Home » Uncategorized » Open Thread – Dec. 4th

Open Thread – Dec. 4th

Open Discussion

Advertisements

309 thoughts on “Open Thread – Dec. 4th

    • I haven’t been reading here very well the past week. I did promise Jordan that when a thread got to 200 comments, I’d post a new one. I was very surprised to see over 200 comments in yesterday’s thread. I got a little peak at some tension but I didn’t delve too far into it. It usually takes us 3 or 4 days to collect 200 comments if news isn’t breaking.

      My priorities are somewhere else at the moment. I’ll keep an eye on this and do my best to allow the conversations to continue.

      • Not too much tension… Momma hen. Lol
        You take care of what you have too. We will be right here waiting for you.

  1. How the Crumpster is able to participate in the kendrick johnson shakedown hoax:
    Admission Pro Hac Vice
    Domestic and foreign attorneys seeking admission pro hac vice to appear in Superior and State Courts of Georgia should review Rule 4.4 of Uniform Superior Court Rules and its appendix. Please contact Kathy Jackson at 404-526-8603 or kathyj@gabar.org for additional information.

    This rule, amended in September 2011, requires pro hac applicants to send a copy of their motion to appear to the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia. (There is no prescribed form for the motion.) In most circumstances, a per attorney per case fee of $200 is required. (The $200 fee can be paid by check or money order, made payable to the State Bar of Georgia). Where possible, applicants should include the name of the judge assigned to hear the motion/case and the case number of the action on the motion or in the body of the cover letter to the State Bar of Georgia. Applicants should inform the Office of the General Counsel of any upcoming hearing or trial date in the body of the cover letter. Applicants should file their notarized original motion with the court in which they seek to appear, and send a copy of the motion to the Office of the General Counsel at:

    Office of the General Counsel
    State Bar of Georgia
    104 Marietta St. NW
    Suite 100
    Atlanta, Georgia 30303
    Attn: Kathy Jackson
    http://www.gabar.org/membership/howtojoin/prohacvice.cfm

    • Rule 4.4 Admission Pro Hac Vice

      A. Definitions
      1. A “Domestic Lawyer” is a person not admitted to practice law in this state but who is admitted in another state or territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction.
      2. A Domestic Lawyer is “eligible” for admission pro hac vice if that lawyer:
      a. lawfully practices solely on behalf of the lawyer’s employer and its commonly owned organizational affiliates, regardless of where such lawyer may reside or work; or
      b. neither resides nor is regularly employed at an office in this state; or
      c. resides in this state but (i) lawfully practices from offices in one or more other states and (ii) practices no more than temporarily in this state, whether pursuant to admission pro hac vice or in other lawful ways.
      3. A “client” is a person or entity for whom the Domestic Lawyer has rendered services or by whom the lawyer has been retained prior to the lawyer’s performance of services in this state.
      4. “This state” refers to Georgia. This Rule does not govern proceedings before a federal court or federal agency located in this state unless that body adopts or incorporates this Rule.

      B. Authority of Court To Permit Appearance By Domestic Lawyer
      1. Court Proceeding. A court of this state may, in its discretion, admit an eligible Domestic Lawyer retained to appear in a particular proceeding pending before such court to appear pro hac vice as counsel in that proceeding.
      C. In-State Lawyer’s Duties. When a Domestic Lawyer appears for a client in a proceeding pending in this state, either in the role of co-counsel of record with the in-state lawyer, or in an advisory or consultative role, the in-state lawyer who is co-counsel or counsel of record for that client in the proceeding remains responsible to the client and responsible for the conduct of the proceeding before the court or agency. It is the duty of the in-state lawyer to advise the client of the in-state lawyer’s independent judgment on contemplated actions in the proceeding if that judgment differs from that of the Domestic Lawyer.

      D. Application Procedure
      1. Verified Application. An eligible Domestic Lawyer seeking to appear in a proceeding pending in this state as counsel pro hac vice shall file a verified application with the court where the litigation is filed. The application shall be served on all parties who have appeared in the case and the Office of General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia. The application shall include proof of service. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the application summarily if there is no opposition.
      2. Objection to Application. The Office of General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia or a party to the proceeding may file an objection to the application or seek the court’s imposition of conditions to its being granted. The Office of General Counsel or objecting party must file with its objection information establishing a factual basis for the objection. The Office of General Counsel or objecting party may seek denial of the application or modification of it. If the application has already been granted, the Office of General Counsel or objecting party may move that the pro hac vice admission be withdrawn.
      3. Standard for Admission and Revocation of Admission. The court has discretion as to whether to grant applications for admission pro hac vice and to set the terms and conditions of such admission. An application ordinarily should be granted unless the court or agency finds reason to believe that such admission:
      a. may be detrimental to the prompt, fair and efficient administration of justice,
      b. may be detrimental to legitimate interests of parties to the proceedings other than the client(s) the applicant proposes to represent,
      c. one or more of the clients the applicant proposes to represent may be at risk of receiving inadequate representation and cannot adequately appreciate that risk,
      d. the applicant has engaged in such frequent appearances as to constitute regular practice in this state, or
      e. should be denied, if that applicant had, prior to the application, filed or appeared in an action in the courts of this State without having secured approval pursuant to the Uniform Superior Court Rules.
      4. Revocation of Admission. Admission to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a proceeding may be revoked for any of the reasons listed in Section D.3 above.

      E. Application
      1. Required Information. An application shall state the information listed on Appendix A to this rule. The applicant may also include any other matters supporting admission pro hac vice.
      2. Application Fee. An applicant for permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this Rule shall pay a non-refundable fee as set by the Investigative Panel of the State Bar of Georgia at the time of filing the application.
      3. Exemption for Pro Bono Representation. An applicant shall not be required to pay the fee established by E.2 above if the applicant will not charge an attorney fee to the client(s) and is:
      a. employed or associated with a pro bono project or nonprofit legal services organization in a civil case involving the client(s) of such programs; or
      b. involved in a criminal case or a habeas proceeding for an indigent defendant.

      F. Authority of the Office of General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia and Court: Application of Ethical Rules, Discipline, Contempt, and Sanctions
      1. Authority over Domestic Lawyer and Applicant.
      a. During pendency of an application for admission pro hac vice and upon the granting of such application, a Domestic Lawyer submits to the authority of the courts and the Office of General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia of this state for all conduct relating in any way to the proceeding in which the Domestic Lawyer seeks to appear. The applicant or Domestic Lawyer who has obtained pro hac vice admission in a proceeding submits to this authority for all that lawyer’s conduct (i) within the state while the proceeding is pending or (ii) arising out of or relating to the application or the proceeding. An applicant or Domestic Lawyer who has pro hac vice authority for a proceeding may be disciplined in the same manner as an in-state lawyer.
      b. The court’s and Office General Counsel’s authority includes, without limitation, the court’s and State Bar of Georgia’s rules of professional conduct, contempt and sanctions orders, local court rules, and court policies and procedures.
      2. Familiarity With Rules. An applicant shall become familiar with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, local court rules, and policies and procedures of the court before which the applicant seeks to practice.

      G. Temporary Practice. An out-of-state lawyer will only be eligible for admission pro hac vice, or to practice in another lawful way only on a temporary basis.

      H. The conflicts of the domestic lawyer shall not delay any deadlines, depositions, mediation, hearings, or trials in connection with the case for which admission has been granted.

      APPENDIX A

      The Domestic Lawyer’s application shall include:
      1. the applicant’s residence and business address;
      2. the name, address and phone number of each client sought to be represented;
      3. the courts before which applicant has been admitted to practice and the respective period(s) of admission;
      4. whether the applicant (a) has been denied admission pro hac vice in this state, (b) had admission pro hac vice revoked in this state, or (c) has otherwise formally been disciplined or sanctioned by any court in this state. If so, specify the nature of the allegations; the name of the authority bringing such proceedings; the caption of the proceedings, the date filed, and what findings were made and what action was taken in connection with those proceedings;
      5. whether any formal, written disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against the applicant by a disciplinary authority in any other jurisdiction and, as to each such proceeding: the nature of the allegations; the name of the person or authority bringing such proceedings; the date the proceedings were initiated and finally concluded; the style of the proceedings; and the findings made and actions taken in connection with those proceedings;
      6. whether the applicant has been held formally in contempt or otherwise sanctioned by any court in a written order for disobedience to its rules or orders, and, if so: the nature of the allegations; the name of the court before which such proceedings were conducted; the date of the contempt order or sanction, the caption of the proceedings, and the substance of the court’s rulings (a copy of the written order or transcript of the oral rulings shall be attached to the application);
      7. the name and address of each court or agency and a full identification of each proceeding in which the applicant has filed an application to appear pro hac vice in this state within the preceding two years; the date of each application; and the outcome of the application;
      8. an averment as to the applicant’s familiarity with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, local rules and court procedures of the court before which the applicant seeks to practice; and
      9. the name, address, telephone number and bar number of an active member in good standing of the bar of this state who will sponsor the applicant’s pro hac vice request. The bar member shall appear of record together with the Domestic Lawyer.

      The Domestic Lawyer’s application may provide the following optional information

      10. the applicant’s prior or continuing representation in other matters of one or more of the clients the applicant proposes to represent and any relationship between such other matter(s) and the proceeding for which applicant seeks admission.
      11. any special experience, expertise, or other factor deemed to make it particularly desirable that the applicant be permitted to represent the client(s) the applicant proposes to represent in the particular cause.

  2. The Conservative Outhouse SHARED this INFORMATION w/us yesterday:

    Kruidbos case begins two weeks from today. We shall see how Corey’s motion to dismiss on the basis of immunity works out. We could potentially see quite a bit of further deconstruction of the myth of saint trayvon.

    NOTICE OF HEARING DECEMBER 18, 2013, AT 11:00 AM RM 740
    ______________________________

    David too shared other dates from the court also.

    Is this Court Hearing to determine IF the case will be DISMISSED against Corey by Ben Kruidbos claiming “Prosecutor Immunity?” It’s been awhile since we discussed Corey’s attempt to have this dismissed & I remember our friend Bori making the point: “this wouldn’t fall under prosecutor immunity because BK was subpoenaed to testify in GZ’s case by MOM/West, BK was in fear, & it was with holding Brady Material.” (paraphrased from bori’s comment & my memory, lol)

    I thought Bori pointed out some important exceptions to the Immunity afforded Prosecutor’s/Corey, does anyone else have any thoughts? I know there was an investigator appointed to investigate Coerey’s office & the State listed on their web site all claims would be investigated, but when State Investigators investigate State Prosecutors, in the State of Fla., I am concerned of more corruption. imo, if Corey were terribly concerned, wouldn’t she just conveniently “retire” & set up private practice as an ambulance chaser where the money is?

    I too am hoping/praying that this case moves forward, I feel strongly this is tied to the “sanctions” MOM/West have said will move forward but haven’t on BDLR/Brady violations.

    • Corey doesn’t believe that she did anything wrong. Plus, her legal fees are paid by the state (i.e., taxpayers). She enjoys the support of a broad range of the Florida constituency.

      • I am going back to refresh my memory on some of the points of BK’s case, White filed this as a “whistle blower case.”

        Peek wrote the termination letter: wrote that “Kruidbos did a poor job overseeing the information technology department, violated public records law for retaining documents and was insubordinate.

        White stated: “A document dated May 16, however, says BK received a pay raise for meritorious performance.”
        Kruidbos said he had acted in good faith about “genuine concerns.”

        “I don’t have any regrets,” BK said said then, “but I am terrified about the future and what that will end up being.”

        B. Kruidbos’ dismissal letter, A 7 page beat down by Corey’s office:

        http://jacksonville.com/content/information-technology-director-ben-kruidbos-dismissal-letter

        FCRA president J. Willie David said in the release the public must have trust in its state attorneys and that the rules of discovery allows a level playing field for all sides.

        “The firing of Ben Kruidbos by State Attorney Corey is a disturbing trend toward persecuting those who dare to speak out to protect our system of government for fairness and justice,” said FCRA civil rights attorney Shayan Elahi in the release. “Far too many cases have been revisited and overturned because the justice system has suppressed evidence or has purposely cast victims or defendants in a false light.”

        “Regardless of the media’s interpretation or public opinion, Trayvon Martin’s family has a right to know the truth whether it is in the favor of his rights or not,” explained David.

        http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/former-it-director-ben-kruidbos-fired-state-attorn/nYpx9/

    • I remember some of the conversation because I was confused myself on how she could file immunity when this is a wrongful termination suit. I think the exceptions have to do with prosecutorial misconduct. Particularly as it relates to the prosecutors duty to disclose exculpatory evidence. Which is the whole reason Ben testified for GZ in the first place.

      • Danny ~ too, BK’s case is a “whistle blower case” in which they have some protections from “wrongful termination.” There are laws pertaining the protection of whistle blowers, BUT, well, it’s Fla., we’ve seen what they are capable of.

        LOL! I was watching some of the Sopranos & Tony always sweated the “RICO charges” being collected against him fearing being charged.. Seems there is enough for RICO charges against Corey, Corey imo, has been corrupt forever, she’s skated because she has friends in high places.

        • That is the other part of this case I am confused about. I am not a good at any type of civil suit interpretor. Too many variables, in many different areas.
          I think we did discuss whistle blowing law here too. I forget the consensus on that.
          I remember it was determined Florida changed its public servant laws to be firing at will, under Jeb Bush.

          So if it is an at will state for public servants the argument then will be for Corey anyway he was fired because of performance, not whistle blowing. If that is the case Ben would have to open a can of worms which may be hard considering she is claiming absolute immunity.

  3. And then there’s that! The case of Julie Lyncker which is on going for wrongful termination.

    There is the other case of “wrongful termination” of Julie Lyncker in which Corey’s OWN Attorney found Brady Material in the form of emails that had been with held by Corey’s office. Corey’s Attorney’s alerted Julie Lyncker’s attorney causing a delay in the trial. Corey took a humiliating beat down/tongue thrashing from the Judge that stated her office would face monetary charges for the delay it caused the court as the potential jury had been sent notices & were to show up the following Monday.

    Will this case, which is on record, INFLUENCE BK’s case in any manner? It seems MORE of the same, Corey caught red handed in this cse with holding Brady Material.
    ______________________

    Angela Corey’s office rebuked for late evidence gaffe in wrongful termination suit!

    The office of State Attorney Angela Corey faces potential sanctions and will have to pay thousands of dollars in taxpayer money after failing to turn over all documents in a wrongful termination case filed by a former employee.

    It prompted a scolding by U.S. District Judge Timothy Corrigan and follows similar criticisms in the failed prosecution of George Zimmerman.

    http://members.jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-22/story/angela-coreys-office-rebuked-late-evidence-gaffe-wrongful-termination

    • The way prosecutors interpret their disclosure responsibilities under Brady varies widely.

      A good defense lawyer must assume, for the sake of his/her client, that there is exculpatory material being withheld.

      What looks like exculpatory evidence to a defense lawyer can look like irrelevant evidence to a prosecutor. The aggressive prosecutor also has a fallback position in borderline cases – “oops”.

      One of the particularly sticky issues in the GZ case concerning the prosecution’s not handing over all of what they had decrypted/recovered from TM’s phone, but, is a very gray area. Many prosecutors have gotten away with doing exactly what was done in this instance. Give the material to the defense and let the defense figure out for themselves what all is there. The feeling among the prosecutors is “why do their work for them”.

      This, of course, does not apply to all prosecutors, and perhaps not to most. But, in highly charged cases, where there will be little political blowback, there is a tendency to not only play hardball, but to nick the ball as well; if, the case is thinly evidenced.

      • I agree hooson. I thought about it. They could claim since the Judge did not allow it anyways no harm was done to the defendent. However, that IS NOT up to the prosecutors to decide.
        The attorneys file motions, the judge looks over it, they argue law and the judge decides.
        Giving a defendent no opportunity to see it and determine for themselves though is a Brady violation.

          • I believe that decision hinged on the decison before trial where as both sides agreed there would be no character evidence presented by either party or if one part had the other could use character evidence in rebuttal. They both decided not to use it as evidence but could do so in opening an closing.

            • *party
              On reverse I am not so sure. Because in order for a reversable error to occur it needs to be an error that would have affected the verdict.
              Such as shifting burden or jury instruction on self defense.

              • For instance, the Marissa Alexander case. It was reverse for both of those reasons and the prosecutors even made the defenses argument in closing by saying the jury needed to determine if Alexander proved Gray actually came at her. And in jury instruction it stated she needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she shot in self defense.
                She had NO burden other then to create reasonable doubt. The burden was on the state to prove the charges, and that Gray had not came at her.

      • What is sad is how the precedence of immunity has eroded the reason immunity was given to prosecutors. Imbler v. Pachtman was set so no civil suits could be brought as to protect the judicial process. Yet so many prosecutors have committed Due Process,Brady and ethical violations, the judicial system has eroded because of the immunity given only because a defendent has no rights to sue and of course the judicial system protects their own.

      • We discussed this at Talk Left and one of the legal eagles, cboldt, whom some might remember said that Kruibos would not get anywhere with his case. The way he explained it is that Ben K went to Attorney White first. He didn’t go to the higher ups in his division, Corey, to express his concerns. That negates the “whistle blower” rule. I will look for the quote at TL later and will link and quote it appropriately.

    • I think that case is a sexual harassment case that involves allegations against Wes White.
      If you rewatch his testimony during GZs trial when wavy arms cross examines it begins to make sense what he was referencing to.
      But again this case does show Coreys run SOA is willing to violate Brady with no shame.

      • Danny ~ you are correct, the case of Lynchker was one of “wrongful termination,” when she complained of White sexually harassing her about another guy. imo, this is WHY White isn’t representing Ben Kruidbos in his case, there was a conflict of interest since no doubt White will play a part in her case & have to testify.

        The problem for Corey in this case imo is there are emails discussing transferring Lynchker to another office which they could have done, instead they fired her. It’s a shame Corey couldn’t just transfer her, then she wouldn’t look like a complete fool when the Judge chewed her out.

        Because of the Brady Materials that Corey with held, Lynchker’s attorney had to investigate how many more emails there were that hadn’t been disclosed, I think I remember over 400. which will likely become public. LOL, billable hours.

    • Lets not forget Corey’s office is the same group of clowns that tried to sell judge nelson on the notion that Trayvon’s death was the result of child abuse by george. I seriously laughed out loud and almost woke the neighbors up when Richard Mantei pulled that one out of his ass.

  4. Something just dawned on me.
    The reason why Crumpster and Co. have been pretty silent on GZs recent arrest are because of the charges.
    The NAACP has been very active in the Marissa Alexander case( why I do not know because the domestic violence groups should be backing her not the NAACP) using it as a black civil rights step for mandatory minimums in Florida. Of course they support the lowering of these mandatory minimums because the black prison polpulation not because the minimums do not allow judges discretion on consideration of the circumstances for everyone. And Jackson is so far up Coreys behind for charging GZ it would make Corey look just like the prosecutor she is.

    If they speak about GZs new charges they certainly will have to speak about the possibility of his sentence and the mandatory minimum laws which they are fighting against.

    • I am not sure how to quantify “beyond absurd”, so I will just stick with “absurd”. What is absurd about asking for $15 an hour for flipping burgers?

      • very simple….15 dollar an hour leads to $12 big mac combo meals that NOBODY will pay that much for. it also increases the employers tax liability for payroll and FICA. With the decrease in sales due to the over priced food the jobs get cut and the franchise goes out of business.

        • “very simple….15 dollar an hour leads to $12 big mac combo meals that NOBODY will pay that much for. it also increases the employers tax liability for payroll and FICA. With the decrease in sales due to the over priced food the jobs get cut and the franchise goes out of business.”

          …and the obesity rate plummets, health care costs go down, people live longer lives. Sounds like a win. 😉

        • TCO –

          You are correct in what you have stated, as to the absurdity of the underlying economic reality.

          But what is absurd about this collection of individuals asking for $15 an hour?

            • Are they valuing their service as being worth $15/hr. or are they saying that they need $15/hr to live on, and they want to be paid at that rate?

          • $15/hour for an entry level burger-flipping job is a kick in the teeth to everyone who went to school and learned a skill or a trade so they can get a $30k/year job in their chosen field. My first full time job in 1984 required 8 years of post high school education and paid $17k/year. My first month I worked 126 hours per week. That works out to $2.59/hour, well below even the minimum wage at that time.

            IMO, increasing the minimum wage to $15/hour is a thinly veiled attempt to shift the burden of welfare off the government and onto the shoulders of businesses. It is a way of redistributing wealth without the dirty business of raising taxes.

            • I agree. It is also a way to drive up the prices of fast food to the point that businesses can’t make money and many Americans will stop eating fast food. An extra dollar or two for a fast food burger just isn’t worth it to me. I would not buy.

              It’s unfortunate that some people have to take jobs once dominated by high school and college age kids, but perhaps a better way to fix that is to strengthen the economy and the free market.

    • 20% of people working in the fast food industry have college degrees. Knuckledraggers???? so what is that you contribute???

      • The Oxford dictionary defines a knuckle dragger as a stupid or loutish person.

        I presume that having a college degree does not exclude a few louts being among the grads. But beyond that, is it unreasonable to assume that a college graduate working the counter at a McDonalds views it as an entry level position, and not the pinnacle of an employment career, and probably is not among those who are presently demonstrating?

        • there is no such thing as typical lib rhetoric, unless you are prepared to accept that ugly naming calling is typical conservative rhetoric.

          You call people working in low wage jobs stupid, so I point out that post recession college grads are surviving on low wage fast food jobs. People who do a full days work should make a living wage.

          • what part of the cost of labor is inseparably linked to the cost of goods. Your fantasy of a living wage would eventually get passed on to the consumer across the market place driving up prices rendering your “living wage” no longer a living wage. The only way your fantasy could ever work is if the providers of goods and services simply “eats” the massive cut in the bottom line.

          • Cassandra –

            I think you raise the important issue as regards the minimum wage debate – one where the different sides of the debate approach from a different philosophical perspective. So even with the same set of facts agreed upon by both sides, there can be no closure to the debate.

            “People who do a full days work should make a living wage”.

            Can you define that further?

            What is a “living wage”, in your opinion? What constitutes a “full days work”? Should a living wage paid for a full days work if that work is employed in unprofitable enterprise? Who should determine what a living wage should be?

            • I agree hooson. Funny thing this came up here. My 16 yr. old daughter is a month into her first job at a well know Department store in malls. She is a pretty smart kid who wants to make money. I swear she was 3 years old and somehow knew how to bargain for a buck. For the last two years she was making $15.00 to $20.00 a week by cleaning for my Mother in law for a few hours. Wont clean for me though even if I pay her….lol.

              She is working at the Department store for minimum wage. After Black Friday they cut her hours down to 8 from 28. She called me this morning from work asking if she should look for another job because of this. She also said she knew right now she would prolly face the same thing at other places. I told her not to quit until she found another secure job and the longer she stays the better the experience because for now that is what she should be after. She really does not “need” the money.
              She agreed. I told her if she finds something and gets an interview just explain her position of wanting more hours, at least to a specific amount of hours to the potential employer.

              She spoke to a manager after this weeks schedule and it was explained to her that her hours were cut because they had to hire others who took her hours so it would be fair. She said she felt used. I told her this is only the beginning of her job experience and why it is vital she get an education where SHE is the one sought not the other way around.
              Only then will her salary be negotiable.

              • That sounds like a good first lesson for her.

                Did she elaborate on who the department store had to be fair to? Or why?

                For a sales clerk into today’s environment, I would think that the store would try to keep the clerks on as “part timers” but not go that far in the direction of having, say, 10 clerks sharing the time, when they could employ just 5 clerks to do the same with more time, and yet still stay within the part-time parameters.

                • I believe it was to be fair to the new hires. The company is not hiring but for temp. positions. So she knew this going in.

                • Funny too. The job rate was up in Nov. higher then in 5 years so some say the economy is back. Yeah, well, if 10 employees are sharing 28 hours…. Is it?
                  Its up because of the Holiday hires.

                  • Employers are already cutting those employees. I wanted to share too that my daughter got a notice after she was hired about signing up for insurance through Obamacare. It was a notice on how to sign up for the Health Insurance Market Place and how to access it. The summary date was 11/4/13.
                    It states:
                    You are not currently eligable to participate in **** group health plan. Please note if you participate in ***** limited health plan, beginning January 1, 2014 this coverage is no longer permitted by the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, you may obtain health coverage through the Market Place.

                    • Danny ~ I read on Obamacare everyday, from what I have read, it is NOT affordable health care EXCEPT to a few.

                      imo, the young people won’t support it that are healthy, struggling to pay student loans & just trying to pay rent. If this happens, the predicted death spiral will occur. WHAT A MESS!

            • Hooson ~ when my daughter was in college, she worked at
              the Walmart near LSU. My daughter was paid nearly 9.50
              per hr. BECAUSE she had been given incentive raises. Walmart gives raises on how quickly you are able to ring a customer up & how many items purchased. They track how many products sold, how quickly they were rang up as that makes happy customers, those that are cashiers that drag around/slow, irritate customers either lose their jobs or do not make more money, they remain at their starting salary, a little over minimum wage.

              I was appalled when my daughter told me most of those employed @ Walmart that were single mothers got food stamps & qualified for other State programs. I love the prices @ Walmart & they are said to be one of the biggest employers in our Country, but that really surprised me. So they are employed, YET, taxpayers are supplementing their salaries. I DON’T WANT the prices of Walmart to go up, but if minimum wage goes up a large amount, Walmart will raise their competitive prices.

              Taxpayers lose either way, from Walmart as an example of one that would raise prices, to what it is now & Walmart Employees supplementing their wages w/food stamps paid for by taxpayers because they qualify. jmho.

              Supplementing a salary w/State programs, imo, is not a “living wage,” I determine that by common sense.

              • Walmart’s efforts are directed towards giving maximum value for the dollar to their customers. That is why they have grown to be the powerhouse retailer that they have. They do so by keeping their suppliers competing with one another for Walmart’s business; i.e., downward pressure on prices which ultimately benefit the customer, and by keeping other costs down as well, salaries etc.

                Walmart’s profit margin is between 3 – 4 %, something I do not consider excessive. Walmart’s prices has allowed its customers (who tend to be low income, paycheck to paycheck) to stretch their limited consumer dollars.

                While many Walmart employees are able to supplement their salaries and stretch their dollars with the aid of food stamps, as you note, I think it is misleading to look at it terms of taxpayer’s subsidizing Walmart – at least partially.

                Those receiving food stamps would likely be receiving food stamps whether or not whether or not the food stamps were being ‘supplemented’ with a Walmart salary. I concede that this, by itself, does not justify any particular salary range.

                the bigger questions remain – what constitutes a living wage? – to what jobs should a living wage be applied? – who makes that determination?

                At its core, these questions reflect the tug-of-war going on in society.

                The trend at present is an increase in government intervention (in the name of good intentions) and the replacement of individual initiative, responsibilty, and ownership by an expansion of government fiat. This involves a dimunition in the role of competition in determing pricing and economic activity.

                It is a further move in the direction away from the freer markets and open opportunity that allowed our country to become the economic powerhouse it is.

                • hooson ~ you make many good points. I too hadn’t considered that those working @ Walmart at that wage & getting food stamps, would likely be getting food stamps at a comparable job @ the same wages.

                  imo, a living wage is one that would afford a worker the ability to rent a 1 bedroom apartment in a safe area, in Shreveport, a safe area for such an apartment runs from 450.00 to 600.00 p/month. To live in a drug infested area which is crime ridden, a 1 bedroom apt. rents for approx. 325.00 to 425.00 p/month. The “projects” are drug infested, I cringe to see little children out side when I pass by, I hate to think of children growing up in that environment yet it is a reality all over the country.

                  With many employers already cutting employees to less than 30 hrs. p/wk due to Obamacare, it’s difficult to see how those making so little can pay for even a 1 bedroom apt, & then consider if they own a car to get to that part time job & pay car insurance.

                • “the bigger questions remain – what constitutes a living wage? – to what jobs should a living wage be applied? – who makes that determination?

                  The realism of the estimates depend on the type of community under study. What is equal is not always fair, and what is fair is not always equal.

                • the bigger questions remain – what constitutes a living wage? – to what jobs should a living wage be applied? – who makes that determination?

                  Personally, I think jobs like McDonald’s (where people have been picketing) should not be jobs that “living wage” is applied. We need places for kids to work, places for people without skilled labor abilities. If grown adults are working on the line at a place like McDonald’s, it means they haven’t learned a skill, and I think that’s on them. America is about equal opportunity, not equal results – but there are forces stronger today in America that are trying to change that.

                  Also, I think we really need to emphasize – rampant public service messages maybe! lol – that people need to learn a trade or get a college degree (in something that can lead to employment) – before they start popping out the kids. The last I saw, statistics showed that educated people are having fewer children, it’s mostly those who can’t afford them who are having the most.

                  And lastly, we have to start making things again, so there will BE jobs for people, trades to learn, etc.

              • I believe you about WalMart. When I go to Wally Mart (that is what we call it) I have a $300.00 -$400.00 bill because I stock up monthy. I do not do weekly shopping because as I said I hate shopping. Sometimes I have two carts especially if it is canned stocking, and detergents, and every single time we check out the employees LOVE US. One time I said to a cashier “Sorry.” She was like ” No, THANK YOU, I made my quota and you are my last customer before I leave!”

                • Danny ~ I call Walmart, the “Boutique” because if they don’t have, you don’t need it imo. LOL! My adult kids roll their eyes but you just have to laugh if you can buy a pair of panties where you buy your groceries & then picking up garden plants, it seems to be a formula that works.

                  Walmart gives their employees “incentive” to produce maximum effort for raises, I agree w/that.

                  I have kept up w/Detroit filing bankruptcy, many of those uneducated people that made maximum monies on assembly lines producing cars back in the day are losing their retirement funds. I never thought I’d live to see that happen.

                  • Detroit is the result of many things. But the main result is that they utilized and caved to unions for so long and it resulted in a break down of any type of mixed economy and work force, a negotiations for the people.

                  • If people who worked the auto assembly lines are losing pensions, it’s not directly connected to the City of Detroit going into bankruptcy.

                    That, rather, is what is endangering the pensions of those who were employed by the City of Detroit.

                    Of course the entire area is suffering because of the economic troubles of the automakers (though nothing like what would have happened if GM and Chrysler had actually gone out of business, taking with them the suppliers without which Ford would be out of business as well), but the different pension funds are separate entities

                    • The two funds may be separate but most of the trustees on Detroits two pension boards represent organized labor, and could have voted out anyone who would challenge the pensions.
                      The big three have restructured….(voluntarily by Ford…and government order for GM and Chrysler) because of the bail out.
                      I think the auto unions have begun retirement funding with 401ks as those have strong legal protection.

                • She spoke to the one manager. One claimed hours were cut for other hires, but she was told to go to another manager who claimed it was for performance. My daughter had the manager pull up records. She is third in sales. #1 Is the manager. #2 is an employee who has been there for 15 years, #3 is my daughter who has worked there a month!

                  She was scheduled 10 more hours.

  5. Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has named William J. Bratton his Police Commissioner. In returning to the job he held under Rudolph Giuliani in the nineteen-nineties, Bratton will be in charge of fulfilling one of de Blasio’s most prominent campaign promises: to end the stop-and-frisk tactics that were such a prominent part of Michael Bloomberg’s record as Mayor.

    But Bratton’s views on stop-and-frisk may be considerably different from those of his new boss. In May of this year, I profiled Shira Scheindlin, the federal judge who presided over the class-action lawsuit that challenged the N.Y.P.D.’s stop-and-frisk policies. In the course of reporting that piece, I interviewed Bratton, and we discussed stop-and-frisk in some detail.

    Bratton emphatically endorsed stop-and-frisk as a police tactic. “First off, stop-question-and-frisk has been around forever,” he told me. “It is known by stop-and-frisk in New York, but other cities describe it other ways, like stop-question-and-frisk or Terry stops. It’s based on a Supreme Court case from 1968, Terry v. Ohio, which focused very significantly on it. Stop-and-frisk is such a basic tool of policing. It’s one of the most fundamental practices in American policing. If cops are not doing stop-and-frisk, they are not doing their jobs. It is a basic, fundamental tool of police work in the whole country. If you do away with stop-and-frisk, this city will go down the shoot as fast as anything you can imagine.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/12/brattons-endorsement-of-stop-and-frisk.html

    • I haven’t been following that case, but it was my understanding that he was not buried but just rolled up in a mat, turned upside down, and left in the gym. I don’t see how this video disproves he was murdered. There may be something I missed because I haven’t followed the case.

      I don’t see how it could be anything but murder or manslaughter. How does someone accidentally get themselves rolled up in a mat and turned upside down. The most logical thing I can think of is that another kid did it to him, but didn’t realize it would kill him. That would be manslaughter.

      • Sharon, there is a thread on this case elsewhere on this blog. Basically, the mat that KJ was found in had been rolled up and placed vertically against the wall of the gym at the beginning of winter break last year. The mat was behind something like 20 other rolled up mats. There was a hole in the center of the mat where KJ had stashed his gym shoes while the mat was horizontal before the holiday. On the first day of school after the break, it is believed that KJ reached into the hole to try to grab his shoe and crawled or fell in, trapping himself inverted in a cramped space which is essentially soundproof, and suffocated.

        In order to believe that KJ’s death was a homicide, you need to believe that KJ was killed by a karate chop to the neck, all the mats were removed from against the wall, KJ’s body was rolled up in the mat, the mat replaced against the wall, and all the other mats returned to their original positions, all without anybody seeing, squealing, or the activity picked up on surveillance video. All these assertions are patently ridiculous, especially the assertion that a karate chop to the neck can kill without damaging the spine, airway or arteries.

      • I hope you are at least aware that the mat was vertical when KJ was found upside down and deceased. He stroes his sneakers under the mats. The mat he died in was vertically stored around other mats prior to holiday break which made it difficult for him to retrieve his sneakers.

  6. Chris Matthews to Obama: ‘Everyone Knows’ Republicans Want to Stop Minorities From Voting

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/12/05/matthews-obama-everyone-knows-republicans-want-stop-minorities-votin#ixzz2mh4asDoDChris Matthews received his long-desired wish on Thursday, an exclusive interview with Barack Obama. The Hardball anchor didn’t exactly live up to the title of his show, wondering about Republican efforts to “make it difficult for minorities to vote” and questioning who was better, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden?

    Talking to the President at American University, Matthews read a question from a viewer via Twitter: “What can we do to stop the GOP, the Republicans, from rigging the states, rigging the votes, state by state, to disenfranchise voters and destroy our democracy?” The host added, “Thirty six states right now led by Republican legislatures have been trying to make it difficult for minority people to vote, especially in big cities and older people. Everybody knows the game.” [See video below. MP3 audio here.] Tossing a softball to Obama, he queried, “What’s your reaction?”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/12/05/matthews-obama-everyone-knows-republicans-want-stop-minorities-votin#ixzz2mh4WVzKb

    • I learned on May 31,2008 that the democrats cheat as much as anyone else, that was the day I watched them live on Cspan steal delegates from Hillary (who won the popular vote and was a bit ahead of him in delegates) to make Obama the primary “winner”. And while republicans spent 15 years hating Hillary and making sexist remarks against her, it was not the republicans who were doing it during the primary – it was the “party of women” – I had no idea there was so much misogyny in the dem party until then. So I’m an independent now, because the democrats are not what I had always thought they were.

      In terms of what you’re posting, I think this is a bunch of crap, too. It’s simply another talking point. First, I put together a chart in 2008. Turns out all states have programs for free or extremely low cost photo IDs for low income folks, and some states even provide free transportation to go get it!!! Second, I live by the border. I listen to an oldies, mostly 70s station, and they broadcast from T.J. (Tijuana). Every time they’re about to have an election in Mexico, for a couple of months beforehand they broadcast English commercials reminding Mexicans to make sure their VOTER ID has not expired, and if so, to renew it. So some people here want voters to present ID in order to decrease cheating – but I always hear how racist it is. And yet a 3rd world country requires it. But here it’s racist. Ugh… I’m so tired of political games.

  7. I recieved my first Christmas card in the mail yesterday. I still can not believe we are already in December! I am a last minute shopper. I have tried year after year to try to shop early, but I just hate shopping PERIOD.
    Being a last minute shopper also means I am a last minute wrapper.
    We have a few traditions on this Holiday. Well, I made my wrapping a tradition for the Eve. I grab all the presents and me and lovey sit at the tree wrapping after the kids go to bed. But I do ensure one present for everyone is bought and wrapped in advance. All our Christmas PJs. My Moms tradition for my brother and I that I too hope to pass down the generations. My kids love to see what PJs they got and we let them open them before bed and take pictures. We then watch Its a Wonderful Life, Lovey started that Tradition.

    My Christmas cards as we receive them are put on the tree.This year I did put up my Moms artificial white tree in memoriam. This is the first Christmas without her.
    Many who have come to our house for the Holidays think the cards on the tree is cool and unique idea. I think it is neat to display the cards we get this way. It makes card getting more personable and decorative too. I think I started a card giving challenge unintentionally. I may one day have a card tree…..lol.

    Christmas Day is usually relaxed. We do not have any special Traditions besides Dinner and checking out each others gadgets.

    Do you and your family have any Traditions?

  8. Nettles ~ I am so glad to see you, your input is always missed when you’re not here, but we behave ourselves.

    I hope your family crisis is under control, those things are emotionally exhausting & worrisome until they are resolved imo.

  9. Does anyone know how much $$$$$ has been donated to Taaffe’s Defense Fund for GZ w/monies to go directly to Jayne W. for his defense?

    I visited the site but can’t tell, I don’t know how widely the donation site is publicized.

    • Thing is I could prolly pass through TSA much easier with a bushel of rotting apples unmolested, then I could passing through the outhouse without being moderated.

  10. Interesting court case, especially where the federal judge ruled that every case of tax exemption fundamentally constitutes government subsidy.

    U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb for the Western District of Wisconsin issued a strong, 43-page decision Friday declaring unconstitutional 26 U.S. C. § 107(2), passed by Congress in 1954. Quoting the Supreme Court, Crabb noted, “Every tax exemption constitutes subsidy.” The law allowed “ministers of the gospel” paid through a housing allowance to exclude that allowance from taxable income. Ministers may, for instance, use the untaxed income to purchase a home, and, in a practice known as “double dipping,” may then deduct interest paid on the mortgage and property taxes.

    “The Court’s decision does not evince hostility to religion — nor should it even seem controversial,” commented Richard L. Bolton, FFRF’s attorney in the case. “The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.”

    Crabb wrote: “Some might view a rule against preferential treatment as exhibiting hostility toward religion, but equality should never be mistaken for hostility. It is important to remember that the establishment clause protects the religious and nonreligious alike.”

    The benefit to clergy is huge — saving an estimated $2.3 billion in taxes in the years 2002-2007 alone, according to a statement by Congressman Jim Ramstad in 2002. Clergy are permitted to use the housing allowance not just for rent or mortgage, but for home improvements including swimming pools, maintenance and repairs. They may exempt from taxable income up to the fair market rental value of their home, particularly benefiting well-heeled pastors. The benefit extends to churches, which can pay clergy less, as tax-free salaries go further.

    – See more at: http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/19361-ffrf-gaylor-barker-overturn-%E2%80%98parsonage-exemption%E2%80%99-clergy-privilege#sthash.jRTuX4Ij.dpuf

    • That was very sad, Nettle. I sympathize with those families. My sister was killed in a similar situation. Before that happened, I knew when I heard things like that on the news that they were really people with grieving families, but it didn’t feel so real. We were in the airport when I got news that my sister had died. I’d already been told that she had been shot in a mass shooting, but we were sitting in the airport when my husband got the call that she’d passed. I could tell by his response what it was and I started screaming “no.” The plane had landed but they weren’t boarding. They told him to go ahead and get me on the plane, as we were about to get on the plane I looked at a TV and her picture was on the screen and I broke away from her and started running toward her. My husband and an airline employee grabbed me and got me on the plane and they put us in the very back and gave me a drink. I was able to have a drink as the plane took off, something that is never done.

      The man wanted to kill Democrats. He wanted to die and decided to take as many Democrats with him as possible.

      • Sharon I’m so sorry to read of your experience. I can’t even begin to imagine that kind of pain.

        I was around the same age as these women when they were gunned down and hearing of the violence touched me deeply. I did a paper of this in college and I help a men’s group that organized in Ontario known as the White Ribbon group. When you see a white ribbon in Ontario, we know that signifies a warrior in the effort to stop violence against women.

        Wouldn’t it be a better world if we helped each other and if we cannot help at the very least we don’t hurt each other.

        I’m so sorry for your loss Sharon. ♥

  11. Sharon ~ I am so sorry to read about the loss of your sister.

    I will never understand as long as I live why those that are so filled w/hate cannot just take their own lives but are hell bent on taking the innocent with them, many of the innocent enjoying their lives/families when the tragedy occurs.

  12. Will someone please refresh my memory on the DV case, are there 2 charges, 1 for Samantha’s claim of GZ pointing a weapon at her & the 2nd for not leaving her home, barricading himself inside, etc.? OR, are they a total of 1 case?

    The reason I ask is that I was reading comments made by Hornsby last night when interviewed in the MEDIA when GZ made the change in attorney’s, he was expressing his concerns about Jayne W. as GZ’s choice of representation. He stated “he understood she was high profile on HLN/CNN, BUT, since GZ is facing the gun charge which carries a MANDATORY minimum sentence, GZ could have gotten better representation.” I too wonder if that is considered a “felony” & if that would mean, if convicted, GZ could never own a gun again? (paraphrased)

    I thought possibly we would have heard something from Jayne W. by now on GZ’s innocence in the charges, but I have read anything thus far. Could Jayne W. be investigating Samantha/mother, or trying to negotiate a deal of sorts?

        • coreshift ~ Thanks. So it appears there were 3 charges, I guess that was why Hornsby was concerned about the “gun charge” since it carried a “mandatory minimum.

          I truly pray GZ doesn’t lose the right to have a gun & I too see Hornsby’s concern as to Jayne representing GZ on the charge since she is a vocal opponent against guns. I think you were the one that pointed out earlier that perhaps GZ “might think Jayne will show professionalism when representing her client.” (paraphrasing from memory) I wholeheartedly agree w/that.

          • I just tweeted several lawyers asking this question: in the eyes of the law is an unloaded firearm still considered a deadly weapon?

            I ask this response to the aggravated assault charge. The question is relevant to the matter at hand in that Samatha specifically tells the 911 operator that the shotgun is not loaded. If under the law an unloaded firearm is not a deadly weapon then the charge of aggravated assault is fatally defective.

              • Q. Are there special laws that apply to the use of Handguns?
                A. Yes, special laws apply anytime anyone uses deadly force, whether or not the weapon is concealed. Florida law defines deadly force as force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force. The law considers even an unloaded gun to be a deadly weapon when it is pointed at someone.

                • Hornsby disagrees stevie:
                  Creepy-Ass-Cracka
                  @support4GZ

                  @RichardHornsby In the eyes of the law is an unloaded firearm still considered a deadly weapon? – 07 Dec

                  Richard Hornsby
                  @RichardHornsby

                  @support4GZ Only if you hit them over the head with it.

                  12:13 AM – 08 Dec 13

                  • @TennisLaw In the eyes of the law is an unloaded firearm still considered a deadly weapon? – 07 Dec
                    More Tweets

                    Diana Tennis
                    @TennisLaw

                    @support4GZ Without doing research I believe no, could depend on circumstances- pistol whipping maybe for example. – 08 Dec

            • The Conservative O ~ jmho I would think that it depends on who you believed at the time of the incident & in Courtif the gun was loaded r not.

              The problem for GZ is that LE said they suspected GZ loaded the hand guns/AR-15/Shot gun in their holsters/gun sleeves while they were getting a search warrant & banging to get in the house, that’s why they got the “search warrant” was because of the guns.

              Will the jury believe the shot gun/AR-15/handguns weren’t loaded when the 911 was called was placed by Samantha? Even if GZ’s other guns weren’t loaded, he had time to unload them before LE was able to get in the house.

              If your counting on a jury to believe GZ or Samantha on this count about the guns, I wouldn’t count on a jury siding w/GZ. Maybe the other 2 counts could be won by Jayne for GZ, but I am not confident the gun charge can be won. For GZ to win, a jury has to believe him. Is there anyone in Fla. that isn’t familiar w/GZ & his guns?

                • To: The Conservative Outhouse

                  Just want to say hello and that I have been reading your comments. Nice to see you here. Where did you post before you arrived at Annette’s place?

                • The Conservative Outhouse ~ I understood your point clearly so WHY was GZ charged for the gun?

                  Obviously LE thought it was loaded, R, it would not have been a charge which carries a “mandatory minimum.”

                  • George was not charged for the gun to the best of my knowledge. the crime George is being prosecuted for is making a threat. The gun supposed satisfies the criteria of “the appearance of the ability of the threat to be carried out”

                    • The Conservative O ~

                      The “aggravated assault” charge was for pointing the shot gun @ Sam. which would be considered a threat w/a weapon & it is too what you are saying. So it actually wasn’t a “gun charge,” though a gun was involved.

                      There was consideration also by the Judge for Sam.’s accusation of a previous chocking incident in which she didn’t report. Strange how it wasn’t important enough for Sam. to report at the time of the event BUT important enough for the Judge to consider it after the fact.

                    • Something i find peculiar is since clickorlando revealevd they had been talking to Hope and Samantha for weeks and the issue of them being paid a large sum was revealved, Hope mason seemingly completely dropped off the radar

  13. I have not been following George as closely as others here but why does he keep acting like this? I realize that the entire Martin ordeal was traumatic and may have triggered a depression but why do his troubles include “violence” and guns?

    Maybe he does not think of his behavior as being violent but it is if what I have been reading is true. Surely he should know that he will have to walk on egg shells for a while. Maybe he thinks he should not have to do that but the reality is that he needs to stops this crap. It is simply more fodder for the media and, by now, he should have had his belly full of attention.

    I do find it interesting that I have not read even one comment about anyone trying to kill or even hurt him. He certainly has made himself visible enough for that to happen. Go figure.

    • I don’t think he is being violent. His mistake was having an affair. That angered his wife. They fought. She hit him over the head with their iPad. He broke the iPad and she pulled out her cell phone and called the police and talked to them while standing right in front of him. She did not try to get away from him.

      The woman he had the affair with tried to sell her story to the media a couple of weeks before she started the drama. When she called, you can hear him on the other end telling her to calm down. Then he pushed her out the door. She didn’t try to get away from him but tried to get back in. You can tell from the 911 call that she doesn’t sound frightened but angry.

      • jordan2222 ~ always good to see you & read your contributions. Have you heard from “bori” he too hasn’t been seen lately?

        We’ll just have to see what happens in Jan. 2014, at the hearing, I am not so concerned about the 2 lesser charges, I am concerned about the “aggravated assault” in which Sam. says he pointed a gun a her & that GZ broke her glass coffee table w/the butt of his gun.” The Judge took under consideration that Sam. says “GZ tried to choke her previously.”

        I don’t know that GZ will get any sympathy from a jury r Judge for barricading himself in the home claiming he “didn’t want another incident like before,” meaning guns being pointed at him like at SZ’s, BUT, I have NEVER seen anyone in possession of 5 guns of their own that had been unloaded having the right to NEGOTIATE anything when there wasn’t hostages or a threat of suicide. LE was banging on the door & couldn’t get in while GZ was on the phone telling “the story he wanted the public to hear.” LE doesn’t allow time for packing your guns or unloading them, LE got a search warrant for that reason.

        GZ’s choice in attorney’s has been highly critical of guns in the press, Hornsby thinks GZ could have gotten a better attorney to represent his interest in keeping his guns & defending Samantha’s claim. Another choice GZ made solely on his own, his latest choice in attorney’s.

  14. The Crump Trayvon propaganda machine is embarking on another nationwide tour

    Work Inspired by Trayvon Martin Case to Have Premiere on Thursday
    By FELICIA R. LEE
    A free showcase of short plays and a folk opera about race in the United States, inspired by debates over the Trayvon Martin case, will have its premiere on Thursday at the City University of New York Graduate Center. Called “Facing Our Truth: 10-Minute Plays on Trayvon, Race and Privilege,” the project comes from the New Black Fest, which supports innovative plays by and about black people.
    http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/work-inspired-by-trayvon-martin-case-to-have-premiere-on-thursday/?smid=tw-share&_r=1&

    • The Conservative O ~ I couldn’t access your link because it was “overloaded.” I will try again later. Are you saying that you, personally & your family were “denied” insurance due to your past income tax filing?

      Because I worked as a teacher as an “independent contractor,” I wasn’t privy to keep the insurance when I quit teaching after 20 yrs., I draw “survivor/widows benefits” from SS, but will not get medicare until I’m 65. I am apprehensive of entering the Obamacare market place because I am reading repeatedly that hackers can get “personal information/SS #’s, etc” because there was NEVER “security built into the website.” I too think you should be able to SHOP without giving ALL your private information. I think I’m going to suck up the fine in 2014, until more stabilization of Obamacare or it’s repealed r changes made.. I am healthy & it seems cheaper for me to pay out of pocket at this time.

      I am reading the biggest cancer institutes in America, some in NY, will not accept patients from the “exchange,” because they are “out of network.” OUTRAGEOUS! Just consider how many cancer patients had insurance that would PAY for them to use those institutes BUT have had their insurance policies canceled!

      • In california to participate in the Obamacare exchanges it is mandatory that married couples file jointly. As my wife and i filed married but separate we are automatically disqualified from the subsidized plans offered under obamacare.

  15. I received some feedback on the new theme from one of our team members. While the person didn’t say what vehicle they use to view this blog, the email was sent from an ipad so I assume they view the blog on an ipad.

    They report that as the thread goes down, the comments disappear and turn into a line. I view the blog on a laptop and don’t see this problem. Anyone got any suggestions?

    Also the reader prefers the darker backgrounds with white lettering but for reasons unknown to me, I can’t change the default colors on the blog. I did pay $30 to have that option but WordPress appears to be mad at me for some reason. 🙂

    I’m working to resolve the matter but so far I’ve had no luck. I join Jordan and others at outrage on the service this mostly free product provides us. 🙂

  16. Family of Kendrick Johnson to speak in Atlanta

    ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) –
    The family of Kendrick Johnson, a teenager who’s death remains a controversy, were special guests at Ebenezer Baptist Church on Sunday.

    The family, along with attorneys Benjamin Crump, Chevene B. King and Ebenezer Baptist Church senior pastor Dr. Raphael Warnock, are expected to address the media after services Sunday morning.

    CBS Atlanta will provide video later Sunday.

    Johnson’s family is in Atlanta preparing for a rally that will be held in their son’s honor Wednesday.

    The rally will be from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Georgia State Capitol building and include speakers such as Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Joseph Lowery, Martin Luther King III and radio personality Rickey Smiley. http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/24165088/family-of-kendrick-johnson-to-speak-in-atlanta

  17. Who’s an expert witness? Change in Florida’s standard makes judge ‘gatekeeper’!

    New standard targets ‘junk science,’ but impact on criminal courts unclear.On July 1, Florida joined the growing majority of states in adopting a version of the federal-court standard for expert testimony. The change, a Gov. Rick Scott campaign plank, was billed as a way to cut back on “junk science” and civil-litigation costs.

    But what remains to be seen is how the switch will change Florida’s criminal courts, where expert testimony is often vital and disputes regarding experts have featured prominently in some of the state’s most high-profile cases, including Zimmerman’s.

    Florida switched from the “Frye” standard to the “Daubert” standard, each named after a landmark case which established it. Under the old rules, judges needed only to determine if an expert’s methods were “generally accepted” in a given field.

    “The biggest change is that under the way that Daubert’s interpreted, the judge becomes the ‘gatekeeper,'” says Richard Hornsby, a defense attorney and legal analyst. “Does he believe… that [the expert’s] opinion is credible?”

    If the expert’s approach doesn’t pass the “smell test,” Hornsby said, “the judge can exclude that evidence.”

    Says Orange-Osceola Chief Judge Belvin Perry: “The goal of Daubert was to make sure that expert testimony was based upon proven scientific principles or methods. Things that could be tested and verified.”

    Hornsby worries that the added scrutiny will unevenly impact defendants in criminal cases: “In criminal cases, judges are much more likely to exclude defense experts but let in state experts” and will now have more latitude to do so, he said.

    Perry said experts will no longer be able to give an opinion based on their experience and expertise alone, an exception which was allowed under the previous standard.

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-new-expert-rules-florida-courts-20131208,0,25136.story

    I’m not for anything that gives whackadoodle Judges like Judge Nelson more power, or room to form her own opinions, especially in Fla.

  18. As the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network organized “Justice for Trayvon” rallies in cities nationwide over the weekend, demonstrators at a Las Vegas rally went as far as urging Miami Heat players LeBron James and Dwyane Wade to quit their teams in protest of Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ laws.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/22/stand-your-ground-opponents-urge-lebron-james-dway/#ixzz2mxBGLBiY

  19. Scheibe’s new affidavit taken Dec. 6 stated, “When I was being questioned by police I felt very intimidated…I believe that the police misinterpreted me and that I may have misspoken about certain facts in my statement to police.”

    Scheibe wrote that Zimmerman “never pointed a gun at or toward my face in a threatening manner” and that “I want to be with George.”

    Weintraub claims that Scheibe reached out to her and asked that the order barring contact between herself and Zimmerman be lifted.

    Scheibe originally told a 911 dispatcher that the incident began when the former neighborhood watch captain grew upset during an argument and brandished a weapon at her.

    “He’s in my house, breaking all my s— because I asked him to leave,” Scheibe told the dispatcher. “He’s got a freaking gun, breaking all my stuff right now.”

    Scheibe said at the time Zimmerman pushed her out the home and locked her out. Authorities said when they arrived Scheibe gave them keys to the home, and that they had to push through obstacles by the door to get in.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-girlfriend-drop-charges/story?id=21153527

    • I’m sure she’d rather call him a bigot than a big galoot… And I’m pretty sure I haven’t heard the term ‘galoot’ since the last time I actually heard someone use the term ‘coons’.

      Good news for GZ! I hope he isn’t dumb enough to take her back!

    • She sat through that whole trial, and still wants to see GZ as someone bad. She certainly fits the new definition of “journalist”.

      I’m glad this “girlfriend” is coming clean, but she’s not totally helping him by including that she wants to be with him. The haters are just going to say she’s lying *now*, just to get back together with him.

      I hope GZ runs as far from her as possible, as soon as the charges are definitively dropped. She knew exactly how to get him in trouble. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, so run, George, run from her.

      • lorac – In the OS article: Jayne W. request permission from the Judge for GZ to see Samantha, HIS GIRLFRIEND, GZ wants to see her.

        I thought perhaps JW would discourage GZ from seeing Samantha, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

        • Well perhaps she *did* discourage him from seeing her! – and he wants to do it his way…..

          I think he’s being foolish if he goes back to her. You know, everyone who knew him said he’s always there for other people. I wish he would turn that protective impulse on himself…. take better care of himself…. with all the people out there who would like to hurt him, and given how obvious it must be of how to “get him” to anyone who actually knows him, he really doesn’t have the luxury of giving people second chances right now in his life, IMO.

  20. Wasn’t there an ORDER that stated that GZ/Samantha were to have no contact?

    I assume Jayne W. was taking Sam.’s deposition OR Samantha wanted Jayne to drop this for her, I couldn’t find the PDF.

    No doubt LE/Prosecutors WILL interview Samantha again, will they ask her, were you lying then OR are you lying now. OR do you just miss GZ?

    It would seem Samantha needs an attorney since she felt intimated before. Wonder who that will be?

    SO! The million dollar question is: Will GZ go back to Samantha?

      • But notice Jayne did NOT say:

        I took GZ’s case PRO Bono! imo, GZ will pay her legal fees UNLESS she states she’s pro bono because I believed in him Jayne was CAREFUL not to do that. When attorney’s take a case PRO BONO, they state so to bring in publicity for doing so, Jayne hasn’t.

        imo, JW expects to be paid at some time, just as Taaffe’s donation spot has promised ALL donations to go to Jaynie.

      • Most of the “facts” she’s been promising seem to have managed to remain pretty well “earthed”, but she just put up something about an “other” other woman, Kimberly Smith, with whom he supposedly had some sort of relationship since last April, and supposedly she talked to “detectives investigating George for the alleged domestic violence abuse” sometime yesterday (Monday), and supposedly Samantha is just now learning about her existence.

        Maybe I should invest heavily in Orville Redenbacher stock.

  21. From OS article Jaynie requested:

    George Zimmerman’s defense lawyer has asked a judge to ALLOW him to see his GIRLFRIEND, who has recanted the domestic violence allegations which led to his arrest last month, new court documents show. (girlfriend is used in present tense)

    jmho ~ Jaynie W. would NOT have made this request onGZ’s behalf UNLESS GZ wanted to see Samantha.

    • There could be another motive for making this request. It is evidence that Samantha recants her statement. Whether he wants to see her or not, he’ll want the prosecutor to know Samantha recanted.

      He’d be some dumb to sit on that information and ignore it because he never wants to see her again.

      • Nettles ~ the Prosecutors already know that Samantha recanted.

        From OS article:
        Chris White, lead prosecutor in Seminole County, said he learned of Scheibe’s change of heart Monday. He said his office would evaluate her affidavit and decide later this week whether to push forward with the case or abandon it.
        ___________________________

        From OS article:
        George Zimmerman’s defense lawyer has ASKED a judge to ALLOW HIM to see his girlfriend, who has recanted the domestic violence allegations which led to his arrest last month, new court documents show.

        Obviously GZ is requesting to see Samantha also as Jayne W. has moved on his behalf w/a request directly to the Judge to lift the “no contact” order.

        It would be disastrous for GZ to get involved again w/Samantha & we all agree on that fact, but that looks like what’s going to happen, sadly, it happens all the time.

  22. Good Leatherhead question~ what is the answer?

    Lynne says:
    December 9, 2013 at 8:28 pm

    http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=8337253
    I’m no lawyer so tell me if I’m reading this legal jargon correctly.

    The bodyguards vs MOM-GZ-SZ has stipulation for MOM, Dismissal with prejudice for SZ, and Dismissal WITHOUT prejudice for GZ…Does that mean the bodyguards could come back and try to get money from GZ at a later time? They could bring it back to the courts

    • In the formal legal world a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can’t be brought back to court.

      A case dismissed without prejudice means the opposite. It’s not dismissed forever. The person whose case it is can try again.

      Cases are also dismissed voluntarily, by the person who filed the case, or involuntarily, by a judge. For example, you could file a small claims case and voluntarily dismiss your case either with or without prejudice. You could dismiss with prejudice, if there’d probably be no need to come back to court, because, say, you’ve been paid. However, if you decided they wanted to sue in regular court, because the amount is too much for small claims court, you could voluntarily dismiss your small claims case without prejudice. That would allow you to try your case in regular court. You could even change your mind again and return to Small Claims by reducing your claim.

      When cases are dismissed involuntarily, it’s by a judge, against the wishes of the person whose case is dismissed. Involuntary dismissals happen when the judge decides the case can’t go forward because of a legal reason. Usually, they’re the result of the other side filing a Motion to Dismiss, pointing out those reasons.

      When a case is involuntarily dismissed by a judge, it could be with or without prejudice. Often, judges dismiss cases without prejudice, so that the person whose case got dismissed can try again after fixing the problem the other side pointed out.

      Sometimes, though, judges dismiss cases with prejudice. Maybe the loser has already had chances to fix their case, and the judge concludes there’s no simply way the case can go forward. But it could be lots of things. The result is that the case is closed. If your case was dismissed with prejudice it can be appealed to a higher judge, but you can’t start over from scratch and try again.
      http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=6092

  23. After reading the pdf, wouldn’t she be in trouble for going to Geo attny? Or is that diff than to him? Also, she put at the bottom that she requests the Seminole Cty SA not be allowed to harass her. That seems odd to me that she is saying this to Geo Attny and not to the SA. Also, the way it is written, it doesn’t exactly say that Geo wants to be around Samantha. Just that he wishes for restrictions modified to be able to be around her. IMHO, maybe the crazy chic thinks she can stir more $ offers? Good luck and move tho for Geo, she came to his attny and made this, so she files in a way that shows all of this. I really hope they would file lying charges on her. Waste of precious time of officers and 911.

    • The troubling thing about the affidavit Shiebe gave to the court is it contrdicts itself. She claimed the police would not allow her an attorney but a week later she is contacting GZs attorney W/O an attorney wanting to drop charges. Anyone can contact anyones attorney mimi despite a no contact order. They just can not contact them for purposes of harassment, or intimidation of a witness.
      The interesting thing about this case is that the prosecutors have yet decided to charge GZ. So this letter and his filing can help or hurt GZs case. Prosecutors can look at is as both parties agree to the same contact is suspicious the no contact has been broken. Or that the DV victim has been intimidated or coerced into dropping the charges. Florida is a State that can charge a DV suspect w/o the help of a victim. Usually the police just hand over evidence and the State then uses it for a conviction. They can get her on perjury and they can still charge him. States passed these laws because it is typical of a victim to drop charges. It is concerning both of these individuals want not only to speak, but want physical contact as well. And to possibly live together again while the investigation is ongoing.

      IMO, it supports my assumption he is in need of some serious mental help. Anyone in their right mind would not even consider hooking back up with someone who recanted such serious accusations. He was not with her that long. I get he may be lonely…… but really?

      • I don’t see the contradiction.

        Sure, they can still prosecute him, but where’s there evidence he committed the crime he’s charged with?

        This was a ‘he said, she said’ case to begin with. Now that she’s denying he threatened her with a gun it’s not even that. No way he gets convicted and if they don’t drop the charges I’ll consider it a malicious prosecution.

        • If it is a he said/ she said case then why does it matter to you what she says now? She was a liar just weeks ago.
          As you already know a first apperance is a probrable cause hearing. The Judge found enough probrable cause to believe DV occurred.
          99% of DV cases involve a he said / she said. Someone always claims or denies some part of it. Always!
          This is exactly why States prosecute even when victims recant.
          I do not know the evidence they have to prove the weapons charge. But if there was a table broken with the butt of a gun then the theory you have that the gun was away will be mighty interesting now that both love birds want to reunite.

          • “If it is a he said/ she said case then why does it matter to you what she says now? She was a liar just weeks ago.”

            AFAIK all they have is her accusation he pointed a gun at her to support the charge of aggravated assault with a weapon. Now that she’s denying it occurred it doesn’t seem like they have anything. That’s why it matters.

            • They have her written statement for probable cause. So this is how that works. If they do charge she will have to testify regardless. If she changes her story and testifies she lied she is getting charged with perjury and they can charge him anyways because of her written statement and interview.

              • And the defense lawyer pulls out the signed affidavit and asks ‘Were you lying then or are you lying now?”. No evidence and her credibility is shot. That goes way beyond reasonable doubt. It’s at the very least unethical to prosecute someone for a charge you know you can’t prove. I’d even call it malicious.

                • It is unethical to charge an individual if they have no probable cause to believe the crime actually happened. Yes.
                  But because the state has bad witnesses or no witnesses does not mean it is a malicious prosecution.
                  It is the reason we have due process where a defendant has a right to face the accuser.

                • You should read the case I provided.
                  This wife also used a similiar affidavit to try and drop charges.
                  We will have to wait and see if GZs atty. will be using this affidavit as the reason to file a dismissal. If prosecutors see no undisputed facts the court can not dismiss the charges. If there are no facts in dispute between the parties then sure the court can drop the charges. But just because someone recants is not enough to have charges dropped.
                  http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4208276885102972786&q=State+v.+Wheeler,+745+So.2d+1094+(Fla.+4th+DCA+1999)&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10

                  • I really don’t see any similarities between the two cases. In the case you linked to the woman recanted her recantation. It’s also about a stalking charge resulting from repeated violations of a domestic violence injunction. Oh, and apparently the prosecution had evidence of the violations.

                    Also, I was talking about the state dropping the charges. Not the charges being dismissed by a court.

                    “Chris White, lead prosecutor in Seminole County, said he learned of Scheibe’s change of heart Monday. He said his office would evaluate her affidavit and decide later this week whether to push forward with the case or abandon it.”

                    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-zimmerman-girlfriend-wants-charges-dropped-20131209,0,6786314.story

                    • The ca see mentioned was because it set precedence in the States interest to prosecute. What is similar is the argument by defense that charges should have been dropped because of the affidavit.
                      Schiebe is gonna have a choice. Either she lied in the 911 call, the report and interview or she lied in the affidavit.
                      The affidavit means nothing for the charges and it thus far is not the affidavits intent. The intent is to change the bond conditions for the no contact order. Which I think will not happen anyways.

                  • Fascinating. I’m looking forward to seeing the evidence against GZ. Maybe the prosecution has photos of her injuries like in the case you linked to. Maybe they have recordings/records of contact between GZ and Samantha after the incident like in the case you linked to. Maybe they discovered there was a camera in the house that recorded the entire incident.

                    What you don’t seem to be getting is that Samantha’s credibility is shot. There is no evidence, no credible witness and therefore no case.

                    • I am unsure where you get that impeachment of a witness or the possibility of impeachment does not allow a prosecutor to press charges.

                      I am unsure where the “GZ videoed” the whole altercation sprouted from.

                      You somehow seem to think one has to have injuries in order to prove domestic aggravated assault with a weapon, domestic battery and criminal mischief. The charges do not require injuries. So your point is moot.

                      Unless a person is charged w/ Domestic Violence with Bodily Harm, does that raise issue of injuries.

                      I am simply discussing proving charges despite the affidavit and your claim the prosecutors can not charge because of the affidavit. That is not true.
                      As for evidence all we have as bystanders here is a he said she said, as well as the arrest.

                      I have seen no proof of guilt or innocence only what the victim stated, and GZs denial of accusations.

                    • Coreshift DV cases are not civilian on civilian crimes. These are domestic crimes which require a certain amount of probable cause. The state nor the victim need prove the defendents intent.

                      The State only need prove the couple were in a relationship, the victim was hurt or threatened to be hurt by the defendant, and the defendant had the ability to carry out the threat.

                      The state does not have to show the defendant was mad at the victim, wanted to hurt the victim, or even that the victim felt it really was domestic battery.

                      The reason prosecutors continue to prosecute such cases is fear that the victim will return and then be harmed and then blame the State if they are again harmed. Victims usually return to the abuser. This is why they prosecute these cases.

                      The fact both parties are only weeks later looking to get back together and calling this a lovers spat that got out of hand is proof WHY so many DV cases are prosecuted.

          • Even in the initial 911 call, though Scheibe does state that he pointed a gun at her ‘friggin face,’ later in the same call she clarifies that it was either unloaded or being unloaded.

            So she’s not so much recanting as she is once again clarifying that she didn’t perceive the gesture to be a threat.

            • Actually she is now claiming he did not point a gun at her.
              Again. On the gun charge……..
              An assault does not have to be physical violence. An assault can occur if someone intentionally threatens to cause you physical violence, even if they do not touch you. If the person uses a deadly weapon when committing this act, it is an aggravated assault.
              It is a crime to point a gun at someone in a threatning manner loaded or unloaded.
              The prosecutors can prove she felt an imminent threat because she called 911 and she made the statement he put a gun to her face. These are admissible as “admissions” excited utterences as well.
              Because someone raising a gun to someones face…. a reasonable person would conclude was an imminent threat of bodily harm.
              Prosecutors prosecute without a victim in muder cases everyday. They do not need Schiebe to prosecute. If they had her cooperation sure it would be easier but in the end they do not need her and her initial statements are enough to prosecute.

              • “Actually she is now claiming he did not point a gun at her.”

                Incorrect… she has merely clarified again that he did not point the gun at her IN A THREATENING MANNER.

                A point which she previously clarified in the 911 call when she stated that that the gun was either unloaded.or being unloaded at the time.

                Granted, pointing an unloaded gun at someone is never a good idea (look at Brandon Lee) … but it’s not aggravated assault unless and until there is a real threat / intent to use it.

                Scheibe says there wasn’t.

        • Do you know how hard it is to get a malicious prosecution case started considering immunity? Criminal prosecuting attorneys and judges are protected from tort liability for malicious prosecution. If that was the case we would have no police, no prosecutors, and no Judges. It only occurs if there is no probrable cause. You are confusing probrable cause with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

          • I never suggested there would be a malicious prosecution case nor did I comment on how successful one might be. I said what I would consider was happening should the state choose to continue to prosecute after Samantha’s recantation.

            • Okay I see it is what you would consider legally happend despite it not really being legally what it is you consider it to be.

            • Ms. HLN mouth piece, antigunner, is just doing her job.
              What JW sees as cause for dismissal the States sees as an uncooperative victim.
              A victim can request charges be dropped, and almost all the time a defendents atty. tries.
              If JW is banking on the affidavit it likely wont happen. But she can try.

            • SS is not the first victim to recant. The rest of the States evidence or lack of will be determined if the State proceeds. There are a number of things the State can still do without SS. If they proceed they can recollect her memory when she testifies, they can impeach her testimony with her call and statements, and they can ask the court to rule her as a hostile witness. They could seek perjury as well. So if they do continue to move fwd. and JW files a dismissal based on the affidavit the State can argue these points to the Judge and the Judge may not dismiss on those grounds. As long as the Judge sees probable cause the case legally can not be dismissed if the State wants to move fwd. Or the State can appeal and they will most likely win based on the cases I gave that will be raised on appeal.
              If the State does not move fwd. we can assume they based the arrest soley on SSs statements alone.
              There is indication more evidence exsists being there was a warrant and items were kept as evidence, including his phones.

              I am just debating that the affidavit can either hurt or help him. But it is not a get out of the charges free card.
              JW has every legal right to try to get it dismissed. SS has every right to ask for charges to be dropped based on whatever it is she now claims (although claiming police intimidation is dramatic & self serving). But the Prosecutors have a right to charge if evidence of the crime(s) indeed exisit. It is how our justice system works.
              Just because someone is charged does not mean they are guilty. Especially when they plead not guilty.

            • hoosonj1st ~ Any credible attorney would have contacted the Prosecutors in the case first, NOT Jayne W. It is the Prosecutors that SS wants to drop the case. Samantha has NO known attorney of record, in which she would have.

              No attorney imo would contact Jayne W. first, it isn’t ethical or believable, JW either misspoke or lied, I have read another accounting somewhere that stated JW said “SS contacted her directly,” which is believable from reading the affidavit which is poorly written & what JW needs to ask to drop charges.

              The strangling charges which are part of the case are not mentioned but part of this case..

        • hooson1st ~ Apparently, Samantha doesn’t have an attorney! WHY? Because IF Samantha had an attorney & she wanted to RECANT her statement, her Attorney would have CONTACTED the Prosecutor first, NOT, the attorney that represents GZ.

          REFER to the PDF Jayne W. filed, , # 8, which reads:

          #8 SS has provided undersigned counsel w/a sworn statement , a copy of which is attached as EXHIBIT 8, which she affirmed………….(continue to read & view exhibit.)

          It sounds like imo, SS contacted Jayne W. & Jayne W. TOLD SS eactly what she needed, a sworn statement to move fr her to move forward.

          I am not reading anywhere that SS had ANY legal representation, her actions as well as Jayne’s filing reflect she had none.. Attorney’ don’t represent NUT JOBS that act on their own, contact opposing attorney’s n their own.

          http://www.wesh.com/blob/view/-/23398832/data/1/-/bmximd/-/New-Document.pdf

  24. also as someone up thread commented on, what about the choking incident that supposed to have happened? I wonder if it was conveniently left out of the affidavit? Smart lawyer, get her to say what she did in writing tho. That’s what a Defense attny is, defending his client…

      • Leatherhead is at it again….revised beg effort and telling his morons George may have his bond revoked for violating no contact: Please, if you can afford to make a donation, do so. We have been overwhelmed by unexpected expenses and cannot pay our rent this month.

        • LOL Surprised he isn’t asking for a Christmas present too lol. OH now he has been calling Crane by her name lol Wonder if they got over the funk?

    • Lets face it George is just a real chick magnet! LOL The crooked prosecutors, the blood thirsty mobs, the Black Panthers, he’s escaped them all so far, but the women in his life are going to be his undoing… And Christi will do her best to get the the dirt out there 😦

      • winsome ~I laughed reading your comment “but the women in GZ’s life are going to be his undoing.” I agree.

        More men that were brought down by women/ sex:

        Bill Clinton shaking his finger at the American people claiming “he didn’t have an affair w/THAT WOMAN, Ms. Lewinski!” BUSTED! The stained blue dress is PRODUCED proving Clinton to be a liar.. It didn’t stop the Clinton/staff/enablers from making EXCUSES for Clinton’s stupidity/behavior, even Clinton challenged the meaning of “Is!” LMAO!

        John Edwards brought down by producing a baby w/his lover WHILE his wife was dying of cancer. THEN, sadly his wife dies, & Rielle Hunter writes a TELL all book.

        Rupert Murdoch’s divorce was scandalous recently as he discovered his wife had an AFFAIR w/former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

        Gary Hart was considered to be a front runner for the Democratic nomination back in the day until news organization ASK him “if he was having an affair.” Hart, the smart ass stated, “I am not having an affair, prove it.” The press did just that PRODUCING the infamous pictures of Hart & his lover, Donna Rice on a yacht.

        Many have fallen from grace because of a woman, the joke in my crowd of friends is that “sex is the universal rule & women rule,” endless examples of men NOT thinking of consequences because of the lure of sex/neediness/loneliness with NO regard to the bigger picture.

      • On Sept. 9th or Sept. 10th, I recall Shellie saying that George’s affairs started immediately after the trial. She accused him of having an affair with Veronica (his ex financee). She said there was no way he could have had an affair prior to the end of the trial as he had no opportunity. I’ll try to find the source of that. IIRC, it was in writing and of course, the reporter could have gotten it wrong but he/she did quote Shellie.

        • I do not believe the source quoted Shellie. The report from the Daily Mail quoted John Donnelly. “According to close friend and confidante John Donnelly, who has known Zimmerman for close to a decade and regarded him as a son: ‘Shellie had her suspicions that George was having an affair with his ex-fiancée and that it flared up after the trial.”

          Now that did not come from Shellie. That came from someone close to her which we can not even confirm was close to or confiding in at the time. Could have been their own perception considering what Veronica said in the FBI interview. You know there were many family and friends who made statements to the press that have not been confirmed. But Shellie never stated he was having an affair. If she suspected it she sure would not have been suprised a women was in the truck when that DV incident happened.
          For all statements and purposes this came from the Daily Mail.
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2417007/George-Zimmermans-fiancee-affair-with.html
          It has not been confirmed by anyone else that these statements are true or factual. Consider the sources.

    • Nothing in O’Connors claim shows any evidence to support the claim. Zero evidence whatsoever that the texts are from the George ZImmerman in question, Zero evidence George is involved with this woman, and Zero evidence George even knows this woman.

      What I take from O’connors latest drivel is that Oconnor is likely involved in the George/Shellie incident and the George/Samantha situation and is trying to set up another situation.

  25. I’ve been traveling the last few days and didn’t have access to my laptop. Wow! There’s been some big changes in the Zimmerman case. I don’t know what to think. It’s a complicated situation. I became interested in this case because I was concerned the man would be murdered by one of the many who are threatening to do that. I don’t think the media should sensationalize things to the extent that the put people’s lives in danger and then leave them unprotected. I don’t find his affairs admirable, especially the news of the other other woman who is also sending information to the media. This one seemed to do it as she was talking to George. He needs to stay away from women for a long time.

    Nettles and Art Tart, thank you for your condolences. It happened some years ago, so the pain of grief is gone, but we all still miss her. My life changed because of it, but with the exception of missing her, it probably changed for the better. I became Catholic as a direct result of that and find comfort in the church.

    Art, you said you wondered why people so filled with hate can’t just take their own lives. This man actually hoped to start a movement. He left a letter suggesting that people wanting to commit suicide to kill as many Democrats as possible before they die. He also told the police officer during the interrogation that he was trying to start a movement. He wanted to die and thought it would be easier to shoot other people and have a cop shoot him than to just shoot himself. He also saw himself as a hero for ridding the world of some Democrat voters. Most of the people he shot were actually Libertarians, but he thought he opened fire in a place where everyone would be a Democrat. It bothers me that he told the officer that he is a good person.

    Nettles, that is good of you to have spoken for those women. I think God sometimes opens our hearts to certain things for a reason. That’s probably why some of us have found our hearts opened to the Zimmerman family.

    • What a great promotion for Westjet! A win-win for the company and their customers, plus it gave lots of us a smile being able to join in the fun. Kudos to the advertising guy – he gets a gold star for that one 🙂

      • I saw it on the Today Show, brought tears of joy to my eyes. There are many good people, sometimes we see so much Neg stuff, we just momentarily forget. Was awesome and I know the employees felt so good inside as they hustled and bustled about 🙂

  26. Posted on facebook

    Trayvon Martin Support Page-The Fight For Justice Continues
    2 hours ago
    Words of encouragement. Just called the State’s Attorney’s office and they are getting bombarded with calls and concerns that GZ will get his guns back. They said they are actively working against that happening. They said they are just as concerned with GZ getting his guns back as we are. Not sure if that was said to appease us or if it’s genuine, but we are making waves. Please keep calling! 407-665-6000

    • Conservative O ~ I scream BULL CHIT! They aren’t making “waves,” they are prompting the public to AGAIN PROMOTE their agenda in complaining & wreaking havoc in GZ’s life.

      I don’t know that, if the charges are dropped against GZ, that his guns can be kept legally. There would be no law broken & he apparently has all his legal paperwork on the guns in order such as registration, etc.

      Sharpton/J Jackson have never been charged for LYING to the American Public & causing Civil unrest promoting themselves/their agendas & that OFFENDS the hell out of me. (Did you know that Sharpton had to pay $ 65,000.00 dollars in the defamation case that T Brawley owes hundreds of thousands of dollars for? Her wages will be garnished the rest of her life, I assume Sharpton paid up)

    • mimi ~ thanks for sharing MI’s article, I enjoy his opinions in Fla. Cases.

      imo, this case was investigated & reported as a “DV case.” It didn’t matter that it was GZ, it had to be investigated because the statistic are staggering in these cases, DV cases are some of the leading homicides in America.

      1 in 3 homicides of women in the US are a result of DV.

      # 1 FACT: DV is not always reported.

      Appalling SS has wasted valuable resources, as Danny stated up thread, SS should be charged w/PERJURY, punished imo w/a huge monetary fine on her to discourage others.

  27. Traybots are lying about their efforts calling the SAO to press for the DV case to move forward. Just called the number they posted they have posted and you get run through along automated menu then you get routed to the office of Lynn Hauper who is the spokesmen and you get the standard we are unable to comments on specifcs of ongoing cases.

  28. Replying to Danny here:

    “I am unsure where you get that impeachment of a witness or the possibility of impeachment does not allow a prosecutor to press charges.”

    I’m not sure where you get the impression that I think the prosecutor couldn’t press charges.

    “I am unsure where the “GZ videoed” the whole altercation sprouted from.”

    It doesn’t exist. Just like all the other evidence against George.

    “You somehow seem to think one has to have injuries in order to prove domestic aggravated assault with a weapon, domestic battery and criminal mischief. The charges do not require injuries. So your point is moot.”

    No, I don’t think that. But it would be evidence that an assault of some kind occurred. My point was quite clear and to the point: There’s no evidence.

    “I am simply discussing proving charges despite the affidavit and your claim the prosecutors can not charge because of the affidavit. That is not true.”

    I never made that claim.

    “As for evidence all we have as bystanders here is a he said she said, as well as the arrest.”

    The arrest is not evidence.

    • coreshift ~ I read when the event occurred, LE said GZ told them “he had videoed the event on his cell phone” but investigators said “it was NOT on the phone.”

      How will you feel about GZ’s decision if he CHOOSES to go back to his “girlfriend, Samantha?” Remember, should that happen, it will be a bad decision solely made by GZ, there will be no defending GZ’s behavior as ALL the facts are clear to him now.

      • “coreshift ~ I read when the event occurred, LE said GZ told them “he had videoed the event on his cell phone” but investigators said “it was NOT on the phone.””

        I remember reading that claim in the document linked below (page 5). I don’t recall ‘it was not on the phone’. Maybe I missed it. Do you have a link handy?

        “How will you feel about GZ’s decision if he CHOOSES to go back to his “girlfriend, Samantha?” Remember, should that happen, it will be a bad decision solely made by GZ, there will be no defending GZ’s behavior as ALL the facts are clear to him now.”

        I’d think he was either incredibly stupid, needy, horny or some combination of the three. Now if he does go back and Samantha betrays/hurts him again, is that his fault? Think carefully since we’ve also been discussing how victims of DV behave. They often go back to the abuser. Are the victims of DV at fault for any subsequent abuse when they do that? That said, GZ seems very naive and far too trusting.

        http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Search_Warrant_with_Affidavit_Returned.pdf

        • coreshift ~ I don’t remember where I read it, sorry. The video could have cut either way I thought at the time, for or against & remember being disappointed that it was NOT found. If the video existed & supported GZ, it would be “exculpatory evidence” & the Prosecutors would have had to provide it to Jayne W. & she would have bitch slapped Sonny H daily on HLN w/the video/audio. EVEN if a video/audio had existed, Jayne W. had a right to it, pro or con.

          I agree w/your thoughts, that GZ is either incredibly stupid, needy, horny, or some combination of the 3. It is DEFINITELY GZ’s fault if he goes back to SS, ONLY STUPIDITY/Sex might over rule common sense, that’s WHY many of us have stated “GZ needs PROFESSIONAL help, his judgement is skewed.” Many have argued GZ doesn’t suffer from any impairments but I strongly disagree. Is that an excuse? No imo! If you are an alcoholic, you are responsible for your sobriety. If you make BAD CHOICES, you are responsible for the choices you make, this is a relationship that only existed supposedly 4 months, most DV cases are long term. NO ONE forced GZ to make any choices he has made now or in the past, he has made them freely, GZ is responsible solely for GZ’s choices.

          You can bet Jayne W. is warning GZ of ALL the consequences that can happen if he makes this decision even though she refers to SS as “GZ’s girlfriend.” If she didn’t she would be negligent.

          It is true DV victims go back to the abuser at times for FEAR of the abuser & are murdered, bug I don’t see GZ a “victim” of abuse of DV as you do, I see GZ as displaying BAD JUDGEMENT in NOT leaving the relationship before 911 was called that day BUT GZ wanted to unload & pack those guns & stayed, for a REASON! GZ/SS both willingly participated in escalating arguments & possibly violence in that relationship, both deciding to stay & willingly participate, that doesn’t make GZ or SS victims imo.

          We don’t even know what SS has lied about, was she lying then r now because she misses GZ? Is SS now thinking of the damaging consequences for GZ & herself in trying to SELL information/interviews? Is GZ going to be a willing participant in ANY future ventures to sell interviews for $$$ w/SS? We aren’t likely to know UNTIL the NEXT incident? No doubt SS has lied, but what all has she lied about, is she lying then r now? GZ is far from a victim, he has participated in the escalating arguments & can’t wait to get back to it. all, jmho.

  29. Replying to Danny here:

    “The reason prosecutors continue to prosecute such cases is fear that the victim will return and then be harmed and then blame the State if they are again harmed. Victims usually return to the abuser. This is why they prosecute these cases.”

    Do they typically continue to prosecute when there’s no evidence a crime was committed? No bruising, no witnesses, no evidence at all. If so there needs to be a change to the guidelines for prosecuting DV cases. Nobody should be subjected to a criminal proceeding based on an accusation and no evidence. Especially when the alleged victim recanted.

    • They could continue to prosecute, but as you say, the only “evidence” (her word) is now gone. DV victims do often recant because they are afraid of physical retaliation, and also the abuser’s emotional abuse has robbed them of their self-worth. But I would imagine in those cases, the prosecutor has physical evidence to move forward with.

      And in this case, the only “evidence” left, goes against Samantha – the evidence that she was trying to get money from media. I think the defense could make good use of that as to her motive in bringing the current charges she is now trying to drop.

  30. I can’t imagine that they will charge Samantha for filing false charges, but I think if they did, it might go a long way in discouraging people from pulling this on GZ in the future…

    • while I agree that the state could hypothetically go ahead with thee DV case the powers that be will need to look at the politics of things and see how it will look with a major upcoming midterm election how it will look once again going after zimmerman with zero evidence

      • I guess she’s getting more than she bargained for considering all she wanted was a paid interview. She should just shut up and lay low before she gets arrested and charged with something.

      • Yes, including Stutzman inaccurate reporting. Stutzman wants people to think that it is a proven fact that GZ broke the table and that it is recorded. I also did not hear any arguing, just GZ saying calm down.

        i.e
        On a 911 call to dispatchers, Scheibe can be heard arguing with Zimmerman and narrating what was going on as it happened – Zimmerman forcing her outside and breaking her belongings.

        • stutzman, the little galoot, is just mad because there goes her pay day. She relishes slandering GZ so she gets more attention. She is the one who sat in front of your class in high school, always raised her hand to give the answer the teacher wanted, and ratted out anyone who didn’t agree with her overblown opinion. She is so unprofessional it is not even funny. Anyone concerned should complain to the Sun Sentinel about her lack of journalistic ethics.

          • Have you noticed how Rene almost never tweets unless it’s about GZ? She goes days w/o a tweet and the moment there’s something on GZ she fires off a number of them.

      • Her credibility is shot. I can’t imagine how the prosecution can justify proceeding at this point. She’s even lying about what the LE did/didn’t do and they’re calling her out on it. I’m wondering if this woman has some psych issues.

      • Nettles ~ Chinese food? LOL, You can’t make this stuff up, I laughed harder to read SS & her mother PAID for it themselves.

        I too wonder if the interview was videoed/audioed either day.

        • “The following day, Scheibe and her mother met with investigators at the Sheriff’s Office again and ordered take-out Chinese food, which they paid for themselves, Cannaday wrote.”

          I wonder why they met the next day and why the mother was there. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during these meetings. I’d be willing to bet mom whispered a few things to the investigators.

    • lorac1 ~ I agree w/your thoughts, I’d be surprised too if charges were brought but imo, they should.

      It all depends on the Prosecutor in Fla. it appears to me, Jeff Ashton decided NOT to prosecute Cindy Anthon for glaring perjury in a death penalty case. Caylee supporters were outraged, Cindy LYING to protect the murderer of her ONLY grandchild.

      Corey/BDLR didn’t hesitate to charge SZ for perjury in GZ’s case.

  31. as of today Huffington Post no longer allows comments without a phone-number verified Facebook account being bound to your HP account, and all your comments showing that Facebook name. They say this is “to increase civility” but we both know what it’s actually for. To chill free speech, and silence unpopular opinions. To provide easy access to personal information for the libtard gestapo to dox anyone who does dare to say something they deem “racist” “sexist” “transphobic” or whatever the fuck… so they can try to destroy that person’s life and employment

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s