have emailed in hindsight) asking you about the timing of you joining us.

                      Then I go looking for an identity who left the treehouse and other commenters who talked about it. GBishop comes up and I find on Oct. 14th, it is Froggielegs who sounded the warning bell and everyone else started commenting. Now they all think, yes I asked about him too, but it was you who started this conversation. Was that by design, as the writer in the email wrote, “I’m hope O’Mara noticed that I stopped posting when they asked about me”

                      Now I’m really curious! Froggielegs sounds the bell and not only that, she seems sure “it’s been almost a month” We nail down when GBishop stopped posting was Sept. 17th, so your language that its been *almost* a month is dead accurate. If I noticed someone stopped posting, I’d likely only be able to say in general terms, but you are quite precise.

                      Then yesterday, I found this comment from Ejarra, that he posted Feb. 21st. In it he also talks about missing GBishop and it says something curious. Froggielegs came back but momentarily. I can’t find a post of froggielegs in February 2013. This is important because it was Feb. 20th the email got sent.

                      You are most definitely around at least behind the scenes (in spite of what Ejara thinks), because Sundance includes you in this list to contact the treehouse via email – that was about Jack Cashill’s book btw.

                      It’s odd that Froggie keeps coming up. Perhaps it’s all just strange coincidences. I take you at your word. I can’t know the answers unless I ask. I have apologized and I’ll apologize again for any offense you felt.

                      I wish you nothing but the best on your future journey. ♥

                    • Nettles what can i say to prove to you I am not the writer of that email. I’m sorry you feel I am but you are dead wrong. I have never been to that Rick’s blog that you first posted so I can not even comment on what is on it. I don’t even really know who he is other than I recall his name at the treehouse a few times. I did not even know about the email until I joined your blog that is why I said I was in the dark. How can I defend against that which I know nothing about?

                      Yes I stay up late because the medication I take keeps me from sleeping. I’m sorry I can’t change that and haven’t been able to in years since an accident I was in. I sleep between the hours of 6 and 10 am on a good day. When George’s trial was going on I slept even less because I had to stay awake to watch it.

                      I already explained why I joined your blog. If you also noticed, I rarely tweet to any one person for a very long time. Most of it is just retweeting what I find interesting. Yet that one day when you tweeted to me and VP it was a very long tweet session and I found you to be knowledgeable about George’s cases and decided to check out your blog as I said, the treehouse wasn’t posting much about George at the time.

                      As for LBFTGZ, Is that who Shellie’s mother was? I know you listed a couple of names here of who she is and I am not sure if that is who you are talking about. I didn’t even know Shellie’s mom posted on bogs.

                      I already explained why I asked where Gbishop was. I don’t know what else to say about that. I’m sorry I happened to be the first person who asked about it. How is me saying it’s been about a month, being dead accurate and not in general terms?

                      Regarding that topic with Sundance listing who to email him did you notice that I never replied at all in that topic? Why? Because I have never seen that topic other than just now and most likely because I didn’t log on that day. You can ask Sundance himself, I never emailed him in regards to that again because I never saw the post. I don’t go back and read too far on blogs when I am off the computer because especially with the GZ topics, they got too long. As for Jack Cashill I only know of who he is because of his book he wrote, I didn’t buy his book cause I don’t need to hear what we all already know.

                      Nettles, I truly wish there was something, anything I can do or say to prove to you I am not the person who wrote that email. Please tell me what I can do. How can I prove I am not them?

                      You said the other day you don’t understand why someone would take it so personally. Let me explain to you why I take/took it so personally. I am disabled, I do not have the ability to get out of my house much and there for I have very few real life friends. I live in Michigan but I was not born and raised here. We moved here 26 years ago to take care of my husbands disabled sister till her death a couple of years ago. All my time was spent raising my son and taking care of my sister in law who was bed ridden. I didn’t have time to make or keep friends here. There for, all my real life friends live in Massachusetts. My family, other than my husband and son, all live in Massachusetts. So I have online friends. I cherish their friendships because it’s all I have outside of my family.

                      I have always been an honest upfront person. I have always treated people with kindness. So when my reputation or integrity is in question, yes I get offended. Yes sometimes I disappear online and my online friends who have known me for a long time, know that it is not unusual because of my disability. I am ill often due to my COPD, Winter months and high pollen months kill me breathing wise. I also have ruptured disks in my back which problems walking and on top of that, I have been having heart problems this year. Then add to that my husband going through his cancer treatments and the problems my son has gone through from Feb 2011 – March 2013, yes I have dropped off the radar online many times.

                      I have already suggested looking at my IP and seeing I am located in Michigan. If you look at it, it says I am using Comcast. To the best of my knowledge, proxies that Danny was talking about, won’t show a service provider. I don’t know I am not versed in them. Again, please tell me exactly what you want from me to prove I am not the writer?

                    • I am sincere when I say I take you at your word.

                      I provided that step-by-step breakdown to tell you why I had questions. Not accusations.

                      I saw your comment at the treehouse that kinda made me sound unbalanced to have concluded you are the writer by the timing you joined the blog and noticing GBishop was no longer posting.

                      I provided why I was suspicious and then really curious. That you came back on and told me you were offended, I felt awful for that. I take you at your word.

                      However, over a 12 hour period I kept reading how offended you were. In a thread you said you wanted nothing to do with you’ve posted 30 times now.

                      Again, I had questions, and I considered them answered. I’m very very very sorry to hear of your challenges in life and then learn that I added to them.

                      I wish you nothing but the very best.

                    • I am not on your blog, my ipod keeps sending me notifications of comments to me on my wordpress app, and because typing and reading on that is too hard for me, I go to my wordpress dashboard on my laptop to answer. When I get a notification, I reply to the comment because it is to me. I try not to be rude to people and not answer them. That is the only reason why there are so many comments from me here. 🙂 I like everyone here and don’t want to not reply to them and have them think I’m being rude. I accept your apology and honestly wish I knew how to find out who sent the email. Did you look at the email headers? Does it show ip’s? That’s the only way I know how to find out where it came from.

                      I truly wish there was something more I could do. I am not nor have I ever been a MOM hater. I may have been frustrated with him at times not unlike some others but, I would never do anything to undermine his work or George’s defense.

                      I wish you well too.

                    • Did you look at the FULL email headers? Does it show ip’s? That’s the only way I know how to find out where it came from.

                      IP addresses are not specific as to address of the sender.

                    • Oh Ok Thanks Well that shoots down that thought. I have nothing else to suggest. I’m sorry I can’t be more helpful.

                    • You said: Yes I stay up late because the medication I take keeps me from sleeping. I’m sorry I can’t change that and haven’t been able to in years since an accident I was in. I sleep between the hours of 6 and 10 am on a good day.

                      My medical condition also results in changes to what I say write on blogs. I wish we could make changes after the post goes up..

                      IIRC correctly I valued your comments and sought them out. Then the detectives set us up to be monitored.

                      Why doesn’t the person step up to the plate and fess up? What is there to fear unless there was criminal charges?

                    • My meds just effect my sleep. My doctor gave me sleeping pills a few years ago and OMG the nightmares I was having with them. The last straw was one night I kept having nightmares of these enormous bugs attacking us that would wake me up so I would get up, go out to the living room, talk to my husband for a bit, then go back to bed. This happened 4 or 5 times or so I thought! The following morning, I woke up, went out in the living room and my husband asked me how I slept and I said not good I kept getting up all night. I asked him how many times had I been out there to talk to him after I fell asleep last night and he said, this is the first time I have spoken to you since you fell asleep! I tossed those suckers right away. No way did I want to go through that again. Since then, I sleep on average 4 hours a day.

                      I have always valued yours and everyone else input too. You can not even imagine how much I wish the writer of that email would fess up. Thanks to them, I feel like sh!t because I said things that hurt others over the weekend because I let my emotions get the better of me. I am someone who wears their heart on their sleeve. I can’t change that. It saddens me that people I have come to know and respect for over a year are now placed in a position to either believe I wrote it or believe I didn’t. At this point, I wish I never heard the name George Zimmerman. Then I would of never looked for a place to discuss the case that wasn’t all about Trayvon’s innocence.

                    • I think I can identify with you so I am so sorry you have been exposed to this and hurt so terribly. Cool off a bit.

                    • Yes I posted a link to an interview MOM did on BET. Not unlike anyone else who posted links to videos or news Items they found online that had not been posted before. Will you be posting links to other posts I made pointing to all the other video links? Or are you just cherry picking ones that mention MOM? Am I now to blame because Sundance chose to “hatTip” me for posting a link? Seriously Nettles would you like my password for my wordpress account to have easier access to every single post I ever made on the treehouse? I will gladly give it if it helps you believe I am not the write of that email.

                    • “…because I can’t comment on something I know nothing of.”
                      Why not? It never stops any of the rest of us. :

                      +1 (I think this is the first time I’ve done +1)

                • Froggielegs……Plain and simple. We were searching for who asked where someone was@ SDs breadcrumb path….. You were the person that answered that question. Other then that you are very insignifigant. If anyone should be offended more so then you is minipin. She has not protested ONCE. She in fact is relieved.

                  You are of no consequence and your constant protest is beginning to look like an intention to get those of us who are searching for the truth off topic. I am just ignoring you.

            • “it looks more like an all out effort to discredit and blame Sundance than anything else”

              I wouldn’t go that far Froggie. Maybe I’m too demanding. Maybe I expect people that preach about truth and sunlight be held to a higher standard. To me, those that preach and have been shown to have been deceptive and lied, need to be looked at far more critically than others.

              • I can agree with that but how does that equate to me being added to the mix of people who need to be looked at or fall under suspicion? Have I ever been deceptive? Have I ever lied about George or what I knew of the case? The ironic part of all of this is, when Sundance first mentioned his distrust in MOM, I was one of the first people who said on the blog I did not agree with him!! Yes there were moments when I didn’t agree with what Mark was doing, and yes I do think MOM should of taken a bigger stand in publicly professing George’s innocence. But, most of that was said by me out of frustration at the time because I was upset at how George was being portrayed in the media and online. None of that equates to me thinking MOM did a horrible job with the case. None of it warrants me being placed under suspicion because I just so happened to join a blog at the time someone else left (apparently under bad circumstances) And now because I choose to reply to people who comment to me about it, I am yet again acting suspicious. I am not knowing what I am suppose to do to make people happy. If you figure it out, please let me know.

                • From all of the back and forth all day perhaps the better question would be what could anyone here do to make you happy. It seems to me that Nettles has honesty apologized her heart out for your feelings of offense, but you seem to refuse to accept her appology. What is it that would make you feel better, that is acceptable to you?

                  • As I said, I am only replying to people who specifically comment to me by clicking a reply on one of my comment answers.. If that is not wanted here then either close or delete this particular blog or make a post in it telling people to stop commenting to me. Either way, I don’t care. Then there will be no further reason to ever see a comment from me on this site. But until then, if I get a notification saying someone sent me a comment, I am going to reply. I’m not going to willfully ignore anyone who speaks to me especially since those commenting to me, I like.

                    I’ve done the majority of my replies through the dashboard on wordpress today so I am not even on the site but I keep getting notifications of comments to me on my ipod. I can not stop what I have no control over and that’s why I said If it bothers Nettles or anyone else that I am replying to people who are commenting to me then, make it so no one can comment to me or make a post asking people not to comment to me. Then no one will have to read anymore of my comments.

              • “it looks more like an all out effort to discredit and blame Sundance than anything else”

                It seems that that may be the heart and soul of the matter.

                It has been a long known fact that if you don’t “appreciate” all of the efforts of SD, you are removed from that community where you felt that you made friends, and didn’t want to be taken away from them. On this site, there are no such restrictions. I honestly wonder if some posted as they have here, if they would still be among their community of friends at the CTH. It’s very doubtful.

            • Froggie- two points to keep in mind.
              1st many here came here because they did not tow the line at the CTH and were banned from there. Yet, most are complimentary about the CTH and its works but the subject that most of the them banned is one that SD himself has tried to come here and frame to his defense. If SD was misled by someone or he was misleading everyone is a legitimate question, one which most avoid answering.

              2nd you are new so your perspective is new, but what do you think would happen to a new person that went to the CTH and read, I am going on a field trip, have to be careful, dangerous, digging in deep, powerful people that can make you disappear, etc, etc. I realize that you were not posting for much of this but the same feeling was conveyed, unless you have participated and understand that what you think is paranoia is just someone who feels has been misled by others, trying to vet what she is told.

              • I completely get what you are saying and appreciate your reply. I was hurt when I read my name on the blog. I reacted in typical womanly fashion and took everything to heart. I don’t know what else I am suppose to do at this point. I have made some really cool online friends on the blogs yet, I feel like my every word is now going to be under suspicion because of one blog being made questioning a comment I made a year ago. I asked about Gbishop because I had noticed they were no longer the first person who posted on the George topics. Topics to which I was only posting in. To me it’s no different than seeing someone everyday in a group and then all of a sudden you no longer see them. I am not the only one who asked about them either and now because I am replying to people commenting to me, I am placed under further suspicion It’s a no win situation for me. I either reply to people commenting to me or completely ignore them because it makes me look suspicious.

                • Froggie, you are right I asked about GBishop myself, I even suggested that the Mods e-mail him to verify if he was OK. He had been absent for a time before due to illness, IIRC and was hoping that was all.

                  I think that though I am not in your position, that you give the guys here a chance. There is a reason if I understand it correctly that Annette is trying to get this information. The person could have done irreparable damage to GZ, and getting a clue as to who it is can help determine the why.

                    • I read that yesterday but I can’t find it again. I did find a comment dated Feb. 21st (the date before the email got shared) about GBishop and Dedidicated Dad missing and Froggielegs for a time.

                      If I remember right, Dedicated Dad got banned from the site for supporting O’Mara in the July dustup. In the antitxmedia (?) blog, some wondered if Sundance didn’t actual ban George’s dad when the site banned Dedicated Dad.

                    • On September 11th, GBishop said has this comment it is also the last day I found of him posting;

                      A poster here has duped everyone into thinking they are well-connected and in the know has put a lot of red herrings out there for everyone to chase. They are enjoying people running around researching questions and discussions forming from every nonfact and halftruth dropping like (fake) gold nuggets from their mouth! http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/09/11/911-george-zimmerman-case-open-discussion-thread/#comment-194537

                      Not only what he said caught my attention but to me that was the first time that he gave any inclination to have some knowledge that we did not have, or how would he know, this was different from other times when people were trolling. Am I reaching now, you got me on this quest now.

                    • There’s that word “gold” again. Rick Madigan used it in his first post about the Orlando attorneys – he said O’Mara was “a bad penny dressed up like gold”

                      In the email, the writer says of O’Mara “He may have all the form of charm and airs of sophistication that George likes, but its gold ring on a pig’s snout!”

                      In the response to Mini on Diwataman’s blog GBishop also gives an indication he has behind the scene information about who is emailing the treehouse.

                    • Yes i do remember that. I thought the reply was odd but chalked it up to them not being as personable with people as maybe you or I would of been. I do also remember Gbishop was upset over something said on the blog days or maybe a week prior to them disappearing. If memory serves me right it had something to do with religion or someone saying something about religion. So I figured they left because they could not handle (not that this is a bad thing) the way the conversations would at times end up. I would have to go back and look because I know they were upset and I sympathized with their feelings and they thanked me for understanding them.

                    • That seems to be my recollection as well, he had some discussion with one of the Mods about religion, Sharon I believe, he kept posting for a short while then stopped.

                    • Yep and that is what caught my eye to begin with when they disappeared. Not just because they posted first on the George topics and disappeared but because they had recently been upset with someone. (I say they and them when referring to Gbishop because I don’t know for sure, if they were/are male or female.)

      • I don’t want to help because it has nothing to do with me! I could care less who sent the email and after reading it just now, I could care less as to what it says because it means nothing to me or to George’s case. And to be quite honest with everyone, who would even believe an email from someone online who claims to have inside information about a high profile case?? I have been following true crime forums for many years and have seen a lot of people who love to insert themselves into cases. There is no way I would give an ounce of credence to anyone who claims the inside scoop.

        • There is no way I would give an ounce of credence to anyone who claims the inside scoop.

          But of course that includes Sundance, who always trumpets that he has inside scoops, and it also potentially includes SDC in the sense that if he wrote the letters to himself, his credibility is further shot.

        • “I have been following true crime forums for many years and have seen a lot of people who love to insert themselves into cases.”

          Well then, obviously the email was from Crump!

      • PS Froggie legs – I understand not wanting to be in the middle of a blog fight, but I don’t think that is what this is. Nettles posts recently have been about trust, credibility, sources, how to pay attention to what is fact and what is opinion (but presented as fact), how to distinguish a “source” from a sockpuppet, etc. Basically we want to get to the destination of truth, but are trying to learn how to cut away all the bramble at our feet that hide the path from us, and the “go this way” signs that may be intentionally misleading and actually take us further from the truth. It can be somewhat upsetting to find out that people you took at face value and were in some way depending on them to be truthful were actually playing tricks on you for months – it’s going to cause a lot of people to rethink things, including the past. Before we can figure out where we’re going, we may have to straighten this out to figure out where we are right *now* in light of new information.

        So, stay Froggie, please 🙂

  6. I am just throwing this out here. Remember SD and other admins did not leave Hillbuzz on a good note. They may have some who are still trying to disenfrancise them. Being it seems SD does not confirm his sources and is easily swayed by anyone who appears to be in agreement, the possibility lies that someone who is also pissed at SD could be duping him.

    • Danny, I know more about the Hillbuzz issue than most because I was in the middle, and I disagreed with the people who left of their own accord. In fact I remember the posts that got them more or less removed, and then saw what was said after they were gone. They were troublemakers at Hillbuzz. Kevin made himself look crazy just to see how they would react.

      Also, when they left they formed their own blog, and then they set about luring people away from Hillbuzz via private email. I went to the other blog and gave them a piece of my mind about how they have behaved. SD stood out even at that point with his awkward manner.

      I have been no friend to SD. I was amongst the first of the people who were banned from CTH and I can assure you that I was set up by the Admin over there to finally lose it with them. I have never taken back my own comments about the BGI and scheme team because I consider them to be nothing more than yabberers (name your own animal).

      Even so, I doubt that anyone involved with reading at Hillbuzz is responsible for the email.

        • the worst of it was in fact the lies that were told about why I was no longer posting there.

          A lot of my posts where I questioned the sources used by SD over Libya were deleted and I was in moderation. I had huge issues over the way they handled the Libyan civil war. I found a lot of discrepancies within the sources that were used.

          However, the way I was caught in the end was due to a female admin telling me to stuff it… and I responded in like manner. It was nothing more than that.

  7. Nettles, you said someone close to the defense told you they think maybe the letter writer is someone George met after the incident. This defense person – you have before this particular contact determined s/he is legitimate?

    And – do I have that right? Someone George met after the incident? I can’t imagine he met that many in hiding. And then to introduce his wife to her/him, and provide his phone number? To a new acquaintance? And the letter writer says that MOM cut this person’s contact off with George, but in another email says it has happened multiple times (and always when this person is getting close to ? converting George against MOM??). The person also says And he (MOM) cuts me off when he has been using my writings, my research, my analysis, and the letters that have helped the case. In fact, in every hearing, he has used my arguments and research, bringing no idea of his own, – but also says s/he gets all their letter to MOM content from CTH – so are they doing their own research and analyses, or not?

    • SDC lives in FL, this letter writer lives in FL. They both took it upon themselves to interview the only people in the whole state who don’t like MOM. They both analyzed, researched, and wrote – (where did the letter writer write other than a few emails…?) Many similarities, many coincidences, maybe a few red herrings thrown in (as with Rick Madigan) to give the illusion they are 2 separate people.

      I just have a gut feeling – which could disippate with firm proof one way or another – this all swirls around SDC and his beliefs – I just have a feeling none of this falls far from SDC. Granted, I could be wrong. It’s just this feeling…

      And speaking of Hillbuzz, Kevin did tell stories about his frends and sometimes they posted their own threads, and the concensus became (especially as the writing was similar) that they were just fiction, part of making his site entertaining, however it could be done. SDC could have learned this at Hillbuzz…..

      • Lorac1, I am just catching up and was just fixing to comment that I find it odd that this Author supposedly met GZ after the shooting. Ummm Didn’t GZ go into hiding RIGHT AFTER SHOOTING?….. So to ME, that comment about befriending GZ is a flag to me… I HAVE READ comments tho from someone who IIRC did have contact with GZ during this time….

        Also, no way do/did I believe that Froggie was the Author as she lives in a “Northern State” if IIRC. And if you read few threads back. her husband has had some health issues. I myself was gone for abt 2 weeks at end of Aug first of Sept last year. So for someone absence alone, IMHO shows nothing. People do have real life stuff.

        • The person who emailed me about the friend GZ met after the shooting and got cut contact, I didn’t communicate with prior to this incident.

          I was given some information that leaves me confident that they are on team defense.

          They don’t know who the writer is either but thought this person could be.

          I leave it to each reader to decide how much stock to put into that.

      • and to think Lorac all it would takem is to look at my IP and see I live in Michigan. That’s a long way off from Florida. I just read the email a bit ago that Nettles posted and I don’t know who a couple of those Florida attorneys are. I know Nejames because he is on TV. Morgan I assume is from JP Morgan? I have never heard of Greg Francis and Charlie Crist only sounds remotely familiar.

        • Froggie, I’m sure it was a shock to come over and see yourself being debated. And it’s hard to prove a negative, ie, “I’m not that person”. I think your words sound very genuine, and I’m sure everyone feels good that you came right in and straightened the record out. As far as the IP address, Nettles is a new blog owner and probably doesn’t even know about that. 🙂

          And Mimi, Michigan is part of the proud midwest, not a “northern state” (well, ok, part of it goes way up there lol) I’m laughing because I’m from the midwest, but live in CA. AZ is the state to the east of CA. And in socal, anything past AZ is called “back east”, which always confused me at first, because growing up in the midwest, “east” meant Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, NY, etc. But apparently to CA, it’s all one big blob after AZ lol

          • Giggling I was thinking she was from IL for some reason. And its funny too because I have a lot of friends who lived around us when I was in Jr High and were from Michigan. LOL everyone called them Yankees lol. And spoke of Michigan as NORTH lol. I guess I can say WOOOOPs giggle

          • “Froggie, I’m sure it was a shock to come over and see yourself being debated. And it’s hard to prove a negative, ie, “I’m not that person””

            It was a shock to see my name on the original post saying I could be this person, did I write this email etc. How do you defend that? How do you prove you are not someone who wrote an email when (at the time) you have no idea what the email is fully about? How am I suppose to feel when I come to a blog only because I interacted with someone on twitter, enjoyed the conversation I had with them and shortly there after I’m looked into because I just so happen to join the blog as someone else left? How am I suppose to feel knowing people have been seeking me out because they feel I am someone I am not and even go so far as to say well gee you closed your gravatar account so that leads me to believe you could be them. Did I even have a gravatar account? I have no idea. I signed up for wordpress to join the treehouse and placed a frog as my avatar. That was over a year ago. I then changed it on wordpress profile to add the frog with eyelashes as explained before.

            I’m 51 with a husband who was going through cancer and treatments and a son who had just gone through the worse moments of his life to which we could not do anything but watch him get screwed by the system and lose everything in his life including my ONLY newborn grandchild! And now I am suppose to remember whether I have or had a gravatar account and why did I close it, if I even did. All so I can prove I am not someone people think I am and I did not do what others think I did. While seeking out my posts why not read the one where I was asked at the treehouse after I was gone for a while, where I had been. Which I had explained my husbands illness? Why not read the ones where I disagreed with some about MOM being the bad guy? I will continue to post in this topic only to continue to defend myself but other than that, I am not interested in being at a place where it’s OK to openly point fingers at a person just because they asked on another blog where someone was or *gasp* close a gravatar account when you don’t even know if they even had one to begin with. It can be called just questioning to get to the truth but put yourself in my shoes and see if you see it that way. This could of all been asked in email even questions others had about me. Yet it sat up here for hours before I was done spending time with my family and was able to read it. Leaving other members to question me or motives that were now placed in their heads. It can be said that others didn’t have my email address but the point is, Nettles did and she knew the questions others had about me as she put them in the blog. So why not ask me those in email too? I have no doubt that she would not have believed me anyway because she also said this 2 hours after my original reply regarding the accusations towards me,

            “Arkansasmimi just related an experience with you that debunks what I was thinking was possible. Had this been handled quietly, I wouldn’t have that extra bit of help in getting a fuller understanding.”

            Well thank God Mimi could clear my name cause obviously even after two hours of replying, I could not debunk what she was thinking was possible.

            This was all done very poorly and I hope no one else has to go through it the way I did. The sad fact is in the end, that email held no bearing on the outcome of George’s case. Nor did how anyone feels about MOM. None, nada, zip! It will hold no bearing in any civil suits George will go through either. I don’t recommend anyone believing everything they read on the internet and this particular blog proves exactly why!

        • To be honest, I don’t put any stock in IP addresses because I’m not sure they are accurate.

          When Sundance and Rick showed up here and I thought they were the same person, I was getting feedback that one of them (I can’t remember which one) was in 4 different states in 2 hours of posts. I doubt it.

        • Believe it or not SD has posted here using many different IPs. None from Florida. Same rings true for RickMadigan. If it was that easy the mystery would have been solved.

      • Gbishop is RickMadigan. RickMadigan is the Author. I will let you all connect the dots.

        Danny, what further dots are you talking about to connect — which other screen names are used by this person…?

        Any thoughts on why the change from gbishop to Rick Madigan?

        • I’m trying to think this through lol So we don’t know the main persona, but the main (real) person created gbishop as a male, and Rick Madigan as a female? But… why give Rick Madigan a male name if the persona was to be female? But Rick Madigan spoke as a crude, misoygynistic male – why make that persona be a female then? Or is the main person a female? Too confusing. Whoever is the puppeteer must not have a job, that’s for sure lol

          • If by som chanc gbisop is Sundance, that would explain how he could always be the first to post a relaxing youtube/prayer as the first poster to the thread…

            Danny, can you fill in the dots, since you seem to know them? It would be easier lol

            • I suppose the dots are the likeness of the author, RM, and gbishop.
              RM posted quotes about Hitchens, and even shared he attended events of his. RM “prays” but views himself as a freethinker (atheist). RM was very keen about CTH things prior to posting as RM. The timing when Gbishop left and RM showed up calling mini back (Bishop & RM both smitten with mini) all add up.

              I believe RM is a male because of his writing and topic style. I believe there are other socks he uses. I am in the process of connecting those dots. As for why one poster under one account would act drastically diffrently personality wise for instance (religious on one and non religious on another) on another account is to avoid detection. I have my doubts in just how Christian SD really is. A person who decieves often is the most critical and judgemental of all.
              And we all know just how high SD thinks of himself. Hell, he can pick a prog out of haystack!
              For years I have posted on political and religious blogs. These are sometimes the most contentious topics one can enter, and where most socks, and troll are. After awhile picking them out is second nature.
              But some decievers have a guilty conscious. Hence, pray for others while pretending to be an atheist. 😉

              Why Netties source believes it may be a female I am unsure. Perhaps it is the same person attemping to avoid detection.
              It is possible for someone to have befriended GZ while in jail. I believe people wrote to him, and vice versa?
              As far as why someone would want to avoid detection is the concern I have and why I want to find out who it is.

              • “…but views himself as a freethinker (atheist).”

                So does that mean non-atheists (which would be theists, strictly speaking) are not free to think?

                • It is an atheist term & their belief not mine. They view belief in a diety is thinking within the contraints of the faith in the deity.

      • Christopher Hitchens is also the one who lied about Mother Theresa. I mention it because Rick Madigan is very anti on Mother Theresa to the point that what was said was disgusting.

          • No, not at all. It is a matter of interpretation regarding what happened. It is more about ideology than anything else. Rick Madigan came on very strong on the matter, making unsubstantiated claims.

            Now, it could be that the sisters of the order do things that we do not agree with, but they do give care to those who are dying.

            Mother Theresa commanded a lot of respect from the Indians of all flavours. That was obvious by those who attended her funeral.

            On the other hand I cannot speak to what happens in India and unless I was involved in their actions I have no comment.

    • Yesterday I said that I was going to have to go somewhere I didn’t want to go, but I believed that RM may have been posting under a different identity while I was still at the TH. Yes, GBishop was the person I was looking for at the TH. I sent Nettles an email, and she kindly told me how to look for information at the TH, short of literally going back, page by page in finding exactly what I was looking for. Thank you Nettles.

      I have already admitted that I was a part of the anti O’Mara group way back when. I couldn’t understand why he wasn’t doing more for George. I didn’t understand or agree with his mild mannered approach in court hearings in the beginning, though I was convinced from the first Bond hearing that BDLR, who I had never heard of before, was going to lose the case badly if for no other reason than he was one of the most obnoxious beings that would turn off every juror. I wanted O’Mara to go to the press, and scream about George’s innoSense. I eventually stepped back from those thoughts and after hearing the jailhouse tapes, realized that O’Mara may have not been getting the full or honest answers from some in the Zimmerman family. I thought, suppose something comes out proving that GZ wasn’t as innocent as first thought. I never questioned GZ having the right to defend himself from the beating he was getting at the hands of a thug. I, like so many other’s, foolishly bought into the original stories about O’Mara having more knowledge of the pay pal accounts, even though there was no proof of that, just an idea thrown out there by someone with an agenda. On Dman’s site, RM was quick to ask if I was the same minpin that said, and posted quotes of things I had posted. I said that yes it was the same minpin, but that over time, and with much more information coming out, I had changed my views of O’Mara being a bad guy. I’ve said that it was George’s decision to make in what attorney was to represent him, who am I too question it. I also got to believing that for George to change lawyers mid course would look very bad for George. I grew to appreciate O’Mara’s approach, but hell I wish he wasn’t so sympathetic to the lying coniving Martin family and Crump. They would have hung George from the nearest tree if they had the opportunity.

      When SD brought my name into the discussion on the email, saying that the writer was my biggest GZ fan, I was racking my brain trying to think of what fans I have ever had. The only name I could think of was RM, as he invited me back to post at the TH, haha. He also tried to drag me into going over to his site to have some kind of discussion. No thanks. He has said many times that he thought the mods behavior in ganging up on me was disgusting. I’m not the only one they have done that to.

      I think often people don’t remember the details of long ago discussions or comments, but rather you remember what your impression was of a particular person. I remembered thinking that GBishop was so very kind to George. I remembered their posts of calm music and prayer for George every day for a good while. I knew they were a big time GZ supporter. WOW. I don’t recall seeing the above post from GBishop begging for people to stop donating to GZ’s defense account. I may have seen it, but I just don’t remember seeing it. GBishop left the TH shortly after I did. I didn’t know if they were banned, or left on their own. I know that my argument with the mods. was because of the Tcong word being used, and the mods. claiming that it was somehow racist, and referred to money’s. I in fact did snarkily ask the question if we were to run our vocabulary throw a filter to insure that we were never politically incorrect in using words such as apartment or Chicago, which were deemed to be racist by some. If you noticed, they seem to be hell bent on slapping those they think have bad manners, as though they personify Emily Post at all times. I think SD even brought up about bad manners here in his ramblings. Reading through some of GBishop’s comments at the TH yesterday, I wondered just why I had forgotten who the person was, or had moved so completely away from that position that I didn’t remember those comments. Again, I was not innocent at the time, but I don’t believe I ever said that no one should donate to the fund. Hell, if nothing else, George needed money to live on.

      After I left the TH, and didn’t see GBishop posting there any longer, I had asked around on a few different websites if anyone know what happened to GBishop. No one knew anything. Out of the blue, and I mean out of the blue, I had decided to check on Dma’s site, as I had not even gone there to read since Nettles site came on board. Low and behold, you see a post from GBishop, which Nettles linked to above. They posted that comment in May, even though the thread was from back to March. The comment was very complimentary to me, just as some of RM’s comments have been. I thought about the religious connection, as both GBishop and RM did often post religious comments. I thought about the very pro-Gz position between RM and GBishop. After yesterday, I connected the very anti-O’Mara positions. GBishop said they were no longer posting for “important reasons.” Cut off from GZ maybe, or, perhaps frustration because GZ didn’t dump O’Mara? SD said that the writer was my biggest GZ fan. I guess you could have called RM a fan of mine of sorts. That is no longer obviously, ha.

      It’s sad, and even pathetic that some get so hung up in their own beliefs/ideas/agendas that they just can’t tolerate any other opinions or alternative ideas. Thank God it all worked out the way it did for George, despite some very negative forces working against those who made that happen. I view it as some believing that political ideology trumps everything. No lunch for you you bad Nettles. LOL

      • I was aware you were one of some here that was critical of some of MOM decisons or lack of. I do not judge anyone for their opinions on MOMs legal style. I am sure MOM himself has some regrets.
        We all are aware of the machines involved that railroaded GZ. That forced him and his family into hiding, that now has affected his life after trial as well.

        It seems Gbishop/ RM took a liking to you because you just do not give 2 cents about others opinions of you and perhaps @ that time he needed someone like you to latch onto. You were not the only one who seemed to appreciate his kind thoughtfulness for the Zimmermans. I am sure for many it is embarrasing to have supported a poster who you thought was genuine and helping the cause. But that is the beauty of hindsight.

        I hold no judgement over you what so ever. I am sure you felt some responsibility in finding out who your fan was! I am glad Nettie could help you.

        • Danny, thank you. Remember also the part in the email where the writer says that they didn’t think some should have been tossed from the TH, as they “could have been turned.” In other words the goal is more along the aspect of mind control rather than a search for the truth.

          Let me ask you something, as you’ve known SD a long time. Do you consider SD to be a far right radical ideologue? Do you see SD as being closer to an Alex Jones type believer?

          • I read the treehouse because of Bengazi and other political issues prior to the GZ case. I am conservative but not a Tea party member. In the past I have supported Tea party politicians that are more so moderates. This is a democracy after all!
            Really, the party line difference now is extreme right or far left. So adjusting to a moderate politican is something I feel could keep the extremist in check.

            I would define myself moderately conservative on social issues. Traditionally conservative family and fiscally. Small government with limited powers.
            I feel federally that the government should be limited.

            GZ was a passing topic initially at CTH. I never saw it as a political issue though. It was purely legal in the fact no matter who made it political, it in the end was a legal issue and therefore people who held MOM responsible to expose political agenda had a political agenda as well. Lady Justice should be blind. It benefits all of us!

            • Yes, as far as the attack on the US embassy is concerned the CTH had good information. There were other sites that had better or the same information.

              The Libyan situation has been far more complex and more messy than other M.E. situations. The difference there is that there were people who wanted to get rid of Gadhafi who were not “ultra-conservative aks Muslim Brotherhood types” who joined in the fight. Most have resumed their lives but there are pockets where that is not the case. After the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi the people chased Ansar al-Islam out of the city and out of the buildings that they were occupying. However, that did not stop the violence from this group that are motivated in a different way.

              I like to get facts from various sources and doing that requires being able to parse the information. I do not consider the C.S. Monitor to be a reliable source of information.

              Syria is the really messy situation. I need to get cracking on some posts about what is coming to light. One thing, in Australia with the change of government I do hope we will not intervene in Syria. It is less likely now that Bob Carr the sleaze is no longer the Foreign Minister.

            • I forgot to add here Danny, that how you summed up yourself is how I see myself. I am fiscally and socially conservative, but I prefer politicians who are moderate rather than hardline if that makes sense.

              Here in Australia the party that most serves my political leanings is the Australian Liberal Party. They are conservative in most things.

              • I appreciate your views. I feel here in the US it is important for individuals to define or redefine what conservative is. I try my best to listen to everyone. It helps make the changes needed to define who we are.

                • The Classical Liberal is in fact a conservative. The social liberal is the opposite. I have always believed that the social liberals purloined the term for their own ends.

                  Classical Liberals do in fact believe in Capitalism rather than Socialism. Also we do accept some measures that are considered to be socialist. It is hard to explain for example but I do believe in having the dole, but I want to see “work for the dole” rather than just a handout. I also believe in helping widows, and divorced women until they get back on their feet.

                  Beint a thinker means looking at the whole picture rather than half the picture.

                  On top of that one can be a “theist” and a thinker at the same time. Some of the greatest thinkers have been Catholic priests or just Catholics such as St. Thomas Moore. He is just one name that is on the tip of my tongue.

                  • It is funny because those who claim to have such knowledge to the point they brand are the ones who in fact limit themselves of the knowledge they seek.

                    • and to make matters worse, I actually defend John Maynard Keynes, even though I point out that his ideas have been terminal :). I think it is because I actually did read his book on Employment etc a very long time ago.

                    • Bori, I agree!! That is exactly why I defend Keynes.

                      The Keynesian theory worked in Australia from the 1930s through to the 1960s, and then we had Stagflation, and Keynesian theory failed. It was not the answer from that point.

                      Many of the people who interpret and implement Keynesian theory these days are Marxists, and they use sugar coat their Marxist objectives with Keynesian theory. Klugman is an excellent example of the Marxist dressed up as Keynesian.

                    • Yes, the use the theory not as a short term boost in a time of need but as a way to socialize more of the government, and once something is in place they never relinquish it.

                    • Correct and that was the mistake that they made because they were not following what Keynes was saying to them.

                      This is why their solutions continue to fail. Instead of helping the economy they create a real mess.

                    • I know, but IMO it is done purposely to advance their agendas. Any recession without any done will eventually bounce back, but if you can use it to push your agenda knowing that eventually the economy will bounce back regardless, then why not.

                    • Business and Human Resources were my field but running a good business depends on the Economy so I studied a lot. As a plus I am an amateur historian and economics is always involved in historical events.

                    • we have some very similar interests except I was not in human resources. I have a degree, Bachelor of Economics and Commerce.

                      Like you, I am an amateur historian 🙂

                      This is fun and to think I am finding like-minded persons in this fashion 🙂

                    • The internet has shrunk the world, hasn’t it. It is also a great resource which is a blessing and also pain in the butt, shuffling to the crush of information.

                    • If this works, it’ll be a reply to a comment of yours that didn’t have a reply link.

                      (so I made one myself)

                      I’m sure there are several comments in this thread that are so many levels down that they don’t have reply links, yours just happened to be the first one I found.

  8. I guess I’m not really worried about who the sender was. The email was nothing until SD decided to enthusiastically and repeatedly attack MOM publicly on his blog. And if I’m following correctly that email was part of the reason. It’s all on him as far as I’m concerned. Maybe he didn’t properly vet the info. Maybe he was conned. We may never know. But he’s the one that makes the decisions on what he’s going to blog about.

    • They way they ‘purge’ or drive off those with differing views they may as well be sock puppets. Those that remain are those that think similarly and are either in agreement with SD or keep their mouths shut when not.

      • Core and Lorac – the most reasonable idea I’ve heard in a while! And Lorac, if you are thinking it’s Sundance (whoever the heck he really is) that’s writing to himself and doing lots of other crazy things, I am completely in your corner. I image he is reading all of this and grinning from ear to ear!

  9. Froggie –

    I am sorry that this whole debate about Froggie was distressing to you and that is very understandable.

    Thank you for expressing clearly your feelings and sharing the personal facts that have impacted your participation in the various blogs dealing with the GZ case.

    I also thank you for providing an excellent example of how speculation, based on a limited number of facts, when combined with a specified goal – here, the goal of trying to identify the sender of that email – that speculation can range far afield from where the factual truth may lie.

    My participation in these blogs was triggered by my belief that GZ was telling the truth about the circumstances that took place that tragic evening in Sanford and that there had been a political intrusion into the normal course of investigation and disposition of a criminal matter.

    As the case progressed on its political track, I was drawn to the discussions at CTH, as were many others of varying disciplines and political leanings because of the fact-based discussions there analyzing the defects in the government’s case. To be sure, these analyses were interspersed with a lot of speculation and (imo) impolite harsh characterizations of one sort or another.

    I would contribute when I saw arguments presented or assertions made where I thought there was not adequate foundation. I would seek to establish more facts one way or the other, but in a positive tenor, and with non-accusatory inquiry, to encourage re-examination of what may have been over-speculation running rampant.

    From time to time, the responses to my inquiries were quite vehement, and I came under suspicion for harboring a variety of agendas. I was taken aback by the vitriol in some of those responses.

    Regardless of my own feelings, I realized that this was the price to pay for the freedom of speech that we are still allowed to practice on the internet. The fact that there is this freedom does not mean that there is freedom from the consequences of that free speech. One of the consequences, especially as regards internet debates, is that innocent parties may be affected negatively by unintended (or even intentional) comments.

    When I experienced uncivil responses to my postings, I could have responded in kind, I did not.

    I could have just left the blog, I did not.

    I believed that maintaining a civil discussion on the underlying issue of political intrusion into the administration of justice was more important than discomfort I might experience from anonymous (to me) comments.

    I also realized that I was posting anonymously, and that other posters could and were entitled to draw their own, even if incorrect, conclusions about me, my motivations, my politics, whatever. I made a choice to participate in a certain fashion. That was a cost associated with my choice to participate in a public forum within an anonymous framework.

    And now, here at this blog, you have had a disheartening experience.

    This experience is a result of factors beyond your control, set into motion by other factors, that we (commenters here) are not responsible for but, are attempting to understand, and free to explore using the precious freedom of speech that we all share.

    Just as we now understand that the speculation here, about “Froggie” possibly being the author of the email, was incorrect and based upon too few facts, I would ask you to consider that this speculation was not engaged in with any malicious intent directed at you personally.

    I would hope that this consideration would assuage your feelings somewhat whatever choice you make going forward.

    • I do not feel the mere mention of anyones user name was done out of malice. I can see how one would take offense if they rarely come here and read the topics. The topics here many times have covered sock accounts, reliable sources, trust, and the use of social media in this case.
      That many here have experienced the CTH it at times becomes difficult to keep everyone happy with the topics. Both chosen or unchosen. But, that is the big difference between this and that blog.
      It also puts bloggers like Nettie and I in precarious positions sometimes because if anything we have to prove we are not like Sundance to those who had bad experiences and have to hold back sometimes on our own POV for those who accept SD for who he is.

      I do feel publicly open debates, brain storming, and challenges with each other, and even in this case limited information that leads to the wrong conclusions benefits a a diverse online community such as this one.
      We are have at least one thing in common. That is to learn. Boy, have we learned!
      When Nettie is wrong she admits it. When I am wrong I admit it. Both of us @ times had to correct ourselves.
      We are human, we make mistakes. I do not think Nettie wants to be the kind of blogger who leads the topics to only her POV. I am sure she has no agenda to make anyone believe what she believes.
      This is a free thinking, and free speech zone. That is what I am thinking most enjoy about coming here.

      Speaking for myself…. I never denied being a controversial poster. If I happen across information which I find I will run it past the community because I personally welcome critical thinking. Most times I hesitate to share the information or my suspicions until I have enough to share. I enjoy learning the processes of critical thinking with others. My intention is never to sway someone one way or the other. In fact I enjoy seeing if my views and opinions can be changed not vice versa.

      I came onto the scene after MOM supporters were being reeled into a rabbit hole and humiliated. I sat by after months and months of witnessing many lay people bashing the defense team for things they had no clue about. Due to their lack of trust of MOM, thanks to Sundance, misinformation and conspiracy theories entailed. Did it affect the case? IMHO No. But he had an effect on the public. How is what interested me.
      One can only try to piece together his topics, his admissions, his percieved level of knowledge, his sources, and the effect it had on his audience.
      I appears he enjoys sending people on wild goose chases, and setting down few bread crumbs even when asked direct questions. This is to make himself appear more knowledgable.
      I would never intentionally humiliate any GZ supporter. It is important to consider who we are dealing with.
      Both Rick Madigan and Sundance appear to create casualties along the way. It makes them feel powerful.
      The less information given the more of an enigma they believe they are. They are a legend in their own minds.

      So no. I do not feel the recent brain storming was reckless, or wrong. If anyone feels they were wrongly “convicted” as being the author of this email, take it up with the person who threw about every poster to his blog under the bus of speculation & suspect. Not a very responsible thing to do when you have the information right at your finger tips!

      As for RickMadigan Male or Female, is a sick online troll. And if the email is true then he is pretty obsessed freak that should be identified in real life by authorities for GZs & MOMs protection. That is my intention. Not to humiliate them. I had the unfortunate personal experience of having to deal with authorities for a similar freak like this years ago. It is not an easy feat to bring just user name to authorites and tell them you think this person is a danger to others. Eventually, I had enough and the police in three states were involved.

      Geeze, RM plugging his blog again called Nettles “Nettie”.Now who else calls her that but me? And why try to make me suspect?
      There are various reasons why it is important to find who the author is. For someone to go through all of this just to speak on layman peoples blogs is something worth a few wrong conclusions. Investigating these types are by process of elimination only.

    • Well stated Hooson.

      In the thread above I asked the question, if Froggielegs, who had noticed that GBishop had stopped posting did so to call O’Mara’s attention to it. It was a question, not an accusation. It has been answered with a “no” and then some.

      I got feedback from the contributor “rejoicenhim” that I offended them when I questioned why she/he was so defensive of Shellie’s actions. In my quest to understand relationships that might pose a bias, I looked up some comments on the internet and found something that led me to believe that a person using an identity with the same name was grieving the loss of a son. So I asked and “rejoicenhim” got upset with me and offended.

      My motives have come under scrutiny by many. I’ve been asked about being a secret paid member of GZ’s defense team. I’ve been asked if I have made any money off of this situation. I’ve been asked if I’m a racist. I’ve been asked if I have a life.

      These are questions, not accusations. I answered them and we moved on. Again, how do we gain a greater understanding if we cannot ask a question without offending someone.

      In that link where Minpin is asking about GBishop’s whereabouts, she starts out saying

      “Political correctness is the surest way to stifle honest debate. When one is forced to walk on egg shells so to speak, and to live with the fear of being removed from your community of friends, whether you agree with them or not, most debate becomes moot and dishonest and all but a waste of time”

      If your reason to be here isn’t to help the Zimmerman situation and the issues that surround it, then yes, you’ll be offended by being asked a question and want to move on. I can’t control how any one of you choose to react to a question. I can live and learn. Froggielegs, made a really good point, I could have asked the question in private before I thought “out loud” about it. I will attempt to give that option more consideration in the future.

      You all know by participating here, I don’t communicate with the majority of you through email. But I do talk with some people who have told me they are too shy to post or two of you who like to talk things privately to help gel your thoughts.

      • Rejoiceinhim headed over to my blog after they felt offended by your question.
        I think I was clear in why I defended Shellie. I never felt it was her finest to be so reactive and personal in public. But, I also felt she had a right and who am I to judge her experiences or their marriage? I just wish that was not a topic here because intitally it was all speculation.
        I think I took it personally because I was having a hard time expressing my thoughts & I was not getting the opportunity to hash out critical thinking. Or had the opporunity to discuss information sent to me. Not my finest hour either!
        We are human. We make mistakes and hopefully learn.

        • lol…I’m a woman. Actually Danny I commented at your blog first. I was quietly reading here because there was a consensus that I didn’t agree with and felt more comfortable asking questions at your site. I think it was a couple of weeks later that I actually commented here in defense of Shellie.

          • I know you are a women. I was just commenting on our similiarites and that you being a new poster is not suspect. In fact you headed to my blog @ my request so we could discuss without offending or interrupting anyone here.

    • This is very well-stated.

      There are lots of situations where people who are politically different have a common cause. The rail-roading of George Zimmerman was one of those situations. The legal murder of Teri Schiavo was a similar cause because people of all different types including liberal leaning people saw that what was happening was simply wrong. However, the law prevailed and she endured a savage death at the hands of her husband who got away with murder. I can remember that cause because there were lesbians and all sorts of people who were protesting and who wanted to help Teri. It was the case that started my own blogging efforts.

      I was drawn to the Zimmerman case because to me, after reading the facts, it was a clear case of self-defense. It could not be clearer.

      • I would have went crazy if I were her father! Too this day I wish they had closure on how she ended up that way in the first place!

  10. An Open Discussion Thread has been opened for those who really are not interested in this topic.

    Someone, I can’t recall who thought I received emails advising me the topic was of no interest. That is not accurate. I did thank people for their honest feedback and you can read all of that feedback on the threads. I received no emails from anyone asking me to move off the topic.

    Thanks so much to all who participate here.

  11. I’ve read a number of times that some aren’t sure how to find things on the internet. I sent someone some help yesterday in looking for information for this thread post. I’ll share it with you as well so that if you want to look for things yourself, you might gain faster results.

    Take the example in the email where the person said I’m glad others noticed I was gone. To begin searching the treehouse site for that what I do is put in quotes the sites address in the search engine

    “theconservativetreehouse” “What ever happened to” “Has anyone heard from”

    The search engine returned a result and a number of GBishop’s came up. Now I go looking for his comments, I put in the search engine

    “theconservativetreehouse” “GBishop says” and the result gives me links that match.

    By putting phrases in quotes, you are telling the engine you want that exact phrase. If you know the date of something, throw it in. If you know a key word throw it in. In one search I did, I looked up the reference to Jonestown the writer wrote about. There is a reference to it in a number of threads and the dates can help you out.

    When you click on the link and get taken to the page, say you want to find my comments on that page. Using the menu bar at the top, click on “Edit” and the last option is Find on this page or short key is CTRL+F, type in Nettles18 it will show you how many matches you have and you click through each match until you find what you want.

    Hope that helps some of you find things you are looking for quicker on the internet.

  12. Nettles, I know you have no control over it but, it is extremely frustrating that strings of comments only go so far, and then there are no reply buttons left to participate in that conversation. Poop on WP for that.

    Going back up to Froggielegs comment at 6:17PM about the reason for GBishop leaving the CTH, I don’t believe it was because of any religious conversations, or not mainly because of religious conversations.

    If you go back to the article in which I was told to “think about what I had said” and I decided to say aidos, Nettles has pointed out that it was Aug. 13, 2012 I believe. That morning someone posted a comment using the word Tcong. Sharon asked that person what the term Tcong meant, and noted that the mods had been discussing the term, and they had thought it might have had something to do with monkey’s. They apparently felt it may have been a racist term. I posted a comment that I never thought of it as a racist term, and that I looked at it as a throwback term meaning the Viet Cong, who was considered our enemy in the Vietnam War. I think another person or two may have also said they didn’t see it as anything racist.

    Later in the day, a new poster, who had never posted before by the name of Diane I believe, and has never to my knowledge posted since, said that as a black female she was in fact offended by the use of the term. I think it was Sharon that posted that they appreciated her position, and that they would discourage anyone using the term. I piped up and said that I refused to run my vocabulary through a filter of the politically correct, and that I refuse to be controlled by those that were offended by terms such as apartment and Chicago being considered racist. I said something about thinking the site was not into political correctness, and that discouraging the term Tcong was being politically correct. Everyone knows the mods ganged up on me. Hell the few times I ever saw the mod Dancing Matilda was even called out to do her job to participate in the gang up. It wasn’t the first time I was ganged up on there, I promise. I think there were three or four of them. I had received an email from the TH not long before that said that someone had complained to them that I was very rude to the other posters, and that I had not been rude to them yet, that they knew of, but suggested that I be banned or something. I saved that email, but when my computer crashed a week or so ago, I lost everything, including my saved emails. I believed that when the gang up’s occured to many, that the person they were trying to protect, in my case Sharon, were not capable of handing anything on their own without calling out the CTH national guard.

    I believe it was on the same day, GBishop posted that in their classroom, they had used the word negrita, and one black woman protested the word, and said she thought it was racist. GBishop relayed that there were a group of first generation African Americans in the class looked at the protester as though she had 90 eyes, and 14 ears. The point was that there is a portion of society that has used and abused the term racist, only to their own detriment, while believing it furthers their cause.

    I may be wrong but, I do believe that was GBishops message to me which was posted at Dman’s site in May. Go back to Nettles post where she picks up the portion of the comment where GBishop says that the worst thing that can happen to an open dialog is to enforce political correctness into the dialog, and the dialog becomes moot. A conversation cannot happen if one side erects barriers.

    I do not know if that was exactly why GBishop left the TH but, it is very curious that GBishop left the TH shortly thereafter. GBishop said in their message to me that they left for very important reasons. They never explained those important reasons, but said they would not be posting again. While I do appreciate GBishops ideas about political correctness destrying open and honest dialog, they did leave some questions, especially about leaving for very important reasons. That is why I believe GBishop signed off as GBishop. GBishop obviously read the blog here, as they also answered a question I had about another poster here at this site.

  13. Hey Captain! Question for you. Rick Madigan has provided a link on his blog to the tinfoil hat thread he did. He posted a picture which is suppose to depict me wearing a hat with a battery in my mouth. Is it possible to get the metadata off his pictures postings and get a location of our mysterious friend?

    • Best bet: Use Google Image Search: http://images.google.com/ to find the picture where this unknown individual is on, and then click the “Find similar images”-link, found below that picture to see if a similar picture can be found, which then might contain the persons name as either part of the file name or on the webpage where that picture is found.
      But I think location can not be determined through stock images. They would have to had taken the photo themself and have to upload it with a device that has its GPS turned on.

      • I’m hoping he modified the stock image. I did copy the picture he posted and got information that he last modified it on October 5th at 12:24pm – Probably just resized it.

        It got me to wondering if he did any other modifications on the software, could I extract data from it.

        Likely not, but another thing for all of us to consider. How easy it is to be traced by the things we post on the internet.

        • Actually that image is much older, it is not a picture but a screen-grab from a YouTube channel. The lady in question, and I can’t remember her name had a channel that she would post her views on things. In this instance if memory serves me right, this was a response about some comment on how some group wore tinfoil hats, it was meant as satire.

          • Thank you for that Bori! You know, GZ had a lot against him but he is blessed with some very smart and well-informed supporters.

            I learn more every day. Thank you.

            • I totally agree this band of misfits (I mean that in a good-hearted way) has gotten together to prevent an outrage. I learn from you guys everyday as I hope I help too. Thanks.

          • I am kinda glad it is private. I got tired of him stealing my comments to make new blog posts to misrepresent me. Wont help him any by making it private. I am sure we gots screen shots 😉

                • It appears he is stealing Minpin’s words here in the March 2013 post asking about GBishop. “Politically correct” “egg shells”

                  We did come to learn the optimist he was so mad at was Jello.

                  • I am friends with jello. On many issues we agreed. So why didn’t he attack me? I recall nothing in his responses to me but respect. Maybe I missed something.

                    • Jordan, on May 11, 2013 Minpin asked you if you were emailing the admins. complaining about her. She asked you here on our blog

                      BTW, were you the one that sent emails to the CTh when I was still posting there complaining that I was a bully, which in turn resulted in CTH emails to me telling me that someone was complaining that I was more or less a bully? I resented the emails I had gotten from the CTH, no name from anyone there mind you, and no name of who was complaining about me.”


                      GBishop saw this question on our blog and answered Minpin’s March 2013 post on Diwataman’s blog on May 2013
                      http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/blog-update/#comment-12740 In response to Minpin’s question to you, it appears GBishop has behind the scene’s email information and he tells her “You asked that person a question, to which the answer is yes, it was him. He preaches a lot. See how he told you that he thought you stopped picking fights? He thought he’d gotten big brother to straighten you out on that. The technical issues are to make it all about him, btw.”

                      It sounds to me Jordan, he was a little irate with you and he ratted you out.

                    • GBishop told Minpin that yes, minpin to your question to Jordan, was he (Jordan) the one emailing the treehouse complaining about her being a bully. He told her yes Minpin it was him (Jordan).

                      He points her to your comment (Jordan) telling her she stopped picking fights and he (Gbishop) tells her this is because he (Jordan) thought he got big brother (Sundance) to straighten her (Minpin) out.

                      He also tells her that your questions about tech issues is just to put the spotlight on you.

                      So your comment this person (GBishop) never disrespected you, I point this example here where he publicly threw you under the bus and ran you over with minpin.

                      Know that Minpin got this response from GBishop in May and she’s been sitting on it thinking you tattle on her to the CTH all this time.

                    • Thanks….I guess my memory about gbishop is faulty. My compliments to minpin were honest and had no other intentions. My tech questions were simply to help her. I recently suggested that she start her own blog, like bori has done. I hope the comments here help her to get over being angry with me.

                    • GBishop was implying that your tech. questions at the treehouse were just to get the attention put on you.

                      GBishop by all accounts, seems to have been of many faces and many personalities. Depending on who he was talking to.

                      I question how could a contributor answer a question like that. How did GBishop know you emailed the treehouse about minpin?

                      Did this person convince the powers that be at the treehouse, they were an insider? How much influence did this person have over the others about what they thought was happening with the pay pal account. Was this one source poisoning the pool of understanding back in July?

                      It’s clear Rick Madigan has troubles and GBishop played games. I think they are the same identity online. Rick created to hide the fact this real life person was posting publicly again but when Rick posted there was no more contact with GZ, it had been stopped.

                    • YOU: GBishop was implying that your tech. questions at the treehouse were just to get the attention put on you.

                      Even on its face, that is absurd. How would that draw attention to here? And why I would even do that?

                      Was I so popular that anyone would follow my comments? Funny. way too funny.

                    • “he thought he got big brother (Sundance) to straighten her out.”

                      Who has the power to get SD to do that? Only SD can do that.

    • “Is it possible to get the metadata off his pictures postings and get a location of our mysterious friend?”

      Right click may be your friend.

  14. RZ

    How messed up is this? Is that George’s Dad posting to not donate? Did Sundance cause doubt with Mr. Zimmerman with the unfounded allegations he was hammering at last July?

    I recall near the end of July, something was going on behind the scenes. The parents opened their own website and asked for donations to go there. I was having a heck of a time verifying it was legitimate. No one would answer me. The legal defense’s facebook moderator disappeared for more than a day. I emailed GZ’s site asking what was going on. I gave him my opinion of leaving O’Mara. Something was going on. A new fund manager took over, there was a problem with me donating that’s how I know that. The site was no longer accepting Canadian donations and I had to mail a check.


    “Major big time HatTip to Treeper Froggielegs for digging up the golden nugget we needed to finally prove what we have suspected for a while.”

    • 2 things did you check the gravatar of that day and compared to the one of times when we are sure RZ was communicating at the CTH?

      Also, there is something that has been bothering me, I went back and I looked at some of the exchanges I had between GB and I, before the change at the CTH and after and for some reason I get the impression that they are not the same person. GB had a distinct gravatar, then he had the one on the screen, then it became gbishop1 but by then it just felt like a different person. Please don’t read anything else into my words, it is just a hunch.

      The original GB posted in the early mornings and we share many a discussion not all them to do with GZ, this GB did not comment on the other threads or very little.

          • If you don’t specify a gravatar doesn’t a default image get used instead? There seem to be quite a few default ones. I wonder if which is used is random, maybe based on location or some other criteria?

              • avatar This is the option I get to select how the avatars will be randomly assigned if the person doesn’t have a custom picture set up with their email address.

                I am given the option if I want to allow custom avatars to be displayed on the blog. An avatar is an image that follows you from weblog to weblog appearing beside your name when you comment on avatar enabled sites.

      • I looked up the emails I sent out asking about the parents’ site. They were dated July 26th.

        I believe it was a moderator at the treehouse (the one who said she has a right to be mad at ppl) who posted the thread announcing the parents site.

        It does appear that whatever happened, they all came together, and in the Feb. 20th correspondence to our unknown email writer, Sundance conveys that at that time, he thought the family was on all board with the O’Mara love.

    • I am confused now, on this (and probably dense on top of that)

      Are you saying that GZ’s dad said not to contribute to the fund? And have you figured out who GBishop is. Is that RM? Andif so, did/does SD that GBishop is RM?

      • I’m asking if that post is Robert Zimmerman asking for no donations to his son’s defense account because he doesn’t like O’Mara’s comment on SYG law. That is pretty messed up. It could be a fake however, when you take into account a few weeks later, them starting their own fund, you have to wonder if indeed Robert Zimmerman lost faith in O’Mara here.

        I don’t know who GBishop is. On my list, he’s suspect #1 for writing the email to Sundance in Feb. because the writer writes about suddenly disappearing and the others commenting on it. He hopes O’Mara noticed the others asking about him. I’ve posted evidence of Froggie starting that conversation and a number of others chime in.

        The second thing that fits is the comment about the writer of the email was glad to see the tradition to continue after they left. That matches with this identity posting the calming videos at the start of each of Sundance’s Open Threads in the GZ case.

        GBishop told Minpin on Diwataman’s blog in May 2013, he had to stop posting for an important reason. After this we somewhat get into weeds because no one wants to go on record about a possible friend of GZ. So give it as much weight or little weight as you want.

        I’m told by someone who was always been on team defense (meaning they wanted GZ acquitted and they were in a position to have first hand knowledge of what happened in team defense that their best guess is the writer of the email is someone (a woman) who met GZ after the shooting and GZ needed to distance himself from because she wrote letter(s) to the Judge.

        So how plausable is that?

        Sundance tells us the writer is someone who used to post at the CTH and described themselves as in daily contact with George.

        The writer of the email says they posted at the CTH and whatever they did, they started a tradition and they were happy to see it continue when they stopped. They hope that O’Mara noticed they stopped. The writer says they had to sign a life-time contract to not talk about GZ and can’t post on blogs. So did the person (who uses GBishop) stop posting so she can keep her contact with GZ? Maybe.

        Then the writer talks about how can she follow the rules, if she doesn’t know what the rules are? Is this her reference to getting cut off for writing the Judge? Maybe. Does she have to be told, it’s not a good idea to write the Judge? Maybe.

        The writer describes themself as a layperson but thinks everything coming out of O’Mara’s mouth is her work. Then she admits her work is what she researches at the CTH. She appreciates the posters who explain in clear terms for her.

        How likely is it that anyone except family would be sourcing a new fund manager? Certaintly not a friend, GZ came to know after the shooting. The motive for writing Sundance is spelled out in the email. She just learned yesterday (Feb. 19th) she can’t talk with George anymore. She says George said, it was because O’Mara told him that. But there is evidence in the email that’s not factual. She couldn’t have talked to George the day before. She admits he changed his phone number and email. When she was getting him on the phone he was always busy.

        About the financial dealing with the paypal, the writer says it is her that clued George in on it in July. Isn’t that backwards? She is getting her news from the CTH and after GZ gets out of jail, she tells him what she’s reading and she writes, he agrees.

        I had an Aunt like this. She’d rant about her kids, I’d listen and say uh huh, uh huh, then she’d go to my cousins and say Annette agrees with me. Uh, no I didn’t! I didn’t want to get into an argument with you about it.

        I haven’t come up with any other identity that has what could be described as a tradition at the treehouse and abruptly left. I have run into some comments about missing “Dedicated Dad” but by all appearances he got banned for not buying into O’Mara is the wrong lawyer meme in July. The contributors talked about that at txantimedia site on July 6th.

        • Some problems with the pieces fitting together, is those who spoke with GBishop thought him to be a male. Rick Madigan came online regularly with comments that at the time this email was received at the treehouse also projected himself as a male online.

          The person who is suspected by at least 1 person from team defense, is certain the person is a female.

        • Thanks, that at least clarifies what little we do know 🙂

          Once again Sundance could clarify matters even more, from his end.

        • About Dedicated Dad, not sure if he got banned, but I do remb he was going away “somewhere” and wouldn’t have internet access, don’t know why or where. I was wondering if it were for Military reasons. It seems like it was around a holiday, because his wife and kiddos were going to celebrate with family with out him… And off top of head cant remb when. I THINK he is back isn’t he?

    • Here is another GBishop comment from the same thread. When they talk about how awful O’Mara has been to George, enough to turn your stomach, trust me on this, that makes me believe that GBishop did in fact have some kind of close relationship with George who knew what was going on behind the scenes.

      GBishop says:
      July 8, 2012 at 6:07 pm

      Jello333, he’s been awful to George, in ways that would turn your stomach if you knew. (Trust me on this.)

      Ultimately, it will have to be George’s decision. I really would like to see some discussion on how George could go about separating himself from that entity, provided someone better is found. Please pray that this cup be taken from George!

      Does anyone know if Rick Madigan was posting at the same time as GBishop? GBishop left around the same time as me in Aug. 2012. Were RM and GB avatar the same by any chance?

      • I wonder if this relates to his month in jail. Again, back to the writer of the email, talking about how George just couldn’t stay in there one more day. He told O’Mara do whatever you have to to get me out of here.

        They seemed to mix up the first bond with the time in jail waiting on the 2nd bond.

      • Another bit of information Sundance shared with me when he sent me some of Rick’s emails was that the first email the treehouse received was March 8th

        “The first email that “Rick Madigan” ever sent to the Treehouse appears to be on March 8, 2013.

        It seems his interests were in editing out information which could lead to GZ (or family) being identified.” –

        Sundance to Annette

      • I am still researching mini. But from what I have seen (had the same question as you) it was 1st Gbishop, then Gbishop1 he/ she left Aug. 2012. RM began posting @ CTH Jan 2013. GB reappeared @ Dmans to answer you what in May 2013? Rick began posting @ Dmans when? Soon after Nettie got this email!

        • Danny- I left the CTH in Aug. 2012, and so did GBishop. If Rick Madigan didn’t start posting at the CTH until the following Jan 2013, why then did he say many times that he was upset at how I was treated by the mods in August, and that he was going to step in to help me, but by the time he got around to it, I had already parted ways. How could someone who wasn’t even posting there at the time step in to help me, unless it was someone who had influence with the mods etc. That makes it sound to me like it would have been SD.

          I had said before that the night of the mods long knives was not the first time that I had mods, at least a few, ganging up on me. I had gotten an email from the CTH approx. a month or so before, not singed by anyone just telling me that they had gotten some negative emails about me and posted a direct quote from one, which I posted about somewhere else on here. Because I was watching people get banned all over the place, I really did have the feeling that someone was going to bat for me behind the scenes. Remember that I wasn’t banned, I think it was ad rem that said something to me about thinking about something, the others all joined in on how bad my manners were, but I wasn’t banned. I promise when I said I was leaving there was a party at the TH with the mods. There was no one that could have “helped me” at that time other than SD. SD had liked my “spidey senses” while I was posting anti-O’Mara crap, and he in fact gave me a few Breitbart stars on some of my posts.

          I think that when SD said that the writer was one of my biggest GZ fans, that I believe was an effort to confuse and dodge.

          Then consider the GBishop post to me in May. They say that my comment about not changing my opinion wherever I post was intellectual honesty. SD said that he never ever compromises on his principles. SD also knows that I am a conservative which doesn’t hurt my position with him politically, though I am not a far right extremist. GBishop also seemed to know that I had guessed right on who was sending negative emails about me to the CTH. How would GBishop know that?

          Good Lord, could GBishop, RM and SD all be the same person?

      • oops I didn’t see your post YET Minpin when I asked this very question! I was sick all day Sunday and didn’t get online so catching up. Disregard my comment below everyone.

    • rz1 It appears the lack of confidence in O’Mara and West was short-lived, if indeed this commenter is Robert Zimmerman. After the post on July 6th (the day his son got out of jail), a week later, he is loving the motion to get Judge Lester off the case and indicating he’ll donate again.

      I can relate to Mr. Zimmerman here. I had the same questions and confusion with Mark O’Mara around this time. The most I ever got frustrated about him was when he made it clear his client and his wife had misled the court on April 20th. I was online, arguing that Shellie did not lie and how every answer she gave could be shown to be accurate. The opposing side would say, well how about the lawyer saying they lied? I’d be so mad at O’Mara and think, yeah Mr. O’Mara how about that?

      When I saw Judge Lester’s response to the 2nd bond hearing and reading online that O’Mara likely won’t go after the Judges in this county, I was feeling much the way I imagine Robert Zimmerman was. We need a lawyer from out of state!

      Mr. O’Mara turned my view around when he did indeed go after getting Lester off the case on July 13th and it appears it had the same affect on Mr. Zimmerman. Here he is a week later indicating he’s supportive of the team again and would donate.

      Given how Shellie Zimmerman has owned her role in misleading the court, whether I like it or not, it is clear she knew she wasn’t being honest on April 20th and it cost GZ and his defense dearly.

      For most of us, we got on board and tried to help the defense. Even Sundance at the treehouse, realized how divisive the issue was and while he still may have had his doubts, he set them aside and the conversation continued without the issue being raised. That is until February 20th, when someone with a personal agenda to lash out at Mr. O’Mara contacted Sundance in an email.

      We’ve gone a far as we can. I’ve learned more but there are still loads of questions. I find it revealing that Sundance went quiet on this. So much for bringing issues into the light, that brutal honesty can be brutal.

      I’m very sorry that Froggielegs got hurt with the questions I asked and if she can ever forgive me, I’d love to have her joining in the conversation with other like-minded individuals. As I’ve said, GZ doesn’t have a whole lot of voices in his corner and I hate hearing any one voice may diminish for him.

      I’m going to do some homework and prepare the thread for the pay pal discussion we agreed to put off until Shellie was out of harm’s way.

      I hope both George and Shellie are doing well right now. I invite Sundance or any of the admins at the treehouse, to bring the information forward that they possess to give all who contributed to the GZ cause a clearer understanding of where you were coming from.

      • For some nagging reason, I just feel that the RZ there wasn’t RZsr, something about it… And why would RZ be making a donation to GZ? If taken literally, Just a feeling someone was trying to make us think was Mr. RZ sr. Also on the email, the whole met female who met Geo after shooting… GZ went into hiding immediately after the shooting…so who could the female met be and how would they have met, and how would Geo be so trusting to give this person his phone and email address? Is this suppose to steer us to someone on purpose? I know that Sondra stepmother was big on commenting at Click and then came to CTH. And Sondra and her husb were the ones hiding Geo and Shellie out immediately after. JFP has stated that she only knows Geo and Shellie. Could she be the letter writer? OR better yet could this be someone trying to make it sound like its her writing.

        • I’ve emailed asking if this was indeed RZ. If it wasn’t, either he didn’t see these posts or he I’m sure would ask to have them removed or post an explanation this is not me.

          When he did post he posted as RZ and rz.

          Why would George’s father be donating to the fund anyway. If this is not RZ then again, I have an issue with the treehouse leaving this posted without explanation.

          • Nettles, I may be wrong, but the way this comment reads, and the comments that go with it, makes me think this is Daddy Zim first comment? or on the comment pages? Also, lol notice the date..Feb 20 2013

            rz says:

            February 20, 2013 at 9:15 am

            Although I read each comment daily, I attempt not to comment. However, in a recent post, 18 February, a contributor stated – “If I were GZ’s parents, I’d refinance my house or cash in my retirement to pay for an expert for my adult son, especially if I believed in their innocence.”

            Unfortunately, we have no retirement that can be ‘cashed in’. Additionally, we can do nothing with our house because it is collateral for George’s bond. We must pay a mortgage, taxes, insurance, utilities, HOA fees, and other expenses for a house we’re unable to live in. We must also pay for where we are currently staying.

            Other family members, who we are also attempting to help, have been forced to leave their employment and relocate. As we have always done, we will continue to assist our children in any way possible.

            As for my ‘believing in George’s innocence’. I believe I have a very thorough understanding of George’s actions on 26 February. I have presided over approximately 20,000 probable cause hearings, determining if individuals should be charge with a criminal offense. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that George should have never been charged with ANY offense – none.


            • Well that’s interesting. Sundance was already on the bash O’Mara bandwagon when he got the Feb. 20th email.

              Did this post prompt the sender to send it and it’s just a huge coincidence that the same day they learned they can have no more contact? Or did Sundance draft this thing up to convince Diwataman, Chip and I there was some substance to his allegations?

  15. The last thread that I can find GBishop in is dated September 15th and he gets into a heated discussion about race and Hooson he is the the one who points out to you that you may be a producer at the Dr. Phil show. Recall, we found evidence of Rick Madigan brining that up to you earlier this year? Another reason why I pointed to Sundance and Madigan being one and the same.


    • GBishop did post a tribute on Sept. 16th to open the thread

      He didn’t open the Sept. 17th thread but did make a post on it

      It looks to me the discussion on the Sept. 15th thread made plus any discussions he had with GZ’s family may have led to that important reason to stop posting he spoke of in his post in May 2013 to Minpin.

      Minpin, your dust-up with the admins. occurred on Sept. 1st

        • According to the thread, this was confirmed by AdRem.

          Maybe AdRem can help resolve the questions about Gbishop and Rick Madigan and whomever else.

        • I just saw that comment. This time it was “gbishop1” who replies to wasnotme, and says aren’t you the same person as Rachel. AdRem says that yes they are the same person. Yes, gbishop had admin. privileges. That is starting to show up in many places.

          • Not really. Not all at once. You DID challenge quite a few posters including me. You still do. That is your style just as I sometimes sarcastic.

            • Thank you Jordan. We’ve danced around the GBishop answer to me that it was in fact you that was emailing the CTH with complaints against me. Thank you for finally admitting it, though someone else had to force that admission.

              Not really. Not all at once. What the heck does that mean Jordan, that you were sending emails for a while to get me banned because I “challenged posters”? I was unaware that challenging posters was against my free speech rights. I was unaware that someone who disagreed with me used private emails to accomplish that task. I did read somewhere on these threads a while ago that you make a habit of talking with site owners behind the scenes. You know what Jordan, that is a nasty bad habit, and all done behind the scenes instead of confronting me face on in public, like you just have. Finally Jordan, you came out of that closet. I knew it was you all along.

              • This is almost too outrageous to respond to but for the record, I only emailed the admin ONCE in which your name was mentioned and it was not to ban you. It was during one of the times during which you latched out almost all of us. My email was simply to get their attention.

                YOU SAID: I did read somewhere on these threads a while ago that you make a habit of talking with site owners behind the scenes/

                Perhaps you have proof of all of these vicious things you say about me.

                • Jordan and minpin –

                  This is very sticky, but I commend both of you for getting it out of the way.

                  Keep in mind that the reason that matters eroded to the extent they did was because games were being played that were not visible to either of you, and many others, to include myself.

                  I hope that the past differences can remain in the past and that all of us can continue forward in our efforts to bring clarity and sense of justice to the injustice that comprised the GZ legal proceedings.

                  • Hooson you are always objective so thanks for stepping in.

                    What does this mean? What games?

                    You said; games were being played that were not visible to either of you, and many others, to include myself.

                    • games – I was referring what seemed to be going at CTH with people using multiple identities and all that. At least, I was oblivious to it, others were more savvy.

                      My interest was in the facts of the case, the investigation, and whether the speculations were grounded enough in fact.

                • I didn’t ask them to ban you, I just wanted to get their attention. Well geez thanks Jordan, what a pal. Put me on the slam hammer radar of the CTH mods that loved nothing more than to slam the hammer. Do you know who all it may have been that also put the slam hammer on you, more than once if I remember correctly. Hell even Sundance explained one of your banings. Was that the time that you emailed Dman to ask why you couldn’t access the CTH site?

                  I’m going to drop this right here Jordan. I’m very satisfied to know that it was you that got me in trouble at the CTH. How many others did you complain about over there. How many of those people got banned?

                  • If you really think that I had enough influence to get you banned, then you are not paying attention. I sent only ONE email unless someone else sent others by using my account. That email did not even come close to saying anything about banning. IMO you were picking fights and disrupting the discussion. I stand by that opinion. I thought it best to not say anything on the site so as to avoid showcasing it in public. I have never done anything like what you say with anyone else at the CTH. I do not have that kind of power. I would sure like to see proof of what you are saying. My other emails to them (Sundance) were about the case.

                • I will say I don’t talk to Jordan via email very often. I haven’t in months. There was a bit at first, he wanted to know more about me getting banned at the CTH.

                  I’ve never rec’d a complaint from him about another contributor.

              • BTW Jordan. How many times were you banned from the CTH, but went back crawling on your knees to please be allowed back, I promise I’ll be a good boy? Didn’t SD at one point write a comment about why you had been banned? I believe he did.

                • OMG, that’s terrible! SD doesn’t mind sprinkling his sunlight on others does he. I’d love for him to shine some of the sunlight on who wrote this email and how it got vetted, if it was vetted at all.

                  It’s not cool to allow all your contributors to be duped.

                    • I do not Jordan. I know you have had issues with attempting to even keep “Jordan”. I appreciate you keeping this ID.
                      There was a time I felt you had a devotion to SD to the point you would inform him of certain conversations that caused contentions @ Dmans and here. I am just being honest.
                      But as you spent time here I saw that you accepted our critisisms of his agenda without needing to explain to us the good in him.
                      I think you gave him the benefit of the doubt. I do not hold that against you.
                      As for mini? I could understand her frustration with you confirming you sent an email. If TCTH treats people publicly like crap, I can only imagine what they say behind closed doors. I also heard many times when that happens the receiver does not have a clue what admin. is admonishing them. Perhaps she expected much more from you because you had experienced the same thing, and she views that as an attempt to hurt her so you could continue to post there.

                      Beyond that. I hope everyone is in a better place now.

      • Nettles- I just went back to the thread you linked to about my dustup. I was reading up the thread and came across a post from GBishp linking to Odessa Girl’s comments on some site, maybe the OS? Clicking on it has more current info about Odessa Girl. Isn’t that the same avatar as justthefacts please?


        At one point they post a comment saying they are going to have to adjust their makeup.

    • Nettles- I believe that it was me who thought that Hooson might have been a producer for the the Dr. Phil show, I explained in detail even my assistant producer friend said that Hooson sounded as a producer looking for feedback for future shows.

  16. Relgious based exemptiosn to Obummer care: Is anybody exempted from the insurance mandate by reason of religious affiliation?
    Yes. A paragraph on page 107 of the legislation provides for individual religious exemptions. The language is non-specific with regard to particular faiths, however.

    Read carefully:

    (5) EXEMPTIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.—In the case of an individual who is seeking an exemption certificate under section 1311(d)(4)(H) from any requirement or penalty imposed by section 5000A, the following information [is required]:
    (A) In the case of an individual seeking exemption based on the individual’s status as a member of an exempt religious sect or division, as a member of a health care sharing ministry, as an Indian, or as an individual eligible for a hardship exemption, such information as the Secretary shall prescribe.

    Similarly, page 128 of the legislation states:

    “(A) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.—Such term [i.e., “applicable individual”] shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.
    The above passage amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, of which Section 1402(g)(1) defines “a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof” as follows:

    (1) Exemption
    Any individual may file an application (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed by regulations under this chapter) for an exemption from the tax imposed by this chapter if he is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof and is an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division by reason of which he is conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care (including the benefits of any insurance system established by the Social Security Act). Such exemption may be granted only if the application contains or is accompanied by—
    (A) such evidence of such individual’s membership in, and adherence to the tenets or teachings of, the sect or division thereof as the Secretary may require for purposes of determining such individual’s compliance with the preceding sentence, and

    (B) his waiver of all benefits and other payments under titles II and XVIII of the Social Security Act on the basis of his wages and self-employment income as well as all such benefits and other payments to him on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any other person,

    and only if the Commissioner of Social Security finds that—

    (C) such sect or division thereof has the established tenets or teachings referred to in the preceding sentence,

    (D) it is the practice, and has been for a period of time which he deems to be substantial, for members of such sect or division thereof to make provision for their dependent members which in his judgment is reasonable in view of their general level of living, and

    (E) such sect or division thereof has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1950.

  17. LOL WAY up thread… Nettles made ref to Feb 21 GZ thread where SD asked a group (I was included in that group too) to email. I did later on. Did not EVER rec a response so I don’t know what was about. BUT what is funny is this from Nettles, esp now, knowing of the email http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/02/21/02-21-george-zimmerman-case-open-discussion-thread/#comment-326431

    Hope I did that right, but you are saying something about sure they don’t want me to communicate about private email 🙂 lol

    • That is exactly right Arkansasmimi. I wanted nothing to do with private emails and I tried to telegraph that the day before he sent me one!

      I prefer upfront out in the open discussion. That way if I’m wrong, I get feedback real quick and correct course. Things said in private, later made public have a way of looking like hiding.

      I am learning though, some things should be discussed “offline” or privately first.

      But back to your point, that’s what I thought when I got the email uninvited and without getting my prior approval I’d keep it private and I really really questioned Sundance’s judgement. How utterly careless he was with such sensitive material. Thankfully it looks like this was made up by someone wanting to be on the inside. But it did have a negative impact in putting an even taller mountain in front of GZ to overcome with some of his own supporters not supporting his lawyer.

      • IMHO, I wouldn’t doubt SD writing it himself, considering all he has said, both here and CTH. Maybe he would “use” it to say he was right…see blah blah proved it to me… or whatever. Have a bunch of stuff “I wonder about” too, but will keep that to myself as it doesn’t make a difference in anything.

        • A new website, posted anonymously on July 20th, claims that “Sundance Cracker’s” real name is Mark Ivor Bradman, a 46-year-old from Florida. The person who created the site, calling him or herself only “dagmarcleftjaw” — an apparent reference to a character on the HBO series Game of Thrones, said of Bradman: “The blogger who disclosed the identity of the person (a possible victim of sexual abuse) listed as Witness #9 in various court documents associated with the State of Florida’s investigation of Trayvon Martin’s shooting works as a store manager at a Publix Supermarket in the vicinity of Cape Coral, FL His name is Mark Bradman (aka Mark Ivor Bradman and Mark I. Bradman). He is 46, has an unhealthy obsession with George Zimmerman, and is overcome with racial paranoia.”

          • Meanwhile, Bradman left one crack in his shield of anonymity — he created a Gravatar account — a universal profile which gives the user a unique online identity wherever he or she goes online or on social networking sites. The Gravatar identifies him by name, as “the author and owner of” the conservative blog, adding that he “also posts as SundanceCracker and GrandpaCracker on other sites across the internet.”

            “When he’s not writing online,” the profile continues, “he’s the Phramcy Manager of the Publix Supermarket in Cape Coral, Florida.”

            Reached by theGrio, the manager of one of several Publix supermarkets in Cape Coral said Bradman had not worked at the store for “two to four” years. An employee at a nearby chain said he had been a “store manager,” not a pharmacy manager, but that had “retired” from Publix Supermarkets at least five years ago. Publix Supermarkets’ corporate office referred all employment inquiries to a third party firm.

            Bradman did not respond to email requests for comment. A person with the same Gravatar and the name Mark Bradman is associated with the Tea Party Patriots and the Naples Tea Party. TheGrio sought comment via a contact email for the Naples Tea Party, but received no response.

        • Haven’t we seen this before?

          A new website, posted anonymously on July 20th, claims that “Sundance Cracker’s” real name is Mark Ivor Bradman, a 46-year-old from Florida. The person who created the site, calling him or herself only “dagmarcleftjaw” — an apparent reference to a character on the HBO series Game of Thrones, said of Bradman: “The blogger who disclosed the identity of the person (a possible victim of sexual abuse) listed as Witness #9 in various court documents associated with the State of Florida’s investigation of Trayvon Martin’s shooting works as a store manager at a Publix Supermarket in the vicinity of Cape Coral, FL His name is Mark Bradman (aka Mark Ivor Bradman and Mark I. Bradman). He is 46, has an unhealthy obsession with George Zimmerman, and is overcome with racial paranoia.”

      • Nettles- I believe GBishop is a local, my sister was telling about going to a local park and telling about this tree the “Senator” that was burned in that park which is about 6 miles from her condo in Sanford, I seem to recall GBishop made a reference to this tree once, and what it meant growing up. I also recall how GBishop would describe the scene in Seminole County, the pace of the people, etc. Froggielegss is a Yankee like me, if it helps any.

  18. Nettles, not sure if I am doing this right http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/07/08/the-hidden-agenda-exposed-mark-omara-on-bet-air-date-april-20th-730pm-videos/#comment-157824

    What does Gbishop mean by this (trust me on this) comment?
    GBishop says:

    July 8, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    Jello333, he’s been awful to George, in ways that would turn your stomach if you knew. (Trust me on this.)

    Ultimately, it will have to be George’s decision. I really would like to see some discussion on how George could go about separating himself from that entity, provided someone better is found. Please pray that this cup be taken from George!

  19. Offering my 2 cents.
    I think it is important for those of us interested in finding the truth out about this letter to keep an open mind about the possible author and the various agendas possible behind it.
    I do feel some of those mentioned are sock accounts. I also believe some are different people who were planted or just dedicated to SDs aganda. There many even be some who duped SD from the Scheme Team defenders. I am keeping an open mind. I also do not want anyone to think that I am swaying them one way or another. I appreciate the open discussions about this topic and I feel those commenting are doing so responsibly and with an open mind.

  20. Hmm cant remember off hand, WHY DID SD SAY THEY LOCK THREAD COMMENTS?
    I found one that comments were locked. The last comment was pretty interesting to say the least….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s