Home » Uncategorized » Open Thread – Dec. 16th

Open Thread – Dec. 16th

Open Discussion

Advertisements

269 thoughts on “Open Thread – Dec. 16th

  1. JMHO ie; DannyWarrior last thread. I have enjoyed the topics DW brings to the group. No offense to the group, but you often do ban together on an opinion if it does not fit what you are all speculating on. The discussion can and often does, quickly dissolve into a mean girls club, kind of like TCTH. From what I have read, Nettles18 has called this everyone’s blog. Even to the point of refusing to ban the most vile. You should check out David Piercy’s twitter account that Nettles18 often retweets from. Both him, and Coreshift are very intolerant. Nettles18 does host their intolerance, giving them a platform to make it appear these are everyone’s views. As far as DW goes, his agenda does not seem to be anything other then to make Zimmerman accountable for his recent behaviors. It seems that was DW’s agenda from Sundancecracker to Trayvon Supporters, and now George Zimmerman. IMO DW is not a “Traybot” as the host, and other’s have proclaimed. It is refreshing to see a Conservative hold to Conservative values, one being personal responsibility. arkansasmimi, it was very bold of you to call out Danny, but, not David on the last thread. It was this past week I saw the host herself get fed up with David being disrespectful. I see DW as a person who is trying to set an example for moral balance and someone who points out double standards where he sees them. A person who is willing to learn. We do not have many people these days who are willing to re-examine their view once more information becomes available. This blog is an example of that. That you would defend David, this person who time and time again posts just to name call, and adds little to a topic is just unbelievable. DannyWarrior, if you are reading this I hope you continue posting somewhere. You have been a good example of how diverse people are when they support something and desire change. I like that you do not allow others’ to shame you into an opinion. I agree this may not be the group for you anymore, but I truly hope you continue to post so others’ can think outside of the box along with you.

    • I just read your post. Are you related to Danny? Sounds like you are.

      In one sentence you say David is taken to task and in another you are fed up that he is allowed to post.

      Danny is entitled to his view. He draws what you call the “mean girls club” when he belittles or diminishes the opinions of others.

      For example, I don’t see Samatha’s 911 call as a call to stop domestic abuse. Danny has told me this is because I just refuse to believe anything bad about Georgie. I’ve pointed out several times where he has been less than charming.

      David Piercy and I go way back. We got to know each other for the first time on the legal facebook page. I’ve been very upfront with David in that I don’t read most of his posts because they usually are insulting someone. Danny’s posts are getting that way also. Both are ineffective in getting taken seriously when they hurl insults at others. At the end of the day, it’s up to them and them only on how effective or childish they want to be.

      This is the 2nd time that Danny’s point of view wasn’t shared among the majority and the 2nd time a new commenter has come to the blog to back him up. Where were you earlier?

      David Piercy views are his own, not mine. Danny’s views are his own, not mine. Coreshift’s views are his own, not mine. BTW, where are the “mean girls club” in this group?

      • Annette,
        It would be wise not to take your readers down the yellow brick road. If I have something to say I would post it under my U.N. The poster obviously does not know the back ground. You many times have said people read your blog and do not comment. So maybe that is the case? Or maybe because some here have taken it to others places besides this blog, perhaps bringing the commenter into the discussion?
        This same person emailed me letting me know it was taken outside of this blog by those who shall not be named.

        I just wish you would leave me out of any further posts and comments. Even if others comment on what occurs at your blog. I intend to do the same. I no longer wish to be affiliated due to what has been discovered.

        Thank You.

    • DSTM –

      Those are all good points.

      You raise the ultimate issue as regarding freedom of expression versus freedom of speech as applied to the internet space.

      Nettles, to her credit, has maintained not only a freedom of speech zone, but a freedom of expression zone. How long she can maintain both is function of the commenters here.

      The glue that allows this to work is civility.

      Civility is not restraint of freedom, but simple human courtesy.

      What solutions would you propose to improve the situation as you see it?

      What do you mean when you state that “you (the group) often do ban together on an opinion if it does not fit what you are all speculating on”? Do you mean to say that a group of commenters here will not alter their views if offered facts in opposition? Do you mean to say that a group of commenters will unjustifiably pile on an opposing view?

    • “arkansasmimi, it was very bold of you to call out Danny, but, not David on the last thread. It was this past week I saw the host herself get fed up with David being disrespectful”

      I do believe I have said something to David before in the effect of being nice. Honestly I don’t read much of Davids posts as they are just not something I feel like wading thru. Sometimes they seem informative, but I don’t like the belittling he tend to. I just assume he and that person have a history and stay out of it. Danny has brought a lot to the table many times, I just don’t like the tone he has had lately and find it very disrespectful to come to Nettles Blog and say crap he has been saying then last night went as far as say HER BLOG is going down the tubes since October. I don’t understand his issues, so I wont say more other than no one has right to be disrespectful to a Blog owner and tell her what to do or how. Have a Blessed Christmas and a Happy New Year!

  2. “Nettlepedia” ~ Isn’t Wednesday your birthday, I made my hat for the occasion out of hot pink colored boas for the occasion if it is? HOW do you celebrate your birthday, is there a tradition in Canada or your family? I usually buy myself something I have resisted the other 364 days of the year to celebrate my birthday, that way, I always get what I want!

    I continue to be amazed at everything you are involved in, & most notably, how giving you are of yourself to others, a wonderful attribute in a world filled w/so many that are self absorbed. Your kindness is projected, we ALL appreciate you allowing us a place to meet, share ideas, sharing opinions & at times, seeing a different perspective of the same issue. You are one of a kind Nettlepedia, T H A N K S!

    • Yes!!! Thank you!! It is my birthday on Wednesday. I remind people all the time about it then when the special day arrives I’m excited they remember. Most of my co-workers roll their eyes and ask me “How could we forget? You won’t let us!” LOL, that’s right!!

      I’m never disappointed on my birthday because I plan exactly what I want. Last year, my siblings, nieces and nephews renovated my house. I moved out for a month and on my birthday, they revealed to me what they did. It was awesome. I love my new space! Last year, a few of us went to dinner at a higher-end restaurant, Terrance on the Green, here in Brampton. Eating at fancy restaurants isn’t the norm so it was special.

      This year is my 50th. About 32 people are joining me for dinner at another restaurant. I can’t wait to share the evening with them.

      Thanks for your kind words. It’s been a pleasure getting to know everyone on this blog. ♥

    • Rene hatred of GZ is so obvious, contrary to her reporting O’Mara told Anderson that he considered George a friend during an interview about SS incident.

      • I do not believe that Rene Stutzman has hatred for GZ.

        However, in this article, she has inserted opinion (whether hers or someone else’s) that –

        “it has become clear over the past several months that his relationship with Zimmerman has soured and O’Mara has worked to distance himself publicly from the former Neighborhood Watch volunteer.”

        That is opinion, and should have been edited out by the editors. Stutzman erred in putting that in her “report”, at least in the manner that it was printed.

        She does not provide any reportage or evidence that or how MOM “worked” to distance himself. The instances she cites where MOM, in response, clarified what the post-acquittal relationship w/GZ was – is nothing more than that.

        MOM represented GZ in the criminal proceedings, that’s it. MOM did not marry GZ.

        Nonetheless, Stutzman’s shoddy reporting here does not equate with hatred.

        • hooson ~ Rene is correct, MOM has DISTANCED himself from GZ, one only needs to look at MOM’s actions & statements! The OS had already reported on the complaint MOM’s office had w/GZ & his gun factory tour. The OS had already reported on MOM PAYING the Security Bill!

          MOM has been the consummate gentleman while distancing himself from GZ, he doesn’t even waste his time defending GZ to the MEDIA any more! It’s over!

          (1) MOM showed up as a COURTESY ONLY to BOTH SZ & GZ at the altercation at her parent’s home. MOM stated “he knew BOTH parties & would NOT be representing GZ.”

          (2) MOM has spoken publicly that he is NOT representing GZ in ANY further cases. He stated he would conclude the NBC Suit as he is too representing GZ along w/the Beasley Firm & the sanctions against the State. That’s IT, HE’s DONE! GZ is no longer the problem of MOM or West.

          (3) MOM had a spokesman from his office speak out about the pictures at the Gun Factory, the firm disapproved & was disappointed, it was CLEARLY stated! How much CLEARER can MOM make it? I get it, I BET you get it too!

          (4) The donation site is “closed” at MOM’s site, a third party closed it but it WAS MOM that HIRED the 3rd party, the CPA that kept tabs on the donations. Since MOM stated publicly that he/West rec’d a “minute of money from the defense fund since the verdict,” it’s plausible the funds are low & it is ON MOM’S website, & MOM nor West are receiving any monies! MOM is free to put anything he wants on his website, & he is free to cut it off ANYTIME he feels like it. SZ rec’d $ 4,000.00 from the Defense Fund, that had to really piss MOM off. GZ felt entitled to give SZ a GIFT OF AN IPAD, $ 500.00 from the Defense Fund donations or ACTUALLY, the donors that didn’t realize their donations were being used for gifts! WHAT a bitch slap to the defense team.

          It was MOM that PAID GZ’s security bill, $ 30,000.00, NOT GZ! MOM wasn’t protected by the security team! I don’t believe for a minute that MOM wants to collect donations for GZ to live on, MOM WANTS TO BE PAID as he has said repeatedly for the Criminal Trial. The Criminal Trial is OVER, the Defense wasn’t getting monies from the Defense Fund anyway, so it was a wise move to close the Donation Site. imho ~ I’d be surprised if many donations came in before it was closed, that link has been SEVERED, time for GZ to figure out how to support himself like MANY unemployed Americans, it’s tough but it is GZ’s problem.

          I’d have been FURIOUS had I been MOM that I had to pay $ 30,000.00 for security for GZ & his parent’s., I bet MOM was furious, he’s DONE enough! There can’t be greater distancing by MOM to GZ imo unless MOM was blatantly ugly, but that’s not his style.

            • I didn’t say MOM wasn’t friends w/GZ, I said MOM has “distanced himself from GZ because he has.” MOM isn’t making excuses for GZ’s behavior & decisions in the MEDIA when interviewed.

              MOM will be tied to GZ together probably for several years until the NBC case is resolved since MOM is one of the Attorney’s on that case. There is no doubt that GZ & MOM/West shared a special bond during the Criminal case, I have no doubt MOM will remain friends w/GZ forever, but he will not be representing GZ in any future legal wranglings as MOM has clearly stated.

              • I don’t see not representing George in future cases as ‘distancing’. Did you expect MOM to continue to provide legal services that he may never get paid for? Speaking favorably about George is also not ‘distancing’. IMO it’s the opposite.

                • Right. He has also said that he knows he may never get paid and he’s okay with that.

                  His career benefited from the highly public trial. He was hired by CNN. For the rest of his career, he will be one of the most highly sought after defense attorneys in the country.

                  He’s smart not to represent George again. He might lose. Right now he’s known as the man who won an acquittal for George.

                • coreshift ~ I didn’t expect MOM to continue representing GZ, WHY should he, I get it, I understand why! The point is, MOM wants the PUBLIC to KNOW he will NO LONGER represent GZ! MOM has made his position clear imo, especially in his disappointment about the Gun Factory picture, speaking out in disapproval through a spokesman, not in an interview.

                  MOM is an analyst, MOM will say nothing but they are friends, what do you expect? MOM wants to preserve the integrity of the WIN in the Criminal Case & isn’t commenting on the other trash GZ has been involved in. MOM will always defend GZ in the Criminal Case in which he should. MOM isn’t going to be interviewed & bad mouth GZ, common sense should tell you that! GZ/MOM will remain friends as MOM still represents GZ in 2 cases, the NBC Suit as well as the sanctions. I would speculate most Attorney’s remain friends w/their former clients, WHY wouldn’t they? BUT! That don’t owe their former clients anything & MOM wants the public to know it!
                  _____________
                  George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Probed in Trayvon Martin Case!

                  O’Mara severed ties with Zimmerman the day after Zimmerman’s wife called police in September to say that she was “very scared” after he has allegedly assaulted her father and threatened her. At the time a spokesman for the lawyer said that he would not represent Zimmerman in any future litigation including his divorce and any possible charges resulting from the incident. Zimmerman denied his wife’s accusations and was never charged in the incident when his wife declined to press charges.

                  When Zimmerman was arrested last month and hit with several charges including felony aggravated assault during an alleged domestic violence incident involving his girlfriend, O’Mara repeated that he would not represent Zimmerman. Zimmerman, who denied the accusations, requested that a public defender represent him.

                  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/12/george-zimmermans-lawyer-probed-in-trayvon-martin-case/

                  How MANY times is MOM going to tell the PUBLIC he NO LONGER will represent GZ? UNTIL the PUBLIC understands he’s done. I get it!

                  MOM was too friends w/SZ & stated so!

          • Art –

            You cite the facts correctly.

            I interpret them more benignly.

            I guess that I interpret that it doesn’t take much effort on MOM’s part to bring finality to his involvement in the GZ case and I draw no negative inference from that.

            I draw a distinction between a solicited comment and an unsolicited statement. MOM’s comments post-acquittal have been in response to media questions.

            Had MOM, for instance, issued an unsolicited statement disassociating himself from the GZ’s appearance at the gun manufacturer, I would agree with your take. But my understanding was that his office was contacted for a response to the photo’s appearance on TMZ and therefore I find it understandable.

            And MOM has not backed one bit, as far as I know, in his unequivocal assertion of GZ’s innocence.

            Viva la difference. 🙂

            • hooson ~ LOL, I don’t even think you believe MOM HAD TO COMMENT when TMZ contacted his office! You KNOW they DIDN’T HAVE to make a comment, you know better than that!

              I was shocked when MOM had his spokesperson speak out about GZ & the gun factory, I think MOM was clearly disappointed in GZ’s behavior & the statement issued stated as much! MOM’s office could have chosen to say NOTHING but they didn’t, they could have! GZ didn’t have their support that day as the statement reflected, what you find “understandable” was NOT a positive statement or support from MOM’s office the day of the gun factory picture..

              MOM fully supports GZ’s innocence as does West as do I in the criminal trial & ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has ever said differently! NO ONE! Why you even mention it is baffling! That case is OVER, MOM has moved on, spoken clearly as to his intent NOT to represent GZ in any future legal troubles GZ gets himself into to, MOM will NOT be there to help GZ! MOM has made that perfectly clear so bloggers won’t speculate if he will rescue GZ again, he will not, I believe MOM.

              • Art –

                I agree with you that MOM did not have to reply to a press inquiry, but nor do I believe that he should shy away from a press inquiry.

                • hooson ~ I agree w/you, MOM had a decision on whether to speak or not. The statement was the PERFECT opportunity for MOM to state his DISAPPROVAL & did just that through his spokesperson. MOM WANTED the public to know he didn’t support GZ’s decision & that was made CLEAR to the public! MOM couldn’t control GZ but MOM WASN’T going to catch the blow back from GZ’s decisions in the MEDIA. I don’t blame him.

  3. The complaint against Omara is a “staff level complant”. staff level complaint is explained below. “There’s a file open, and anything else is confidential at this time,” said Karen Kirksey, a Florida Bar spokeswoman, adding that the complaint is “at staff” level at this point.

    “That means the Bar is looking into it, asking questions, just looking to see if it has any merit,” Kirksey said. “No probable cause has been found.”

    Baez hung up the phone as soon as a reporter called to ask about the complaint Wednesday. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-02-02/news/os-jose-baez-bar-complaint-20110202_1_dominic-casey-jose-baez-new-complaint

    • Baez hung up because Baez himself had a complaint from a sitting Judge, Baez has said he has had 30 complaints filed w/the Fla. Bar. After the Bar WITH HELD his license to practice law for 8 yrs due to his character, he has skated on the complaints.

  4. THANK YOU EVERYONE!!! Canaan Sandy made the top 3!! I am excited for this young man! Thank you all who voted!

    ESPN Announces 2013 Fan Hall of Fame Induction Class

    Today ESPN announced this year’s inductees for the Fan Hall of Fame. After a 10-day voting period, the three new inductees are: Barbara Rust, “The Sign Lady;” Canaan Sandy and Pierce Wallace, “The Georgia Joker.” They will be honored with their names engraved above three stadium chairs on the lawn of ESPN’s Bristol, Conn., campus at an induction ceremony in 2014. http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2013/12/espn-announces-2013-fan-hall-of-fame-induction-class/

      • Isnt it neat! I am so happy for this young man! I laughed first time I saw him on news. He was handing out lil cards looked like business cards. Telling people Thank you for voting for me and shaking their hand. I told my Dad he was working the crowd like a politician lol May he have a wonderful year and touch many lives. Thanks again for voting 😉 hugs ps I do not know him, just saw his story. Arkansas Best Fan 🙂

    • Its possible that some bidders are trying to interrupt the bidding, the top bidder had only 3 purchases. That wouldn’t cost him much. However there’s another bidder just behind him with over a thousand purchases and a good reputation. No one is going to want to damage that. One can easily create a new account.

      If he does end up having to sell the painting for a low price, there are things he can do in the future to protect himself. A seller can set the action up up so that he is able to approve of the bidders first. He can also set a minimum that he will sell for. I’ve seen auctions in which the bidding started at $1.00 but the seller had a condition that he would not sell unless the bidding got over $25.

      • The bidder with over a thousand positive feedbacks has retracted his or her bids. See IANTM’s comment above, re: who the stalking horse bidder may have been.

        • The treehouse ringmaster has latched onto the ethics complaint: sundance says:
          December 16, 2013 at 8:55 pm
          LOL…. Shhhhhh… {{shock fail}}

          O’Marapologists demand compliance to the ruse. You can’t talk about O’Mara’s ethical problems without bringing in the world o’ hurt upon yourself. 😦 😦
          Reply

          • IANTM ~ I too wouldn’t be surprised if the complaint came from the ringmaster. It’s right up his ally, creating drama. I follow lots of FLa. cases & have for years, rarely does anyone get into deep poo w/the Fla. Bar UNLESS they keep monies awarded in a Judgement & fail to give their client their amount. One of KC’s Ca. attorney’s had to drop out of her case BECAUSE his license was suspended for 6 months for spending his clients money that was being held in escrow. LMAO, he donated $ 75,000.00 to KC’s defense, was it his money or his clients? What stupidity!

            It was the ringmaster that has told so many lies about MOM! Remember when he said “MOM was involved in the HOA settlement?” More of his “confidential sources” that shared information BUT it was the ringmaster that appeared to be the idiot BECAUSE it wasn’t true.

            I really thought Baez was going down for all the things he pulled, but he skated. MOM, imo, will not likely have any problems. I have racked my brain trying to think what the complaint could be, the pay pal account? Who knows, I hope MOM dances his way out of the complaint, could the complaint have come from Corey/BDLR who are looking at sanctions for their own behavior?

          • I seem to recall Sundance making an accusation some time ago about a complaint being filed and some said he couldn’t know that until after the investigation is complete. These things stay confidential until the investigation ends. So why is it being reported now?

            At the time, some opined if there was indeed a complaint filed, it very well could have been Sundance. He just can’t get over his anger at this one particular perceived Democrat. I wonder if O’Mara did handle one of Sundance’s ex-wife’s interest in their divorce.

            I did read today that someone inside the investigation said so far, the complaint has not held up to the facts they are finding. This appears to be much ado about nothing.

        • The one with the thousand points may have been working with the one with 3 and retracted so his or her account wouldn’t be damaged. There’s a guy named Trent on twitter bragging that he’s raising the bids and isn’t going to buy.

    • I think canvas is very hard to see through regardless of the light source unless it’s intense enough to burn your eyes out, so some verb other than “tracing” should be used.

      I’ve seen a picture of the work he appears to have used as a model, and there’s a lot of “the sincerest flattery” going on as far as the proportions and placement are concerned, but there’s also a lot of difference not just in color choice but in lighting and shading that I assume to be original to Zimmerman.

      Of course that assumes that the person with the twitter and eBay accounts tied to this work is actually George Zimmerman.

      If it’s not, then what’s showing on eBay may actually not exist in the real world and be only a clever Photoshop job.

        • Wondering, since JW confirms this is really GZ painting, that poss this is how he intends to pay her? Sounds decent to me. For whatever reason, I am glad for him he has found something positive to do with his thoughts and time. Seems no matter what has talent! Also is kinda funny too JMHO that for many people who have wanted to make their 15 min of fame, I haven’t heard anyone talk about this gift he has. WOW SEEMS SOME DONT KNOW AS MUCH AS THEY CLAIM. OR and I PRAY this is the fact, some really do have some respect and don’t sell him short. I know some Artsy folks and this is a true type of therapy! Just a good feeling I had for him last night. Wouldn’t it be so awesome if someone has taken him under their proverbial wing in this!!! Just shows, George isn’t a broken soul, because I saw A LOT OF SOUL IN THAT PAINTING!

            • Oh what a cool early 50 bday surprise! Who has a very special follower! I am sure there are some pulling their hair over that one…and saying ugly words under their breath or will bahahahahaha! 😉 ♥

                • COULDNT BE PROUDER! IN ALL WAYS! 😉 Have a busy day ahead, so will catch up later this evening! Had a wonderful day at PreK yesterday, such a full heart seeing all the excitement in children, especially at this magical time of year. You will have to share later about your parties! Its a special kind of busyness huh 😉 So I guess from last weekend til after the New Year. Yep 50 is fast like that… Girl you haven’t seen anything yet! Best Year of your life is making its appearance! Glad we are “taking the ride” with ya..even if from WAY AFAR lol

          • mimi ~ I agree, it’s plausible that GZ will pay JW w/the proceeds from this painting, or split the amount since he probably needs some monies to live on. I am amazed at the resourcefulness of GZ, as an artist, I can tell you GZ displays a lot of “God given talent,” I have never read he has had any formal art training.

            The thing about when I paint a picture, or make jewelry or make 3 D sculptures, the process takes me away from everything, I become lost in the work, it’s relaxing, there’s no pressure, I bet GZ experiences many of those things & imo, something GZ sorely needs to remove himself from the pressures in his life, it’s a fantastic money making hobby. I hope this is the first to come!

            I read this is a canvas, 18 X 24 which is standard size but a nice size undertaking, the size of canvas would too explain why it will cost $ 40.00 to ship, I’m sure insurance is included in the cost which would be reasonable, GZ nailed it in his masterpiece.

            • I know what you mean. I love crafts, scrapbooking and sewing. And it is a wonderful outlet to “take you away from everything” because you have to concentrate on THAT. Lol only thing I have painted really is at one of those Paint with a Twist thing last year as a Mother Dtr fun time. And its harder than one thinks lol. GOD GIVEN TALENT, EXACTLY. And funny too just goes to show PEOPLE DONT KNOW GEORGE lol

  5. For those of you on twitter, George has started an account – @therealGeorgeZ

    This is posted on his ebay site where the painting is being auctioned.

    Q: Just wanted to tell you we all love you and stand behind you. You have so many people on your side I hope you know that!
    A: Thank you so much for the words of kindness and support. I do know how many great Americans are still here, I run into at least 3-5 a day that go out of their way to tell me the same. Your Friend, GZ @therealGeorgeZ ”

  6. re the Rene Stutzman article re MOM bar complaint – is it news or was the OS used to plant another pr attack on MOM? What would a peek inside the OS news-generating complex reveal?

    The bar association confirms (i.e., it was asked by Stutzman) that there is a complaint against MOM.

    There are “few details available”. What does that mean? Does that mean no details? Is there any detail “available”? What are those details?

    Stutzman writes (in effect) that it is not known what the allegations are. Yet, Stutzman writes that MOM is “the subject of an ethics complaint for how he handled the case.” How does Stutzman know this? How was this confirmed?

    How was Stutzman tipped off on this? Did the tip come from someone at the bar association (an ethical violation, itself)? Did it come from the prosecution side? Did the tip come from someone Stutzman knows? Did it come from someone anonymous? Was it relayed in an anonymous phone call, email, snail mail?

    How should the OS have handled a tip like this? What is the OS protocol for handling these types of situations?

    Should the OS have reported as relevant background the pending litigation involving the prosecution’s mishandling of evidence?

    How many complaints does the bar association receive in a year? What makes this one news?

    • hooson ~ in high profile cases, this is ALWAYS DONE just as Baez had 3 complaints reported at one time DURING KC’s trial, one from a sitting Judge. Baez has had a total of 30 complaints & always cleared. GZ’s cases was high profile, MOM is high profile & it pertains to the case.

      The results too will be reported, whether the Attorney is cleared or reprimanded.

      I am starting to think you are paranoid!

      • Art –

        Paranoid, no. Curious, yes.

        That is was reported, is not a surprise, you are correct.

        How it came to be reported, given how it was reported, invites further inquiry.

        • hooson ~ Baez experienced the very same thing! The Fla. Bar ISN’T going to go to the OS, so the person that made the report to the Bar no doubt gave the tip because he wanted it reported in the news. Not long ago, the OS had an article about 16 Attorney’s that were reprimanded & the reasons, they ranged from disbarment, to suspension, to fines.

          A few articles in which the OS reported on Baez from his complaints BUT there are MANY articles:

          This is an article by the OS on Baez that explains the process of how a complaint is handled by the Fla. Bar, the committee, how its investigated, etc.

          Baez commented:
          “When an attorney takes on an unpopular cause, especially one in the spotlight, he or she will face criticism,” Baez added. “It is a small price to pay for our individual rights under our criminal justice system.”

          http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-10-11/news/os-casey-anthony-jose-baez-investigation-20111011_1_jose-baez-bar-complaints-bar-inquiries

          More information on WHO filed the complaints:
          http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-08-18/news/os-casey-anthony-jose-baez-bar-invest20110817_1_dominic-casey-jose-baez-casey-anthony

          Baez has had a long history w/the Fla. Bar due to the Bar with holding his license to practice law for 8 years due to his character, but the Bar apparently was fair when investigating Baez & cleared him, it too made news that Baez was cleared.

          • Art –

            In the first link you provided, written by OS reporter Colarossi, it is very clear as to what the Bar said –

            “It is not exactly clear what the two complaints involve, but they do cover Baez’s representation of Casey Anthony, according to Francine Walker with the Bar –

            Such clarity is missing from Stutzman’s recent piece.

            In both pieces, OS did not report where they learned of the complaints having been filed. imo that should have been done.

            The press deserves to have confidentiality of sources, but it has an obligation for transparency as well.

            If the source was anonymous, or wishes to remain unidentified, that should be reported, and can be reported with impinging on confidentiality.

            • hooson ~ you readily admit the OS DOESN’T have to identify their source, you continue to complain that the OS didn’t say “confidential source.” Nothing irks me more than to read, “an unnamed source, a confidential source, OR we got information.” WHY? Becaue until their tip can be valadated as to the facts they are sharing, it means nothing. I want the FACTS when I read a story, the OS provided the FACT that it was “confirmed by the Fla. Bar there was a complaint against MOM,” that’s all I need to know, the story is “factual.”

              I thought it was common sense as to WHY the informant wasn’t stated in the OS article as “confidential.” It’s the OS’s job to write stories that make news & nothing would have ratcheted this story up more than being able to NAME the person that made the complaint, they couldn’t. When the OS confirmed the fact there was a complaint, that’s all they needed for their story to be accurate.

              Because the OS didn’t say
              “confidential tip/source” is not to your liking, that is about you & your expectations of the OS. I think most readers understood it was confidential, because HAD it not been confidential, we would KNOW who filed the complaint! I don’t need to be spoon fed by any newspaper to understand an article, I just need credible facts.

              • Art –

                MOM notes in his comment issued today from his website concerning the OS report that –

                “since the matter was reported in a completely incomplete manner, and in a way that opened opportunity for inaccurate speculation” –

                he is responding.

      • Well if it is common practice in high profile cases, that to me means that it is even less of news lol. If people are able to just file something because they don’t like someone or to be vindictive, I would hope there would be room for reprimand to that person doing it. And considering if Jose had 30 and cleared, that means just that, vindictive.

        • mimi ~ make no mistake about it, Baez is less than honest as the Bar brought him to his knees by denying him the right to practice law for 8 yrs. Google the Reprimand from the Fla. Bar, it’s scathing, Baez screwed on so many people, wouldn’t pay child support on one child but instead bought himself a Miati, he wouldn’t pay fees when he did para legal work, started inept business such as bikini shops would went bankrupt, etc. leaving countless creditors. The Bar truly investigates BEFORE they hand out a license to practice law, w/good cause, Baez was denied. He had to work hard to clean up ALL the bull chit he participated in for years BEFORE he was able to get his license, it took 8 yrs. for the Bar to allow him to practice. The Bar can’t stop an attorney from becoming dishonest once they have a license, BUT, the Bar can stop a dishonest person from being handed a license to practice law.

          Baez owed his investigator money, he didn’t pay him or probably NEVER paid him as is Baez’s reputation, the Bar found in that case it didn’t rise to the level of a Bar reprimand, there are probably MANY attorney’s that don’t pay people.

          Baez’s character remains a problem, 2 more house foreclosures on top of the ones he already had, Baez seems to be financially irresponsible but he has skated on the Bar complaints. Because the Bar didn’t reprimand him doesn’t mean he is completely innocent, it just means that the complaint didn’t rise to the level they require. Baez couldn’t making a living in Kissamee, he moved to Miami & set up practice doing mostly Civil Suits in which there is usually a pay out!

          Unpopular verdicts bring complaints as Baez stated, they get investigated, most get dismissed, & the attorney cleared. mimi, I feel confident MOM will be cleared, it’s the price of doing business sadly, when people feel wronged, they can complain as is their legal right to do so.

    • Cashill thinks the “parents” were just out of the loop, that the school and others never informed them, I do not believe this is the case, parent notification and conferences are mandated with 10 day suspensions. Beside who does Cashill think Fruit is? did he miss that testimony?

        • bricuafudd ~ I know you stated you had some health problems too, I’m sorry to hear that, I hope you are better r are mending.

          I so enjoyed your BLOG & the interesting subjects you shared, I was wondering if after the New Year, if you are considering writing another article? I laughed, remember when you & I discussed charities, over sight, & how much they really contribute to the one’s they claim to be helping? I laughed, seems Jane Fonda has had to suck up the blow back when it was reported Nationally she hasn’t used the money in her Foundation War chest to help others for years.

          • Thanks Art, there are a couple of article that I want to write but sitting long enough to write has proven difficult. I do hope to return to blogging soon, it is therapeutic for me.

            I read about Hanoi Jane, it does not surprise me as many celebrity form foundations and charities for PR reasons and not much else. For them it is about appearing to be about something, not necessarily doing something.

      • I’m comforted by the fact she only has 66 followers and most of them are George Zimmerman supporters.

        Even Team Crump isn’t giving her any attention.

        Her posts have shown why she has no credibility. Kelly Sims should have done a better job in granting Shellie’s interview.

    • Mimi,
      You know who I would think is paying lots of attention to the auction and its results? NBC, part of GZ’s lawsuit is for damages and lost earnings for instance. I am sure that if this does well, the NBC lawyer will say that rather that the damages by any wrongdoing on their part has been mitigated as the notoriety is helping him in this endeavour.

        • I know with employment law, the person has an obligation to try to mitigate their damages. If GZ can demonstrate to the court that he tried to make a living that will sustain him the rest of his life, he has an obligation to at least try.

          George will be able to show the court, the hate and threats that come with interacting with the public.

          NBC owes him dearly for the editing they did. Firing those 3 employees tells us they know it was wrong….and they will pay.

          As to Shellie getting half, I’d think she should also be participating in getting that judgement. For her to withdraw before the negotiations and debate and possible court even starts, I’d think she shouldn’t get half. She didn’t do half the work to get to the finish line.

  7. Frederick Leatherman says:
    December 17, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    I just reported the copyright violation to ebay.

    Reply

    Frederick Leatherman says:
    December 17, 2013 at 11:51 am
    ebay should shut down the auction until this matter is resolved. Otherwise, they risk liability for fraud and misappropriation of an original copyrighted work.

    Crane-Station says:
    December 17, 2013 at 12:12 pm
    Appears to be a ‘replica, counterfeit, or fake,’ with no credit to the original artist. Ebay report filed.

    Reply

    • Well the good news is that Leatherman and his cult can report the listing till they’re blue in the face, but eBay won’t remove an item for copyright infringement unless it is reported by the actual VERO (verified rights owner) as such…

      …the bad news, however, is that it may actually be copyright infringement.

      The link shared over at CTH shows that the original image is watermarked by Shutterstock.

      If I were George, I would voluntarily pull the listing. With the ridiculous bids being placed, it’s a pretty safe bet that he’ll be filing a non-paying bidder report anyway when all is said and done… and if by some small miracle he does get a legitimate high bidder who pays, he could have Shutterstock coming after him for the winning bid amount. Nothing good will come of this.

      • I think Shutterstock watermarks all of the pictures in their collection and you can download the unmarked picture if you pay them. That doesn’t mean they own the rights to the image. This site, for example, seems to credit the photo to a blog.

        http://kertoon.com/id12/free-photos-american-flags-flag-the-wind.html

        this blog

        http://thecasemateblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/14/flag-day/

        There are a number of sites that use the image and have it available for download. I suspect it’s public domain.

        http://bit.ly/J301yp

        • coreshift ~ it is “frowned upon” in he Art World of those that show any work of Art or even participate in local Art leagues as I do, that it is “plagiarism” to copy another artists work. WHY? Because the work can be projected onto canvases or watercolor paper without the reproduction artist even having drawn the work when copying. (projectors are common for artist) The works are disqualified when showing in art leagues, galleries, etc. Even college art classes don’t allow it in those I took @ LSU.

          At the very least, GZ should have said it was not “an original idea” but he copied from a picture that he loved. A work of art that is NOT an original, is greatly diminished in value as not the idea of the artist, or, an “original piece.”

          I don’t know if it is copy righted or not, if it is, the original artist can demand this be taken down or even sue for misrepresentation. If it isn’t copy righted, GZ should have stated so in his statement that it was not an “original idea.”

          I guess because GZ is new to painting, these thoughts might not have entered his mind are ever given thought to the original artist, BUT, he has learned an important lesson today. He can paint an “original of anything he chooses,” there is a market for his art work, I hope he isn’t discouraged, no matter what, he displays a lot of talent, I support his efforts.

        • They’re not public domain…

          http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml

          “All Images on Shutterstock.com and related Shutterstock webpages (collectively, “Shutterstock Websites”) are protected by United States and international copyright laws and treaties. Shutterstock and/or the various artists who provide content and/or Images to Shutterstock (“Contributors”) own or control all rights, including the copyrights in and to the Images. …”

          You May Not:

          “Produce or otherwise create for resale or distribution, printed reproductions of any Image as wallpaper or wall art, on billboards, or on canvas, paper, plastic or any other medium, unless such reproduction is expressly permitted in PART I”

          “Falsely represent, expressly or by way of reasonable implication, that any Image was created by you or a person other than the copyright holder(s) of that Image.”

          • I think that’s a ‘stock’ (pardon the pun) statement. They may actually own the rights to some of the pictures. Others are public domain or simply released w/o conditions on who or how they are used. I’ve seen it on other sites that maintain a collection of things. Be it pictures, smileys, fonts, etc.

        • Quite a few years ago, I purchased the rights to use a very similar flag for one of the covers of scrapbooks. I also purchased 3 others. Seems like it was around $10,000 for all 4 images.

      • The owner of the photo has been verifed. The photo is copyrighted. He prolly gave rights to those who have it watermarked. But GZ has not given credit. He states it was his “vision” on ebay.
        Even if it is creative commons if it is not original work it is a copyright violation.

        The copyright holder is an architect.
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/46774916@N00/306008086/in/photolist-t3nxu-uuGBh-uSrUj-v6LCJ-vbFyB-xBk5u-zMhWc-BBTB1-BMpfm-Ca8g5-Gh85u-HAvgp-JXBME-K4NRh-KACdd-KACBH-L38pr-N31r1-PGrvQ-PPSbx-QJusG-SXGwz-Tytqp-YRUfP-22MbTy-2ex9kh-2fP3iM-2j9QeJ-2jzHcv-2UAXVx-2Y7fkb-32RMXD-33bRUV-3brvgh-3oXpHL-3vpcWN-3C8MLM-3CcNML-3XBPt2-48fpTG-4d5cyV-4egpyt-4etS6h-4fco7C-4hohMR-4jNjY7-4m6dUN-4qdCv3-4upnuu-4vyu3u-4vZ9Ss

            • Hey genius, he wouldn’t be the first to upload a picture that wasn’t his. Why do you think it being on his flicker account is verification he owns the copyright?

              • Danny, you seemed to have jumped on the Traybot claim that that is the original photo. Why? What evidence is there other than the picture is on his flicker account? I’ve shown you how that picture has shown up way back in 2001. What else do you have?

                  • No, he attracts attention. Like David, he goes toe to toe with the most hate-filled people on the other side of the GZ case. His blog posts are blunt, direct and very well written.

                  • It’s the internet. Uncertainty about who is who is pretty much the norm. As their motivations are. IMO we really lost a lot when face to face became so passe. No visual or audio cues to what others are thinking or feeling. No facial expressions, no hearing the tones of their voice, no looking into their eyes, no observing hesitation or spontaneity, no familiar faces. Just text messages with a smiley face or a frown. Anonymity and a focus on digital interaction (social media) isn’t good for humanity, IMO.

                    • Like with many technological advances, there are positives and negatives.

                      The e-cloak of anonymity allows for a freer discussion of issues, an “off-the-record” platform for the masses ( just as politicians, diplomats have enjoyed for generations.).

                      Then again, anonymity provides cover for mischief-makes, disrupters, and worse.

          • Go back to the flikr page . See the discription? See the tabs below that? Click on the circle with the i in the center? What does it say?
            Doesn’t say ” (C) All Rights Reserved” ?

            • Out of curiosity, is there any picture on flicker where that notice doesn’t exist? Heck, maybe he did take it. But I’m going to need more than his posting it on flicker years after it first appeared on the internet as evidence.

            • Doesn’t matter, All Rights Reserved if it is indeed a “copyrighted” work and the rights the particular Flicker user asserts is Creative Commons which he provides the license to on his profile.

              Architekt2, for all intents and purposes hasn’t even addressed a copyright issue yet, cannot argue infringement when anyone on Flicker can refer to his CC license as permission to use as long as he is given credit.

              And it does not matter, period. The sheer amount of similarly “waving” American Flags is staggering, this so-called “copyright infringement” issue based off a random Flicker user is laughable to me. A million people with a million flag photos can make an copyright infringement claim by your logic.

              And Nettles is right, I am not Coreshift, although I consider him a good internet friend.

              • And btw..that auction will not come down unless the Copyright Holder himself makes a complaint to Ebay. It doesn’t look like the guy has been on Flicker in a long long time.

        • This is interesting. There’s a vector illustration of the same flag apparently copyrighted by awenart.com. The ‘pictures’ on Shutterstock are actually renderings of that vector illustration. So unless whoever originally photographed the flag made the picture public, or granted awenart rights to create that vector illustration from it, they would be in violation of copyright as much as GZ purportedly is. There certainly is a bit of mystery surrounding that flag. 😉

          http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-40057918/stock-vector-vector-american-flag.html?src=pp-photo-74692756-KLr3GZGKl8tVnF9W86-I7g-5

          http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-74692756/stock-photo-american-flag.html?src=pp-same_artist-40057918-KLr3GZGKl8tVnF9W86-I7g-1

          • Despite who the copyright holder is the question now is….. is the painting a derivative work? Now you point out a watermarked image of someone else claiming copyright. And they could have purchased it since. Even IF it is creative commons the holder still retains copyright allows limited reative Creative Commons use under Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States (CC BY-ND 3.0 US).
            This uses specifies No DERIVATIVES. NO Commercial purposes. It is just for use of SHARING.
            A person may use the photos under the following terms:
            Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

            NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

            • The photographer can do whatever he wants with his picture. Including giving it freely and without condition into the public domain without utilizing the creative commons licensing templates. You also misrepresent what creative commons licensing is by only quoting one form of the licensing.

              All of this is moot since the ‘original’ photographer would need to decide if his copyright has been violated (he may no longer even hold it if he sold the picture at some point) and make a claim if he believes it has. I suppose that could happen, but I doubt it considering how ubiquitous that original photograph is.

              IMO people are trying to create a tempest in a teapot in order to sabotage George’s art work and the success of his eBay auction. Probably the same people that tried to make a tempest out of MOM’s supposed ethics violations.

              Anyways, I guess we’ll see if the original photographer, whoever that is, makes a claim of a copyright violation. I won’t be holding my breath. I’m guessing it would be close to impossible to determine who owns the copyright at this point.

    • Correct, also there is a doctrine in copyright law for derivative work called Transformativeness. In this case for instance GZ took a extremely patriotic work with its vivid red, white and blues and transformed into a political statement. A black, grey and white work with a message of equality in it.

      It does not matter if the image was his own but the transformation makes it so as it changed the original message of the original work. This has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. So all the talk is wasted, this is a non-issue.

      Though I am not surprised I would have thought that the “law Professor” would know this as copyright law is thought at school and one of the most famous cases is the painting of a Mona Lisa with a mustache and a tail in black and while. Otherwise it is a replica of DaVinci’s La Gioconda.

      • thanks for adding the case law clarifying this as a non-issue. not only did blogs waste their time on this but news sources actually wrote stories based on speculation, pathetic.

        As if Warhol was sued by Campbell’s soup.

  8. http://www.ebay.com/itm/A-Reminder-For-George-Zimmerman-Pencil-/191005615432?pt=Art_Paintings&hash=item2c78d26548

    A Reminder For George Zimmerman (Pencil)

    On Dec-17-13 at 02:25:59 PST, seller added the following information:

    I saw that George Zimmerman is now an artist and his first work is for sale, I decided to make my own pencil sketch as a reminder to him. The text in the flag reads: Don’t Forget Trayvon, A Reminder For All. I created this on December 16th, the day George Zimmerman’s painting began to circle the web; this is a response to his original painting.

    =========

    Check out the questions and answers.

    Too funny.

      • I recall him saying this in open court at the gag hearing on October 26, 2012. He told the court he sought assistance from the Florida Bar. He went on to say if lawyers weren’t using the internet in the future, they’d be committing malpractice.

        At the 43 minute mark, Mr. O’Mara starts talking about the need to respond to the immense public inquiry and at 43:45 he advises he sought the Florida Bar’s help.

            • hooson ~ I was glad to see MOM address the issue of the bar complaint, but that doesn’t resolve who gave Rene the heads up. MOM was careful NOT to mention that the DEFENSE FUND SUPPORTED GZ/SZ living expenses. If someone didn’t know anything about this case or about the Defense Fund, that would have thought that ALL the MONIES donated were used to defend GZ, that was NOT the case as we ALL know! The Fla. Bar stated there is “a complaint against MOM.” If MOM ask questions of the Bar for guidance, are we to assume the Fla. Bar filed the complaint themselves against MOM? So the OS article was correct, there is a Bar complaint.

              MOM wouldn’t contact Rene/OS imo UNLESS to tell them they were WRONG in something they wrote about him, but Rene/OS found out none the less. I thought it was going to have to do w/the PAY Pal account when I first read it, but I thought a donor might have complained of the way the monies were spent since more is coming out as to expenditures of GZ/SZ.

              I am a HUGE MOM supporter, he didn’t mention the living expense for a reason, I too thought the donors at the very least should have rec’d an accounting of expenditures monthly, it would have been the honest thing to do & transparent. imo, it was because some of the expenditures would NOT have been popular w/donors, it wasn’t lost on MOM, he knew that. MOM might have been proud of the “Defense Fund,” but a Defense Fund needs to be transparent imo, a lot of improvements could have been made to the Defense Fund MOM is so proud of while MOM is patting himself on the back. If a donation site is titled, “DEFENSE FUND,” then, imo, those monies should be USED for the Defense of the Client. If an attorney/client want to solicit monies for the defendants living expenses, they should have a SEPARATE ACCOUNT & state that those funds would be used that accordingly. imo, co-mingling the living expenses & the monies the Defense needed HURT the defense.

              Hopefully it will be resolved soon, I never thought MOM did or ever would do anything to damage his career or reputation, imo, it’s just not who he is.

          • In response to my request for information regarding the proper way to manage a defense fund and an online presence, The Florida Bar opened an inquiry, which included very specific questions regarding our policies for each and how we were conducting ourselves. We responded promptly and to The Florida Bar’s satisfaction, and the entire matter was deferred until after the trial. Although no further action has been taken since the verdict, the file has remained open. Yesterday, in response to a very specific question from the press, The Florida Bar followed their policy and confirmed that there was an “open matter” regarding me and the Zimmerman case.

            if am reading this correctly, O’Mara contacting the Bar for advise was the trigger for the inquiry. thoughts?

  9. My favorite meme i’m seeing in the comment section of almost every media outlet running a story on the painting is an angry traybot claiming Sean Hannity is the high bidder

    • The One ~ NOT only would it be great if Sean Hannity is the high bidder, LMAO, Sean Hannity could write it off as a “business expense” when decorating his office.

  10. Fred used the misleading claim of copyright infringement to stick his hand out again

    Come on, now. I got this internet firestorm started, or at least did so simultaneously with a few others. If everyone who has not contributed a donation this month, would donate $5, I could end this fund drive.

    Fred

    • It’s amazing that the people that frequent there haven’t caught on to him by now. He gets more blatant with his grifting each time. Then again, these are the same people that fell for the Trayvon and Kendrick cons. Among others.

      • coreshift ~ I don’t visit that site, but when “mimi” shares the drama of all the begging he does, I can’t stop laughing, who does that? If he is so freaking smart, WHY can’t he support himself making an honest living?

        What a grifter, it seems if he ONLY did the legal research & could comprehend the facts, he wouldn’t mislead his flock BUT I guess there is a MARKET for HATE & he is more than happy to LIE to flock because that’s what they want to hear, & if he’s lucky, they donate a buck here or there.

    • This doesn’t ring any bells that his readers are being exploited?

      Emotions can be a powerful thing.

      I saw someone tweeting the IRS asking if Leatherman is declaring his online income. He’s a lawyer, he likely knows that. (sarc)

  11. George needs to post more pictures of himself smiling. As soon as I saw that picture I knew it would bug the crap out of them.

    “Brandy says:
    December 17, 2013 at 7:45 pm
    TMZ has the story about Georgie’s painting with a pic of him holding it. TMZ is reporting he has been offered up to 110,000 dollars. I am so disgusted! Showing him with a big ole smile holding the painting. UGH!! Wish this evil scum of the earth would just go away!”

    • It made me nearly leap for joy. If I were a few years younger I might have. He looks so spiritually healthy. I so want him to survive being murdered, heal spiritually, and restore his life. I think he’s on his way.

      • Without wishing ill upon anyone in dire financial straights, I know it has to get his goat that GZ is looking at a major windfall while FLLB is hoping for $5 donations.

        • I find myself ok with a couple in such need of financial assistance somewhat comforted that they found a way to make a buck.

          However, it’s at the expense of someone else and as David showed us tonight, he will blatantly create a crisis in order to put his hand out at GZ’s expense.

          I have no doubt, one day Fred will answer for his behavior.

  12. Lots of anti-GZ folks are all abuzz about the possible infringement of the alleged-copyrighted image. I’d say that’s an awfully generic image of the American flag. I think it would be very, very difficult for someone to make claim on George’s painting. Wishful thinking on part of the haters.

  13. Funny thought that would TRULY DRIVE THE TReAYBOTS AND LEATHERHEAD AND SORTS C.R.A.Z.Y. >>> If whomever they are saying that GZ “Copied” the picture… came out and said, No fowl, I support GEO 100% . It would truly be an OMG moment bahahaha.

  14. “@Nettles18 LOL Danny is getting his info and arguments from Leatherman’s blog.
    frederickleatherman.com/2013/12/17/did…
    3:22pm – 17 Dec 13”

    No Danny got his info from a tweet read which is posted on his blog. Danny does not read Traybot blogs since maybe 6-8 months ago.

    Danny may just have to get a twitter since Coreshift keeps misrepresenting Danny.

    • My hobby has never been baiting Traybots Coreshift & Nettles. I saw a tweet. Two main sources as copyright was being generated all over the net. The conversation I began here was with nivico. It was even spread to the point even Wesh reported on it. And any and every news report that has covered the painting has a comment section. I updated my blog as both Traybot and Pretrial GZ supporters baited each other on those news boards. But, Coreshift in all his wiseness was quoting CC wrong so I thought I would be kind and help him out citing the law.
      I see no sense in both of you spending all day pointing out what they tweet or blog about. You help generate traffic for them. I said many times I could careless what they say. it is just filler. Just like you tweeting and blogging about them,to them, and for them is filler. But it gets ridiculious when you both call a person a Traybot just because they unlike you want GZ to be responsible, stay under the radar and stop causing such a ruckus every few weeks. I believe eventually you two will lose the credibility you have left by calling KNOWN GZ supporters Traybots. If you dont believe me just ask Sundance.

          • You said

            But it gets ridiculious when you both call a person a Traybot just because they unlike you want GZ to be responsible, stay under the radar and stop causing such a ruckus every few weeks.”

            If you are going to post, you need to be accurate. You have written an number of inaccuracies.

              • Yes, and maybe she will take out the trash and ban you for your ugliness! ENOUGH dang! Oh thought you were OUTTA HERE. Lonely at only blog that will allow you, YOUR OWN?!!! GEE WIZ! Grow UP!

                  • I am not following you or anyone. Get out of my way. Opinions, I can agree to disagree with, What I cant tolerate is disrespectful people like you have been. I think you want her to ban you so you can have more carp to chomp and spew! You have issues.

                    • I’ve put Danny on moderation so I can control the timing of his barbs at people and blunt it somewhat.

                      Recall, I said if anyone gets banned, it will be a group decision. If I get 5 or more people wanting to block a disruptive commenter, I will put them on a block.

                      If anyone wants to block Danny but not get into a fight with him by letting that wish be publicly known, you can email me at nettles@bell.net

                      Now cheer up everyone. Today’s my birthday, have I mentioned that 😉

                    • PARTY LIKE ITS 1963 WOO HOO THAT WAS SUCH A FINE YEAR, HUH?? lol I tried it out for ya Sista. Have a good one. Gonna party with an 11 month old and 2 yr old lol and that can get pretttty crazy 😉 Be have and have a wonderful day. I be back later! We want all the details on your fancy dining 😉

                  • LOL Real Americans… born and raised here, just as An American as any other AMERICAN 🙂 and your opinion is not one I respect any longer. Get a life, you sound pretty close minded and argumentative.

  15. This made me laugh! Guess I oughta send GZ a tweet and invite him to lunch if he is out my way 😉

    @ CTH ~rumpole2 says:
    December 17, 2013 at 10:24 pm
    George is promising to deliver the painting in person :eek
    Q: We all think a lot of you Zimm and hope the best for you!I may bid on your painting at the last min.How will you ship the picture,can it be picked up local?I would be driving from Arkansas
    A: The price it is at now has well exceeded my $.99 minimum; therefore, whoever wins within the Continental United States, will receive this painting delivered by me personally. Your friend,

  16. DW flop quote ” The other day on Annette’s blog I posted a comment to coreshift I believe, and in the comment I reminded coreshift the host is Canadian.

    Nettles commented that I threw her under the bus. I was being serious. Serious in the fact anything coming out of this case, now or in the future affects her none.”
    *****************************8
    One question Danny…. HOW DOES ANY OF IT AFFECT YOU??? I would venture to say…. not a dang bit. NONE. Not one dang bit.

      • Who knows… I think he is in a tailspin for some reason. Maybe because GZ charges were dropped and he was sooo sure what was going to happen??? who knows.

        • I was actually thinking along similar lines. He doesn’t like being wrong (who does). He invested too much in arguing why GZ was still going to get prosecuted and was challenged on his arguments, Then when it turned out GZ wasn’t prosecuted he had to assert himself, somehow (attacking, revisionism of the conversation). Then the eBay auction came along, and his arguments so far have been shown to be pretty silly, he became even worse (also with revisionism).

          It didn’t start there, though. He was trying to ‘get’ Zimmerman for a while. The accusation of DV by Samantha seems to have set him on his ‘tailspin’. JMO.

          • Yes, that DV did for sure. I even said something to him couple of times, that possible he just needed to step back as it seemed to really be some how personal for him, by his comments. He then had to give me his best relationship in the world speech. Maybe that’s the problem, maybe he cant speak his mind in a relationship so he get on the computer. Whatever it is, doing it here to Nettles, after she has gone above and beyond being tolerant is just almost being a bully and very childish. I have my opinions and they are just that, mine. Whatever happens or doesn’t to GZ doesn’t change what I have for supper or what happens in my life. SO I don’t understand the wound up emotion he is churning out. Unless he just cant handle being wrong. lol

    • Hmm Mr. Stompy Feet, like you “ripped” her tweet from twitter and posted on YOUR BLOG?? And this is Nettles blog, if anything is RIPPED FROM HERE WITHOUT PERMISSION ONTO TWITTER… YOUR gonna file a complaint?? TO WHO?? And YOU have the nerve to say people have double standards? Again, JMHO, but Danny your going off the deep end and sinking fast. Take a break.

  17. Leatherhead got schooled on myfiredoglake

    kgb999 December 17th, 2013 at 9:58 am 7
    In response to Masoninblue @ 4
    Wow. Childish as ever I see … and not one iota more nuanced. I would have figured ending up a total chump when the Zimmerman verdict came in would have made you a little less obnoxious when entertaining fact-based challenges to your self-deluded premises. I guess not.
    I don’t doubt you’re running around trying to make yourself a part of the story again. But seriously dude. Read up on fair use and what constitutes an original work of art.
    By your own admission, you have now attempted to take commercial action through ebay based on a copyright YOU DON’T EVEN OWN for the apparent reason that you are angry Zimmerman may earn $100k. While I doubt you have the financial resources to make it worth it, you appear to be in a more actionable position than Zimmerman if he wanted to come after you for torturous interference in legitimate trade.
    Don’t bother to reply unless you can present a rebuttal that involves some semblance of a legal-based argument. It seems increasingly apparent you don’t know jack/shit about modern law.

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