Zimmerman: The immunity hearing should not be combined with the trial

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Good evening:

The immunity hearing should not be combined with the trial for the following reasons:

A defendant has a 5th Amendment right to remain silent throughout the trial. If the Court were to combine the trial with an immunity hearing, that would put pressure on the defendant to testify during the defense case.

Depending on how well the prosecution’s case-in-chief might have gone, the defense might be tempted after the prosecution rests to rest and not put on a defense. However, because the burden of proof in the immunity hearing is on the defense, the defendant would have to testify. This is a classic example of compelling a defendant to testify and possibly incriminate himself by doing so. The 5th Amendment expressly prohibits compelling a defendant to incriminate himself.

That would not be the case if the immunity hearing were held before trial. The defendant could testify in the immunity hearing without waiving his right to remain silent at the trial.

Another reason not to combine the two is that the order of presentation differs. The State goes first at trial, but the defense goes first in an immunity hearing. Strategy can change dramatically depending on whether a party has the burden of proof. Whether a party goes first or second will affect the evidence it will present, its choice of witnesses, and the order in which the witnesses will be called.

Finally, the purpose of an immunity hearing is to identify strong self-defense cases early on and to immunize those defendants from criminal and civil liability so that they do not have to endure the psychological and emotional wear and tear of living a life in limbo while possibly in custody for a year or more before trial. Saves the expense too for all concerned. Combining the immunity hearing with the trial cancels out all those advantages.

Finally, just because a defendant has a fundamental right to an immunity hearing does not mean that he cannot waive that right as the defendant did today.

500 people are going to be summoned to court for jury service in this case and it makes no sense to go to the time, trouble and expense to do that just because the defendant wants to wait and see how jury selection and the prosecution’s presentation of its case is going before he decides whether to seek immunity.


Writing articles every day and maintaining the integrity and safety of this site from people who would like nothing better than to silence us forever is a tough job requiring many hours of work.

If you like this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.

Thank you,


595 Responses to Zimmerman: The immunity hearing should not be combined with the trial

  1. May the Fourth be with you…..

    Ya’ll have a GREAT weekend…..

  2. ay2z says:

    Someone mentioned this the other day. The writer, Shayan H. Modarres, was seen with the defense team in their post-court presser from the hearing before last.

    {http://modarreslaw.com/about-us/ )


    Mar 19, 2013

    On April 11, 2012, neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was arrested on charges of second degree murder for the shooting death of 17 year old Trayvon Martin. The trial is currently set for June, but there has been much speculation about the law, which has been popularly described as the “Stand Your Ground” law, and the implications it may hold in the trial of George Zimmerman.

    I will start by giving a brief background on the law; then I will discuss the proper vehicle to bring a motion for immunity, the timing of filing the motion, the legal standards involved, and possible strategies the defense may attempt.

    Check out shayan’s discussion under his ‘Method and Timing for Claiming Immunity’ section where he discusses two variations of the rule, “3.190(c) and 3.190(b)”.

    So what’s the major difference between 3.190(c) and 3.190(b)?

    … under 3.190(c)(1-4), the defendant can file a motion to dismiss for a charge that has been pardoned, for double jeopardy, for immunity being granted previously, or for “undisputed facts” that don’t establish a prima facie case, that was discussed above.

    Notably, these 4 claims “may at ANY time [be] entertain[ed]” by the court. For a 3.190(b), it must be made either before or at arraignment….


    • Cercando Luce says:

      Shayan Modarres’ name appears below Bruce Blackwell’s as co-counsel for Attorney Crump, on the brief filed in response to defendant’s request for writ for certiorari, as mentioned above.

  3. ay2z says:


  4. SearchingMind says:

    Behold, The Butcher of Sanford!

    • Xena says:

      He’s missing a button on his shirt. He has his right hand held up. Something’s wrong with him. I don’t know what his deal is.

      Why does O’Mara look like he expects GZ to fall any minute?

      • SearchingMind says:

        Because ‘dead man walking’, Xena. GZ is going down, he gets that and its showing. They can’t hide it anymore. GZ was definitely intimidated, “fearful”, “distrustful” and “confused”. I am sure his knees shook and his legs trembled during the whole encounter with Judge Nelson. O’Mara knew that and had act in a way that exhorts GZ to at least show some outward strength. Attorneys do that with emotionally fragile clients like GZ. Some hug (if the client is a beautiful lady), others (the more emotionally distant ones like O’Mara) don’t. I think GZ fantasizes that O’Mara were his father and Judge Nelson the mother he never had. Both (O’Mara and Judge Nelson) will realize that one day and take him in their arms consoling him while he weeps and sobs away the sorrows inflicted on him by the Scheme Team. Oh, what a wonderful world that will be – in GZ’s weird world.

        • Xena says:


          I think GZ fantasizes that O’Mara were his father …

          You can fuss at me later, 🙂 but O’Mara’s astrological profile makes him a fatherly figure. He’s like an instructive dad and probably communicates with GZ in a way to teach along with giving advice. GZ probably doesn’t know why he is unable to completely control O’Mara. It’s because O’Mara is a Feb. 8th child. Trayvon was a Feb. 5th child. When GZ communicates with O’Mara, he relives his confrontation with Trayvon.

      • ay2z says:

        Xena, interesting take on that. Whatever the signs are, I’d bet M’OM knows he himself, had a growth spurt that caused him to be tall and skinny in a short time during his high school years. That makes someone awkward, and less coordinated, not a practiced and mature hand combat expert. Does he even remember growing tall at that age? He’s still not a muscle bound male, still thin build.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        The astrology of all the players is quite interesting. Has anyone done a chart for Judge Nelson?

        • Xena says:

          @Two sides.

          The astrology of all the players is quite interesting. Has anyone done a chart for Judge Nelson?

          I haven’t seen one — been looking for Bernie’s date of birth. My guess is that Scorpio is somewhere strong in his chart.

      • Cercando Luce says:

        Just checking to see that the fingers aren’t crossed…

        • Xena says:

          @Cercando Luce.

          Just checking to see that the fingers aren’t crossed…

          HA!! When they went in the back, GZ probably took off his shoes and crossed his toes.

    • racerrodig says:

      That’s great work !!

      West is thinking……Oppps, the leg of my chair is on his right foot and he doesn’t even feel it!! He must be on drugs or sumptin.

      O’ Mara is thinking, shit…he forgot his body armor (no visible armor lines) so he’s really packing it on. I hope I don’t hear him rip the sleeve on his jacket………it’s a rental.

      • PiranhaMom says:


        And I don’t think Zimmerman is “missing a button” as was reported earlier.

        I saw the button. The problem was that there was not enough fabric in the shirt, width-wise, for the button to reach across to the buttonhole.

        I expect GZ tucked this unbuttoned part of the shirt in below the beltline that morning, but all that rising ‘n stiff pulled the shirt out of his pants.

        There is a solution for this. His “handlers” should open the side seams half-way to the armpit, or maybe all the way up. This gives the shirt, buttoned, a front flap and a back flap to tuck in. Thus the front always remains buttoned – and the jacket always must stay on.

        You could be right on target re the rental jacket, Racer – might be the only smart move the defense has made in over a year.

  5. ay2z says:

    OS story tonight, off topic but shows another shooting of someone ‘with an object pointed at cops when they arrived on a 911 suspected break in call.

    Problem is, the woman who called, was the home owner, and apparently this 61 year old woman was standing outside and pointing what looked like a weapon at the young cop. He shot her, she’s being treated.

    But the OS report says ‘she pointed’ whatever it was ‘to them’.

    How does OS know what this woman did that caused the 28 year old rookie cop to shoot her? Police say so.

    Why does OS do this, and not report that ‘police say’ instead of implying fact?

    RCMP here have done the same thing, falsified an embarrassing report which was then published in the newspaper. But guess it’s the way some will keep their jobs.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      You don’t have to do much to get cop shot these days. Just sayin’. They’ll respond in fear to any little movement.

  6. FactsFirst says:



    and they wonder why we don’t trust “THEM BOYZ”

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @FactsFirst –

      Once it is established that the “security officer” is an employee of the liquor store or strip mall, or an employee of the security contractor for the liquor store or strip mall (the liquor store or strip mall having the responsibility to the public to contract with or employ TRAINED security officers – by whatever legal requirements for security training that are mandated in that State) and having the official police records of the phone call to, and dispatch of, police – there should be a HUGE cash settlement in favor of the falsely-detained customer.

      How soon did he call his attorney?

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        I’ll say… He wound up on the ground in front of the world on you tube, a grossly humiliating affair worthy of massive repudiation. I’d say a jury would make a 7 figure award for low ball, so unless the mall settles quickly they’ll lose it all. I’ll bet lawyers are racing in from all over the globe for a piece of that one.

        • PiranhaMom says:


          I’m thinking the defense by the liquor store/strip mall owner/security company will be to say: “That’s not our guy. Never saw that guy ever before in our lives!”

          Key will be to check the source of the phone call that got the cops there.

          I didn’t see “the security guy” call, but his phone could (should) be set up for auto-911.

          Am surprised that it looks like it was some casual observer in the parking lot just handed over the AZ tea — to the cameraman. Nobody “in authority” made a move to impound it.

          And nobody from the liquor store or mall came over to assist or witness. (Likely “as advised by counsel.”)

          Very hinky deal.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            I think a competent lawyer is going to get a jury to agree that the owners have a duty to monitor their business spaces. Especially parking lots, knowing that, that is where their customers are most vulnerable. I doubt a jury would find it too much to ask that security keep an eye on the parking lot, so as to be aware and able to intervene as needed. At least by the time the police arrived, the security should have been able to verify who the complainer was.

            In any event, real or hoax, it is good that they’re giving merchants etc., something to think long and hard about, their securities training and how well they monitor the business space.

          • PiranhaMom says:


            In CA, mall owners have the legal responsibility for protecting customers on their property.

            Been some big settlements in favor of victims in recent years.

            Retailers and their landlords are much more savvy, living up to their responsibilities these days.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Geez Louise, drinking tea while black. I can’t count the hundrends of times I’ve had a tall, cool can of AZ tea in a parking lot while traveling.

    • racerrodig says:

      I’m not so sure it isn’t staged but if it isn’t I’d say there will be a new owner of ABC Liquors soon.

      • Cercando Luce says:

        In North Carolina the Alcoholic Beverage Commission is part of county government and the liquor store is considered government property!

        • racerrodig says:

          And that stupid security guard who criminally represented himself as “police” has now exposed them to a massive liability. Probably a 6 or 7 figure liability.

          Hey….!!!! That’s the ticket…I’m buying some Arizona iced tea and hanging around liquor stores down south……easy money !!

          • Colorado has drive thru liquor stores……Then again….Calif. had liquor stores where U could by ammo.

            Take ur pick…a drunk drivin’?……or a drunk drivin’ with a full clip?

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            For one thing you’d have to be black, and for another it’s terribly dangerous, you could very easily wind up shooting yourself in the head, with your hands handcuffed behind you, in the back of a squad car after being searched for weapons twice. Hey, when you’re black these kinds of things happen.

          • cielo62 says:

            Lonnie- I didn’t know Black Dynamite Slim had clones! No wonder the cops fear those black males, even handcuffed and secured. Heck, GZ was afraid of a dead black teen!

            Sent from my iPod

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Yep, the police handcuff this black guy, hands behind his back, search him, put him in the car, pull him back out and search him again, then put him back in the car, hands still cuffed behind his back. Moments later, the cops are telling us with a straight face, the guy was found dead of a gunshot wound to the head, and they’re calling it a suicide.

            No wonder I don’t see young blacks on the streets much anymore.

          • cielo62 says:

            Racer- unless you are ba-plack, they won’t even look at you. Wasted money and time.

            Sent from my iPod

      • Cercando Luce says:

        If that’s not a reenactment of some kind (which I wonder since the “cop” never addresses the guy filming), and if it is for real– that’s no more of a cop than Zimmerman! Some random dude who bought a pair of handcuffs online! WTH!

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        At the site they say there’s a second video taken by someone else that proves it did happen.

        Police feel free to do these kinds of things to blacks because they feel it’s a “low cost” action. They have little, if any fear of blow back, no matter how stupid they get. What are we supposed to do? Give the police a sip of whatever we buy to drink in public?

        This needs to be taken to court, so that the store and the city get to see the costs, then they’ll take measures and police won’t feel so free to do as they please, just because of skin color.

        If I didn’t know how deadly police can be, I might have suggested doing stings. But I wouldn’t recommend it, because police have a way of mistaking wallets for weapons, if you get my drift.

        • racerrodig says:

          Like I said, if it did happen then it looks like there will be some serious legal issues. That security guard criminally said he was “police” Bad Move….

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            They do things like that because for many years white men got away with it. They’ve caught white guys who weren’t cops, dressing up as cops and going into the ghettoes years ago, looking for drug dealers and knocking them over. It took quite a while for the real police to catch them and some of these gangs never got caught.

            There’s plenty of room for conspiracy theories like, what if real police set up a gang of non-police imposters and guided them to the real big take downs? Who would know? They’d all get away Scott free and even the dealers would count themselves lucky for having escaped the bust, so forget about the million or so dollars left behind.

            The beauty of such a plan is, IA would never know because they don’t look at how retired police spend their money. After a nice, cool million dollar score, you wait 6 months to a year, then put in for retirement. Move to Florida an set up a business tying fly hooks to launder the money. Probably make a great novel, eh?

          • Isn’t that part of what the cops in the Rampart Div. in LA were busted for?

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Yep, then we had Michael Dowd and his “Morgue Boys” in NYC. I’m sure Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami and other big cities all had their own versions at one time or another.

    • Jun says:

      Wow, someone’s gonna get sued. I am fairly sure there are lawyers who will take the case on a percentage basis. The man was drinking Ice tea. It is a huge over reaction. I’d also question any breathalyzer if one was administered.

      • ladystclaire says:

        Being AA in this country really sucks! AA never asked to come here but, they try to fit in just the same. while folks from other countries are readily accepted and, some of those people come here for the sole purpose of harming the American people and their country, (ie) the Boston Marathon, and 9/11 are just two examples where this rings true.

        These two events are just the tip of the iceberg because, there is definitely more to come.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      In the old days, blacks could do nothing but grin and bear these kinds of abuse. The system was stacked against blacks, so it wasn’t much use trying to move the system by seeking justice within it, because it simply was not geared to provide it to people of color. So, unless you had a case so egregious that widespread media and/or powerful political interests were motivated to take a side, you pretty much had to accept that the policeman was going to get away with whatever they decided to do. Children quickly learned how powerless their parents were, not realizing that parents had to save their strength and resources for bigger battles where the prospects of success were improved. Not fritter away their resources on limited, small, personal events that most likely, would be handled in the dark corners and therefore decided against them.

      Today that’s been broken down. The time when the system could not or would not dispense any justice for blacks is fast ending. The number of racists and bigots in gov’t, while still numerous, are without the oppressive and widespread powers they once held.

      Police, who still rely upon the view that they can attack blacks with impunity, because there is little risk of review, are still out there operating on that collapsing assumption. All that remains now is for mistreated blacks to seek review for their grievances in ever increasing numbers. Soon Police will see the risk of treating blacks differently and they’ll either stop or get run out of office behind the large court awards the taxpayers must bear.

      Bloomberg here in NYC wants to keep having people stopped and frisked on the streets as a crime prevention technique. Trouble is, 90% of the people stopped and searched are non-whites?!? While Whites are known to do more drugs and commit more crimes, possess more guns than blacks, police are interested in searching blacks, not because they’re committing more crimes, but because there is less of a chance that their actions will face judicial review of any grievances. Once that happens, Mr. Bloomberg will see that the costs of this simplistic approach to public safety is not only counterfeit but costly. So, let the lawsuits begin.

  7. ay2z says:

    Oh, sorry– posted too many links in one post:

    The new appeals court docs are posted as pdfs.


    • Just as I expected, Bruce Blackwell has filed an excellent brief in DCA5 responding to the defendant’s petition for cert pointing out, among other things, that the petition is now moot because the defendant has listed Benjamin Crump as a witness.

      The miscellaneous motion is Bruce Blackwell’s motion asking the Court to accept the brief he filed. He had to ask permission because Crump is not a party to the case.

      I expect the motion will be granted and the DCA will dismiss the petition ending this irrelevant side trip to the DCA.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I’m confused. Does this mean they can or can’t depose Mr. Crump?

      • ay2z says:

        I haven’t had time to read yet, and that’s both interesting and very confusing to me. But it is not surprising to me, that the two boys from O town, would write their own rules of pre-trial procedure (for lack of not knowing proper terms).

        Three things are confusing me, but more importantly, they confused the defense team as demo’d in this week’s hearing.

        First we heard and saw West on the stand, not understanding the common term, ‘exculpatory’. Mr. West’s definition of exculpatory evidence, was not as Bernie argued in a more narrow legal context of evidence that points away from a defendant’s guilt.

        Mr West, in contrast, said “I believe…. I really do”.(if I remember this right), that any evidence is exculpatory. (and he has a reason which I won’t even try to attempt to recall).

        Second, in the video clip that SouthernGirl2 posted just upthread, we hear Mr. MOM argue his motion for sanctions by, it seemed, pretending to not understand what “Procedural prejudice’ means. His pretend went along for awhile, Judge Nelson shifted her lecture voice up one notch to stern, as she tried and tried to ask MOM to explain what ‘procedural prejudice’ they would face — that is, prejudice during trial. Judge Nelson felt that all the issues raised by MOM’s motion, had been dealt with, so no prejudice to the defense for trial. MOM was NOT happy that Judge Nelson thought there was not some rule to give them payback, money wise. He wanted to interpret procedural as pre-trial issues too, even if the problems were solved before trial.

        Now, another schooling in the works for MOM and West, this tie by Bruce, and involving the concept of ‘procedure’ I assume.

        Judge Nelson came out on top of all this very nicely.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          ay2z asks

          Mr West, in contrast, said “I believe…. I really do”.(if I remember this right), that any evidence is exculpatory. (and he has a reason which I won’t even try to attempt to recall).

          mr west felt the information was exculpatory because it could be used to impeach witness 8’s testimony. although he may have a point, the testimony regarding hospitalization is clearly not relevant, will likely be objected to by the prosecution and the matter was remedied by the phone call o’mara received from mr. guy the night before the hearing to compel.

          • You are correct.

            Impeachment evidence is exculpatory and must be disclosed to the defense before the witness testifies.

            Not all exculpatory evidence is admissible. Has to be relevant and material which this evidence is not. That’s the distinction that West and O’Mara have been pretending does not exist.

          • fauxmccoy says:


            you sir, are one of the better teachers i have ever had. thank you kindly, sir.

        • Xena says:


          Second, in the video clip that SouthernGirl2 posted just upthread, we hear Mr. MOM argue his motion for sanctions by, it seemed, pretending to not understand what “Procedural prejudice’ means.

          O’Mara is proceeding like a civil lawyer. He is really lost in this case; is talking a lot to make up for his lack of knowledge; or just maybe is playing stupid to impress supporters and make GZ think that he hasn’t thrown him under the bus.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          It’s now easy to see why and how this high profile, low win case, wound up in the hands of two of the least competent attorneys in the state. Note that neither of them have made any forays, into or near the “limelight” on their own, prior to climbing aboard this “train headed/speeding towards the washed out bridge”. They haven’t even made it to trial and yet, the last car of their train is already pitching headlong into the pit. Worse yet, these clowns have no appellate issues because the case is so bad it precludes any hope of a win under almost any circumstance a sane person might think of.

          Imagine yourself as a long racist sitting on the jury, sequestered for 6 or 7 days and finally turned free to deliberate. As the 6 of you file into the jury room, five unanimously state with certainty and vigor “Guilty as Sin!”, in the face of that kind of unity what would a lone racist be able to do? Probably nothing but go along, because it’s either that or spend days locked in heated battle while sequestered, which is something like being in jail. I think that even the staunchest racist would want to see some hint of confusion or doubt in, at least some of the other jurors. To have them all state so emphatically, with such conviction and vigor, would not portend well for a protracted battle and would likely just result in a very long sequester, which I don’t think anyone of them would relish, racist or not. Nor does Fogen inspire loyalty either. Him not taking the stand in his own defense, will say that there is no real defense, because what remainders can be offered will be so woefully weak without him, one has to wonder why he does not move to strengthen his case.

          The “proof,” as they say, “will be in the pudding”. We’ve pretty nearly learned as much as we can using our virtual tools of analysis. We’re ready for the trial where the “moment of truth” merely awaits “the rubber stamp” of the jury.

      • ay2z says:

        Two Sides, by ‘motion’, I think Prof means Bruce’s motion will be granted, and the defense’s Writ will be filed under N for nonsense, or I for Irrelevant.

        But I”m confused too, why wouldn’t the defense just hold off listing Crump as a witness until the writ was dealt with, if that’s the problem, Judge Nelson said she was well aware of the Writ, and mentioned something about waiting until that was done. (MOM wanted the Judge to argue with him, Judge said no, decision made, won’t argue with you after the fact).

        (have to do my reading homework though, before asking about that and that will take awhile. )

      • ay2z says:

        Answer to my confusion solved– Bruce says it best!! (and now can wait to read the rest tonight)

        Beautiful, bet MOM and Mr.PerfectionWest did not see this coming. (see top of pg 3)

        Two weeks before he filed his instant Petition, however, Petitioner filed a supplemental witness list in which he elected to list Attorney Crump as a witness, thereby relinquishing whatever right he may have had to depose Attorney Crump as a previously “unlisted witness” under FLA. R. CRIM. P. 3.220(h)(1)(A) and mooting his Petition.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Um. I can only conclude that either the defense team is very confused or that they’re just tossing up dust for lack of anything better to do.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          They’re just casting about, writhing in the pain and extreme agony of ignorance and confusion as Father Time relentlessly marches them to the gallows. Tick Tock

      • Two sides to a story says:

        AY2Z – that’s exactly what confuses me. If Crump is listed as a witness, doesn’t that imply that he can be deposed? I don’t follow Blackwell’s reasoning but I do trust that he knows what he’s doing.

        Some things regarding law seem hugely logical – simple common sense – and other aspects seem somewhat paradoxical until you get used to them.

        • The defense endorsed him as their own witness and they can only depose the opposing party’s witness, not their own.

          Yes, you could call that a stupid move because Judge Nelson isn’t going to permit them to question him before the jury..

      • Two sides to a story says:

        “The defense endorsed him as their own witness and they can only depose the opposing party’s witness, not their own. . . Yes, you could call that a stupid move . . .”

        Okay, now I get it, Prof. I’m betting on your opinion.

      • Xena says:

        @Professor. It sounds like West took Zidiot advice. Bet that West thinks by naming attorney Crump as a witness for the defense, that the State will depose him where West can sit-in and do his humiliation act –(but before they all fall asleep). 🙂

        • If West thought the State was going to depose Crump because the defense added his name to their witness list, he’s going to be disappointed.

          • Xena says:


            If West thought the State was going to depose Crump because the defense added his name to their witness list, he’s going to be disappointed.

            Why stop the streak of disappointment now? 🙂

    • ay2z says:

      Prof, we might have to expand that set of definitions for the appeals court because now we see Bruce doesn’t commit to’respondent’ but instead, lists himself as

      ‘Counsel for Proposed-Respondent
      Benjamin L. Crump, Esq.’

      Seems Bruce isn’t assuming that his motion to participate in the Writ issue, makes his client a respondent.

      Get the idea that Bruce has been around the block more times than enough to handle DMom et al.

      • He designated himself as a “proposed respondent” because he isn’t a respondent yet. By motion he is proposing to become one.

      • FactsFirst says:

        “Counsel for Proposed-Respondent Benjamin L. Crump, Esq”

        Ole Blackwell throwing some major “SHADE” with that one, because O’mara didn’t send Blackwell a copy of a witness list that his client is on, amongst other things I gather…
        and the whole “INSTANT PETITION” thing.. Chile, I’m over here dying laughing and I’m only at pg14.. Blackwells’ a MONSTER!!! poor O’HahaWest *TEAR* They’re messing with the wrong one..

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Hahaha… After that Attorney pundit comes on the tube to say that O’haha has made a very critically important and clever strategic move that the Prosecution has to watch out for… Then O’Haha goes and bites off his own tail! What could be the purpose of that?

          We’ve spent a year watching as one of his strategic moves after another, revealed itself to be little more than either a hilarious or tragic blunder, or both. Leaving us unable to get back to the case, until the laughter and/or head shaking subsides. Even a degreed forensic expert who sallied forth to O’mara’s side, wound up taking it on the chin as the case impugned his credentials. So, we’re shocked and amazed at the offer that O’haha has done anything “strategic” such that the Prosecution needs to beware. If the SP needs to beware of anything, it’s that the defense blunders might cause the jury to die of laughter.

          We talk of the defenses fear of putting GZ on the stand, I’m begining to fear that O’mara may actually be at risk of doing even more damage to his own case if that’s at all possible.

      • FactsFirst says:

        “The certificate of service in Petitioner’s second supplemental witness list omitted
        Attorney Crump’s counsel, (Supp. App. at 73), and counsel never received a copy
        of this list. Indeed, Attorney Crump’s counsel did not even become aware of the
        existence of this second supplemental witness list until after the trial court denied
        Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and Petitioner filed his instant Petition”
        pg 14

        Click to access 13-1233_Proposed_Repsondent_Ben_Crump_Petition_for_Writ_of%20Certiorari.pdf

      • ay2z says:

        Thank you, there is so much protocol to understand.

  8. ay2z says:

    Ok all, more reading! The 5th DCA has posted recently filed docs:

    ‘Misc. Motion’:

    Click to access 13-1233_Miscellaneous_Motion.pdf

    Appendix to Response:

    Click to access 13-1233_Appendix_to_Response.pdf

    And of coruse, Ben and Bruce’s (now I know they are called ‘respondents’) response to writ of c.

    Click to access 13-1233_Proposed_Repsondent_Ben_Crump_Petition_for_Writ_of%20Certiorari.pdf

    I think that’s all we haven’t seen, here’s the direct ‘info’ page just in case:


  9. Trayvon Supporters Vindicated (Zimmerman Waives Pre-Trial Stand-Your-Ground

    • Two sides to a story says:

      The opening “Stand by Me” segment gives me chills up my spine! Great stuff. Great editing of all the salient points of the 30 April hearing too.

      • Rachael says:

        This is EXCELLENT!! Who did this?

      • ay2z says:

        Fogen would have to say ‘Wobble By Me’ to his lawyers. Or ‘Waffle For Me’.

      • ay2z says:

        double entendre not intended for the defense waffling, but food is food and food is good, especially when there was no cake break for the defendant to re-stock his energy supply.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Dirty minded defense team seeks to use the word “prophylactic” every chance they get, even seeking “prophylactic” preventions, not provided for by law. I’m sure there are some divorce court lawyers who could step into a criminal court case and do well, O’haha clearly isn’t one of them. All he seems to know or care about is money and prophylactics. ;lol:

        • racerrodig says:

          “Prophylactic” as in “Rubber Man”

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            You continue to slay me with these rejoinders, hahaha.
            No way I’m drinking coffee while reading this board.

          • racerrodig says:

            I have no choice but to apologize for all beverages that have been “wasted” as a result of my sense of humor, but that’s who I am…….
            ……and that’s what I do, well and build race engines and stuff.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            You could be making a fortune designing coffee screens for keyboards and monitors! 😆

      • Hi Rachael!

        SanfordWatch did the video.

  10. Two sides to a story says:

    So would anyone like to chime in on why the Treestumpers are so up in arms about the motion quietly made at the end of the hearing about order to inspect and photograph evidence, apparently in reference to Miami Dade SPD.

    The Stump seems to be highly disturbed that OM is “hiding” this from them after Sundance Cracker’s big FOIA request firecracker dud. Most didn’t seem to know what the motion was when they heard it come up at the end of the hearing, but I recall at the time thinking it was connected to the alleged jewelry found on Trayvon.

    BDLR said the state had no objection to the motion and then it was apparently issued /signed by Judge Nelson in chambers after the hearing. http://www.scribd.com/doc/138989725/4-30-Order-to-Inspect-and-Photograph-Evidence

    • Jun says:

      well if anything leaks, the source will be known

      it’s prolly not a big deal but I dont know if Omara has learned

      • Two sides to a story says:

        They think it will blow the case wide open in Fogen’s favor. That seems highly unlikely. It appears to me that the trip down Da Nile is getting harder and harder to take without your brain exploding.

        On the other hand, the folks who still like OM think it’s insignificant that Fogen waived his right to a pre-immunity hearing. They think this is theater on BDLR’s part, and also ‘old news.’ Their vessel down Da Nile hasn’t yet scraped bottom – it may take the trial to get those people’s attention.

        • Xena says:

          @Two sides.

          On the other hand, the folks who still like OM think it’s insignificant that Fogen waived his right to a pre-immunity hearing.

          That’s because they think that O’Mara saying he is going to hold an evidentiary hearing is the same as holding an immunity hearing where O’Mara and Bernie argue with each other without GZ needing to testify.

      • Jun says:

        He can photograph it all he wants. The actual officer’s who made the reports with their witnesses will be there for rebuttal if they try to twist it. My guess is the alleged perceived marijuana issue and the jewelry that was not stolen issue. Does not make much different and truly does not prove Trayvon is criminal at all. Besides, it opens the door on Fogen, and makes Omara look like a jerkoff for attacking a dead kid, who truly did not do anything bad.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Xena, yes I was just looking at some Fogen supporters /conversations, trying to absorb why they think an evidentiary hearing is going to lead to exoneration. More cruising down Da Nile. We’re going to hear more and more about liberal conspiracies to frame Fogen in the next two-three months, I’m afraid.

        • Xena says:

          @Two sides.

          Xena, yes I was just looking at some Fogen supporters /conversations, trying to absorb why they think an evidentiary hearing is going to lead to exoneration.

          I would like the professor to write an article about evidentiary hearings. Everything I’ve read about Florida rules for evidentiary hearings in criminal proceedings, use it as another phrase for Stand Your Ground. It appears that phrase was used in a petition to dismiss before the court established the Rule for bringing a SYG motion.

          • An evidentiary hearing is a legal term used to refer to any hearing before a judge in which witnesses testify and evidence is introduced. If a hearing is held for the sole purpose of a judge listening to the arguments of counsel, it is not an evidentiary hearing.

          • Xena says:


            If a hearing is held for the sole purpose of a judge listening to the arguments of counsel, it is not an evidentiary hearing.

            Thank you, thank you, thank you.

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Professor, Xena,

        Re: Evidentiary hearing / Motion to dismiss

        My understanding is that O’Mara intends to file a Motion to dismiss based on Rule 3.190(c)(4) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (the so-called C-4 Motion) to show that the State has not proven a prima facie case re: 2nd degree murder. The defense would claim that it is undisputed that there is no evidence to prove at least one element of 2nd degree murder and that the case much therefore not go to trial (and Professor, you might want to explain to the students the diff. between “prima facie” and “(beyond) reasonable doubt”).

        If O’Mara takes the C-4 Motion route and makes the argument that goes to ‘depraved mind element’, the State will file a “traverse”/“demurrer” and easily point out that case law has consistently held that a murder-defendant may not use a (c)(4) motion to establish self-defense, which is an affirmative defense and that issues such as state of mind, knowledge and criminal intent, may not be decided on a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion. As such, GZ may not use a (c)(4) motion to claim that no facts support the malice/depraved mind element. See for example In the Interest of S.T.N. v. State, 474 So. 2d 884, 885 (Fla. 4th Dist. App. 1985); State v. Milton, 488 So. 2d 878, 879 (Fla. 1st Dist. App. 1986).

        If O’Mara makes the argument that it is undisputed that there is no evidence to dispute GZ’s claim that Trayvon started the fight, the “traverse”/“demurrer” will – without going into the rest of the evidence and revealing prosecution’s strategy – just repeat Insp. Gilbreath’s statement during the bond hearing and defeat the Motion pursuant to Rule 3.190(d) of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

        O’Mara may also not file a (c)(4) motion to dismiss on the grounds that the State could not prove a prima facie case because its key witness(es) has/have recanted or is/are fundamentally inconsistent in their testimony, etc.

      • SearchingMind says:

        … and that the case MUST (not “much”) therefore not go to the jury ….. sorry for the typpo folks.

    • I suppose it’s the “jewelry” case. Since no one ever filed a stolen property report that described that stuff, it’s probably cheap costume jewelry that he found discarded in a dumpster or purchased for a few dollars at a party store. In other words, irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with the case.

      Even if it were the Hope diamond, it would not be relevant or admissible. Photographing it is a ridiculous waste of time.

      • Xena says:

        In the photo of Trayvon with what appears to be members of the family, he is wearing ear buds for his cell phone, AND a necklace. The necklace is commonly worn by males, much like the days when love beads were unisex.

      • ay2z says:

        It’s just more ‘prophalactic’ self-therapy when they feel desperate.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      This is the “Miami Dade School Police Department” or M-DSPD they’ve been raging about. They’re full of hope that this “evidence” will show Trayvon to be fully capable of murder at the drop of a hat.

      They can think this way, because they’ve long since lost their grip on reality, if indeed, they ever had a such a grip in the first place.

      • racerrodig says:

        No such grip has ever existed. Remember back in early April when what’s his name at the Outhouse stared a long post with….”just got off the phone…” and claimed he had something that was going to break the case wide open ?? Remember that ??

        All I have to say is…………

      • Two sides to a story says:


      • Two sides to a story says:

        They had reason for their position at the beginning of the case, but they’re kinda hanging off the cliff by their fingernails now.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Not quite even then, because the law doesn’t say that it’s alright to stalk people who are capable of defending themselves. It says no stalking period. Thus, even if some school records, created years ago, were to show that Trayvon was fully capable of defending himself against full grown, heavier armed adults (which I doubt) GZ would still have been breaking the law by stalking him. Nor could he show that he knew about the contents of those school records to guide him. In fact, he admits to knowing nothing at all about Trayvon, not even knowing where he lived, nor what he was doing, or who he was. GZ admits that everything he believed about Trayvon that night, was based on him creating wild imaginings from fare learned about how the SPD and white society believed was the proper way to think about black people in general. Which would lead one to guess, by the view from TCTH, includes the right to kill blacks who do not bow to the authority of Fogen The Great and Powerful Enforcer of Laws. Not that anyone asked him to enforce any laws, but to the contrary they insisted that he stand clear!

          He refused and he killed a human child, now he is properly charged with murder! Society must rid itself of people like him, who cannot understand that everyone’s life is precious and that if society does not protect the least it protects no one. Of course, we realize that the Fogenaught (hey, how about that eh? “Forget the zero!”) won’t ever get the message, we have hope that the example will stay the hand of other such fools who might think of black children as open season targets.

          • PiranhaMom says:


            I know what I’m about to write will offend some. And I apologize in advance.

            But when I saw Zimmerman for three hours in court Tuesday, his demeanor never changed. Yes, he clearly was on some extreme medication. But it was not like he didn’t know what was going on (and his prospects in the future.)

            It’s like he was befuddled, ” … because all I did was kill a black kid. Why is all this going on?”

            He has no concept of the enormity of his decision the night of February 26, 2012.

            He needs to be packed away for life.

            No kid is safe if he’s free.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        lonnie and/or his desk says

        They’re full of hope that this “evidence” will show Trayvon to be fully capable of murder at the drop of a hat.

        aye, they’re just aspiring to be like their hero and projecting their own desires to murder at the drop of a hat.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          They are very soon going to discover that they are and have been anachronisms for quite some time now. I’m just guessing but, I don’t think anyone would want to employ a racist like Taaffe, because of the risk of exposure he represents.

          Hoo Boy, could you just imagine him in your place of business, when a customer like Piranha Mom, Xena and BlushedBrown walked in? “Corn Mr. Taaffe? Would you care to explain that remark?” Hahaha, you might just as well hand them the keys to the building, hahahaha!!! 😆

  11. ay2z says:

    …. 39

  12. Zimmerman attorneys depose Trayvon Martin’s step-mother, step-brother


    Attorneys in the George Zimmerman second-degree murder case have deposed Trayvon Martin’s step-mother and step-brother, according to records made public today.

    Tomorrow several of the defendant’s neighbors from the Sanford subdivision where Trayvon was shot are to be deposed, one has reported.

    Attorneys for both sides continue to question potential witnesses about the case, which is set for trial June 10 in Sanford.

    Paperwork made public today shows that attorneys for the prosecution and defense were in Miami Thursday and Friday and deposed 12 people, including Trayvon’s step-mother and step-brother.

    The names of all but one – Trayvon’s step-brother – were not in the deposition notice.

    It’s not clear who the others are or what they told attorneys.

    But in court Tuesday, Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda referred to the sworn testimony of a Miami-Dade schools official.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      The Treestumpers are really peeved about not naming names of the Miami-Dade officers (possibly) that were deposed. ???

      • Jun says:

        it’s because they are stalkers

        look what happened when they thought the code name “DD” was a real name

        They attempted to intimidate and harass any black girl in Florida named DD

        They harassed and attempted to intimidate w9

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Yes, Jun – you have a point. They think because of their FOIA request in that direction that every bit of evidence and person named should be published. They’re to the point of accusing OM of hiding stuff from them, which is pretty funny.

  13. Mary Davis says:

    Off Topic. Today is closing arguments in Jody Arias trial. I will be watching closely. Since this is also a high profile case, I wonder if the verdict will affect Fogen’s trial. If it does, I hope it’s in a positive way.

    • cielo62 says:

      Mary Davis~ Yes, I hope it affects the GZ trial in a positive way, too… POSITIVELY make GZ shit his pants in fear!

      • Xena says:


        Yes, I hope it affects the GZ trial in a positive way, too… POSITIVELY make GZ shit his pants in fear!

        Three names, all Florida defendants claiming self-defense, should make GZ shit in his pants; Dooley, Orr, Smithey.

  14. Jun says:

    Fogen ran around the neighborhood with a gun, a flashlight, a car, stalking people

    Why do the Zidiots not ever say that Fogen’s equipment are burglary and armed robbery tools?

  15. Lonnie Starr says:

    Okay Class, the word for today is Piñata !

    That was the role for which Mr. West was brought on board this disaster by MOM. His role is to be a piñata, to hang in the witness box, there to be whacked at by both sides with sticks, until the goodies fall out. Unfortunately, like most things connected with the defense, Mr. West contains no “goodies” but is instead, filled to near bursting with dark gooey, sticky, smelly “BullShot”, ready to coat the “winning” party boy with offal.

    Watch while O’mara tries to create some new procedure where, he gets to put Mr. Piñata on the stand to speak in place of GZ. In case you are wondering “why are they so afraid of letting GZ take the stand?” you only need to go here to understand that the aggravated catastrophic stupidity is real my friend!

  16. Big Willie says:

    @ Jun
    3.190 says that the issue has to be properly raised and there is a deadline for the raising of the motion


    Thanks Jun! I was wondering if that deadline information was written law. I’ve been afraid Ma West would find a way to wiggle out from underneath the law.

  17. Big Willie says:

    Does anyone think, Fogen realized he threw away the opportunity to replenish his Schadenfreud Profit Fund?

    Paragraph 3 of SYG Statue 776.031 states the following:

    (3)The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

    Judge Nelson asked, “Is it your decision not to have a pretrial immunity hearing?”
    “Yes,” he replied after consulting with my lawyers.”

    I have a feeling Fogen will eventually sue Ma West (my new name for O’Mara &West), for bad representation or whatever the legal term is. Fogen is always grubbing desperately for money and licking his chops in hopes to obtain money from any and every possible source. So why not from the state of Florida? The state clearly spells out they will compensate him for loss of income.
    We all know why he did not get in the box. However, I think his narcissistic mind believes he could explain all the inconsistencies away and fade off into hollywood.

    • Jun says:

      he waived his chance to be found immune from prosecution though

      • Big Willie says:

        I know but don’t you think he’ll blame Ma West for that move??? You know Fogen likes to call foul…

        • racerrodig says:

          Since Fogen waived his right under oath and was questioned directly by the Judge, he’ll never get away with that. Nelson is way too smart for them. If she had not ordered him into court to swear to this, he could have claimed he was not really aware of what it was all about, but the way Nelson worded the questions, he sealed his fate.

      • ChrisNY~Laurie says:

        He waived that chance in a pre trial hearing. He still has that chance if Nelson grants an immunity hearing later. I bet Fogen thinks that the Judge will grant a hearing later and give him immunity. He’s probably spending all his winnings from lawsuits and such in his head. He’s such a dreamer. It’s time he wakes up and smells the coffee. It’s time for him to a accept the consequences of his actions.

        • racerrodig says:

          He can think whatever he wants but when O’ Mara posed that “objection” about the phrase “pre – trial” and Nelson blew right through it and kept asking Fogen questions, she was telling them Pre trial means before and not during, nor after the trial. It’s actually in the law, but that silly Moron O’ Mara must have failed that part of law school.

      • Jun says:

        The Fogenites and the Conservative Tinfoil Hat are already blaming Omara, as if Omara, can magically produce evidence to show otherwise

        They feel Omara is crap because he wont plant evidence so Omara is stuck with telling lies

        • racerrodig says:

          Oh those silly Zidiots!!! What happened to Fogen being railroaded!! Now there is talk of planting evidence……a little late for that now ain’t it.

    • Jun says:

      It’s what is known as stare decisis (latin)

      The issue has already been debated beyond recognition, and both state, supreme, and appellate court already recognize, that it is a pre-trial motion in which the defendant is given the burden of proof

      There’s obvious probable cause to the crime of M2

      Fogen waived his chance to immunity, not that he had a chance at an immunity hearing anyways

      Besides, how does it make sense to ask for immunity during a trial, where a lot of stuff is going to come out, whereby, Fogen is not gonna look good at all, and it is an intense process

      The simpler process is to do it before a full fledged trial, and then get it over and done with

      Omara can try his appellate court tricks, but Peterson vs State and Gray vs State, already laid the foundation for that, and every criminal defense lawyer in Florida knows that, except for Omara it seems

      3.190 says that the issue has to be properly raised and there is a deadline for the raising of the motion

    • Two sides to a story says:

      “fade off into hollywood” – um, yeah, the Hollywood Mexi-Black Peruvians would fade him all right.

    • ay2z says:

      Ma part of Ma West sure argued ‘need to protect our strategy, almost too much as it was not necessary especially after the bench discussion.

      There is something in strategy about a civil action and immunity, and then it makes sense this client will want to make the state, eveyone pay. (remembering bobbie jr’s threat of his life’s work to destroy Natalie’s career etc)

      They will want immunity, an apology, a judge’s head (or two), and we know fogen has threatened to sue frivolously in his past– someone spitting into his car incident.

      Do they see this trrial as just a stepping stone to the bigger focus of post trial activities?

  18. ChrisNY~Laurie says:

    That male analysts on Robin Meade morning express show on HLN said that under Florida law Fogen was guaranteed the opportunity to have a pre-trial immunity hearing. Since he waived that pre trial immunity hearing, it would be up to the Judge on whether or not an immunity hearing can take place during the trial. So, now he no longer has a the choice on whether it could happen. He can ask for one, but it will be up to Judge Nelson to decide. I guess that is why the term “pre trial” was stressed when Nelson was asking him if he was aware of it and if he waived his right to it.

  19. PYorck says:


    I’m watching stateoftheinternet’s video of the 4/30′s hearing (part 4) At about 9:22, BDLR asked JN to “redact info from the GZLegal website and any other documents”.. Did anybody catch that? If so, What are they talking about?

    Recently the defense revealed a piece of personal information about the Martin family in a motion. I think it is about that.

    • FactsFirst says:

      Thank you @PYorck! I thought the defense had released some info “UNINTENTIONALLY”.. Again, Thank You!!

      • PYorck says:

        I think it is barely indirect enough that it is plausible that the person with the magic marker overlooked the obvious implication.

  20. crazy1946 says:

    After listening and watching the hearing, I can honestly say that I am glad that I decided to go fishing yesterday instead of watching the hearing here on my computer, I would probably have broken the screen or some thing similar! Two of the things that really stood out to me during this hearing was, the look on Fogens face was that of a condemned man, who has finally started to realize that his life in a very short period of time will be well structured by the state penal authorities. The other thing, that I actually found rather amusing is that MOM seemed to actually beg the judge for money over the last claim he made, he actually looked despondent when she told him no, that it would be determined post trial if he would receive any monetary compensation from these claims. Is it not bad enough that he begs for money on line, and now he is begging the judge for money? I would suggest he go back to divorce law, he probably does a much better job at that…..

    • racerrodig says:

      I can imitate Fogen to a Tee from the time he ended his waiver.

      “…..blink………stare, stare, stare….blink………shift eyes left left…stare…….blink, stare…..stare………shift eyes right, blink……. stare……………..shift eyes right, stare……..sigh…….stare….”

      Pretty Good huh? Rich Little’s got nothing on me.

      I’m actually glad I had it on the Court TV channel in my shop. Made for some great laughs, especially FogenPhoole saying “…yes sir..” in response to the first 5 or 6 questions.

      Yep, that silly Zidiot !!!!!!

      • Mary Davis says:

        @ racer. LOL

        • racerrodig says:

          Those beady eyes before a jury will be a laugh riot, that’s for sure.

          • PiranhaMom says:


            This is a serious comment. We’ve all been aware of O’Mara’s prediction, that “Zimmerman is likely unemployable the rest of his life .” Not such a problem, though, facing “three hots & a cot.”

            But now I see it – the employment opportunities for both George and Shellie: greeters at Disneyland! In those big-waisted costumes! Identity concealed!

            Room for the bullet-proof vest, the bullet-proof boxers, the bullet-proof sox, the bullet-proof ankle monitor. The ultimate witness identity program for the beady-eyed!

            And hey, you’re on your feet all day, wearing that sweat-inducing costume under the Florida sun!

            Within a year, Instead of 317 lbs., he’d be a svelte 160.

            Why didn’t we think of this sooner!

          • racerrodig says:

            Ohhhhhh now there’s an ugly can of worms. They all have walkie talkies. I can hear it now….

            “….um, this is Cheorge, ID #666 (nothing he’d love better than a badge #) and we’ve got some balack kids and they’re up to no good. They’re just walking about……looking at all the rides………shit. they’re running.”

            “Agent 666 to, er 666 to SheLie……you there”

            Security dispatch “What are you doing, are you following them…..”

            666 “Yep”

            SD “You didn’t fucking learn 45 years ago?? Maybe you’ve heard this before, we don’t need you to do that”

            666 “…They’re at Mickeys House and….”

            SD “Gee……here we go again……I knew hiring this load was a bad idea, but nobody would listen to me….Nooo Sir….and after my dad got fired from the Sanford Police Dept and lost his pension……and all I can get is a Security job because of this dumb……….”

            Toxic Fogen rides again..

      • looolooo says:

        @ racer L O L 😀 You’re sumpum else.

        • racerrodig says:

          Well, he does give us reams of great material. I can’t wait until the trial to see those looks.

          Since he convicted and executed Trayvon for looking suspicious, can the jury turn around and fair play it by convicting him by saying he looks guilty……Fair is fair after all.

      • cielo62 says:

        Racer- either he’s in shock or heavily medicated. I mean, answering “yes sir” that many times is stupid or drugged out. Or in GZs case, both.

        Sent from my iPod

        • racerrodig says:

          “I’ll take drug addled, moronic, murdering, racist, lying Zidiots” for
          $5,000.00 Alex !!

          “That’s the Daily Double !!

    • Xena says:

      @crazy1946. Very good assessment. There is something about the money, or lack thereof, that speaks volumes about the mishandling of the funds. When O’Mara took over the funds, he said he was setting aside $28,000 for GZ’s living expenses. Well, I think GZ went through that amount in 3 months or less.

      • racerrodig says:

        I’m thinking Golden Corral isn’t cheap there……ya know, being kinda close to Disney and all.

        • fogen in disguise with Micky ears….or maybe a Goofy costume 🙂

        • Xena says:

          @racerrodig. Along with food, GZ has no doubt needed to spend money on clothes on the average of every month. He’s over 300 lbs now and as I understand it, the larger the size, the more it costs.

          • Roger that……even Walmart..XXL is gonna cost a few bucks more….Personal experience….I was at 267 for awhile……now down to a lean mean 185lbs 🙂

          • Xena says:


            I was at 267 for awhile……now down to a lean mean 185lbs 🙂

            Congratulations. Maybe you should share how you accomplished that with GZ and ShelLIE.

          • I’ll share it with you….Bad back..degenerative disc’s…first thing the Doc said was “Get rid of the weight”……..Took a year to drop it…..I think about it when I pick up a 50lb sack of feed and think “I used to carry this on my body daily?”

            Funny thing is?…I enlisted at 17….I weighed 127 lbs 😐

          • BTW…on a 5′ 11″ frame….

          • Xena says:

            @MMPat. How tall is GZ? 5’8″? Can you imagine carrying over 300 lbs on that size frame? My greatest fear for him is diabetes.

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Xena –

            5 ft. 7″ in reality. I’ve had dogs that are taller.

            Fogen’s days are few – he’s going to be killed by a deadly weapon.

            His fork.

          • Xena says:


            5 ft. 7″ in reality.

            300 lbs is absolutely too much for GZ to be carrying around.

            Fogen’s days are few – he’s going to be killed by a deadly weapon.

            His fork.

            (Gulp) LMAO.

          • I think all they have in prison now are plastic sporks……foons….wuddebber they’re called……

            Caterpillar just left….thyme 4 bed.

            To U and all the others on Freds blog…..Ya’ll have a GREAT Today.

            Give a smile to someone you don’t know 🙂

            HOODIES UP


          • racerrodig says:

            I don’t know about you, but my greatest fear is the floor giving way.

          • Xena says:

            LOL@racerrodig. Hope his landlord is current with property insurance.

          • racerrodig says:

            I’m, thinking when he takes a walk anywhere, he’s setting off those seismographs at every lab on the coast, and those sidewalks are getting cracks all over.

          • racerrodig says:

            We have those “Big and Tall Men’s stores here….but we don’t have any PhatFogenPhoole stores anywhere around.

          • He can’t shop there as he is not a “man”

          • racerrodig says:

            I admit…..my bad.

  21. thejbmission says:

    I’ve been an avid trial follower for years and a true crime buff so I’m somewhat familiar with trial proceedings.
    However, after watching yesterday’s hearing I can truthfully say “I’ve never seen anything like this circus before in my entire life”.
    Putting the defense attorney Don West on the stand is unusual to say the least. Never before have I seen anything like it. I’m still in shock.
    It’s hard to believe that a BLOG “TCTH” has somehow managed to become part of this trial and that the defense attorneys would stoop to ask for their assistance unlike to Mr. Leatherman who is only offering commentary and discussion and is not involved in this case.

    This is a clear cut case of 2nd degree murder. GZ got out of his vehicle and unlawfully stalked and killed an unarmed teenager. The teenager was not in commission of a crime of any sort. It wasn’t even after curfew. So WHY THE CIRCUS?? Is it to obstruct justice?
    Nothing that I heard yesterday had a thing to do with Trayvon Martin’s murder, IMO. It was one big pi$$ing contest between the defense and the prosecution.
    Grrr.. I’m praying so hard for justice for Trayvon because it seems right now that he’s been lost in this debacle.
    Thank you Professor for allowing me to vent. I just want to know am I the only one who feels this way.

    • willisnewton says:

      Not only did GZ get out of his car to stalk the teen, he was ALREADY stalking the teen WITH his car. THEN after his car movements frightened the teen into running off the roadway, he jumped out and initiated a foot pursuit.

      And yes, it’s a circus for now. It’s going to be like shooting fish in a barrel when the trial finally comes, however. Keep in mind the prosecution has everything to gain from NOT disclosing its trial strategy early, while the defense seems to think that by trying the case in the media -where the prosecution is determined NOT to respond in any way that tips it’s hand – is the way to win.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I doubt the defense thinks it’s the only way to win, but the it’s the only way they know how to keep enough followers in denial with their wallets open and the only way they know how to keep the Fogen family pacified and thinking, well, more thoughts of denial.

        I sometimes feel bad for such hoodwinking.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          The first commission of a crime occurred when Trayvon notified DD that he had become concerned for his own safety, such that he would alter his path homeward.

          GZ should have known that the teen would have reason to be confused by GZ’s behavior, and should have sought to either modify the teens view of it, by identifying himself, or, it that was not an acceptable option, he should then have withdrawn himself completely from the area, so that no further contact of any type could be possible.

          Instead, GZ decided to willfully engage in unlawful stalking. Attempting to cover his own, unlawful actions, with threadbare explanations that he was engaged in otherwise legal activities, when clearly he was not, nor were those “explanatory activities” reasonable or necessary. Instead they were merely attempts to deny that he was engaged in, what he knew to be criminal actions.

          Each explanation is an attempt to make actions taken to stalk, follow and/or capture a subject, were being taken by coincidence or happenstance without any ulterior design behind them. Then he tries to cover up his ultimate confrontation and criminal capture of the subject, by claiming falsely that he was, himself attacked.

          He claims he was punched so hard he was knocked to the ground senseless, by a punch an unarmed, untrained and underweight teen could not accomplish. There to be helplessly pinned and nearly killed, by a teenager suddenly moved to murder him via a lethal attack. Where the defendant gets the idea that innocent children with no history of mental disruption can suddenly become efficient, effective and deadly combatants, is beyond comprehension. Sane people with a fairly reliable grip on reality, however, can see that such claims are patently false out of hand.

          Goodbye Mr. FogenZeehats, don’t let the bars hit you on the way inside! Tick Tock!!!

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr.

            He claims he was punched so hard he was knocked to the ground senseless, by a punch an unarmed, untrained and underweight teen could not accomplish.

            At the first bond hearing when giving his (non) apology, GZ said that he didn’t know whether Trayvon was armed or not. Why would anyone armed take a chance of using their fists when they can shoot instead? Also, if we are to believe GZ that Trayvon went for GZ’s gun, that would tell him that Trayvon was not armed.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Waite just a minute, that’s a key piece of evidence there. GZ says he “thought” Trayvon was going for his gun. For him to think that, he had to know that he had the only gun there. Otherwise, he’d have been expecting to be met with a gun when he began to follow.

            Now, if you are expecting the person you are following to, even possibly meet you with a firearm directed at you. You do not wait until you are in front of their gun to take defensive actions, you must draw your own weapon, so that, at the least you will be equals, and hope that you will spot them first, making you the clear superior.

            So, either GZ knew that Trayvon was not armed when he decided to follow him, or GZ drew his fire arm when he started to follow. One of the two must be true, not both, if GZ is to be believed, and yet, since both of these statements can be true, both of them probably are. He knew that Trayvon was not armed and he drew his weapon when he began to follow him.

          • I’m with you Lonnie……He had his gun out….ready for action.

          • fauxmccoy says:


            I’m with you Lonnie……He had his gun out….ready for action.

            shouldn’t this read ‘THE gun’? i know that’s what i call mine :/
            snark off

          • Actually I stand corrected…..he had HER gun out…….

          • racerrodig says:

            “Hey, SheLie……I’m heading out to Target (someone)……I’m gonna use your pistol……Okay?

            “What, can’t you find yours again”

            “Naaaaaaa I left it in my pants and it’s so small anyway……”

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr.

            Waite just a minute, that’s a key piece of evidence there. GZ says he “thought” Trayvon was going for his gun. For him to think that, he had to know that he had the only gun there. Otherwise, he’d have been expecting to be met with a gun when he began to follow.

            Absolutely! Thanks for your excellent articulation. Now, consider this along with it; i.e., GZ said he “felt” Trayvon saw the gun and ran his hand down his chest going for it. Then, GZ said that after he fired the gun, Trayvon sat back with his hands up like giving up; like saying “Okay. I see you have a gun. I heard it.”

            GZ’s second version contradicts his first version.

            He knew that Trayvon was not armed and he drew his weapon when he began to follow him.

            Right. I don’t believe that Trayvon put his hand in his waistband. GZ was giving a “good shoot” line of bull to the dispatcher.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Right and even what TM was doing with his hands doesn’t ring true because between his phone, the skittles which he put in his pocket and the iced tea, Trayvon had plenty to keep his hands occupied yet GZ mentions nothing about any of these objects. Nothing about Trayvon’s hands being in his pockets.

      • ladystclaire says:

        @MMP, I have always thought Fogen had his gun out as well as, he was holding Trayvon at gunpoint as well. who knows, maybe this is something that was seen by someone unknown to us because, the prosecution is keeping this info close to the vest for trial.

        IT is my belief that, he was being watched the entire time by someone in that complex. as I keep saying, THE NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND EYES, and just when you think you’ve done something bad and, there is no one around who saw your dirty deed, you are sadly mistaken.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          With so many people in the complex aware that Fogen meant trouble, I sincerely doubt that anyone who saw him out there, would not have continued to watch him, if only to see what he was up to this time. I think BDLR says something about having a witness who saw the whole thing from start to finish. I noted that the discussion from O’mara about the cleaned up tape, brought no light of joy to GZ’s beady eyes.

          Were he actually innocent, and not just making up lies, he’d have to be overjoyed that there might be some evidence of what actually took place. In fact the opposite is the case, he seems to cringe whenever it’s mentioned that there is actual evidence.

          Bernie says that the 911 tape is in the process of being cleaned up! The defense is asking for it, instead of trying to get ahead of the prosecution, by having their own experts clean up and enhance their copy! I know if it was my case to defend, I wouldn’t be waiting for the prosecution to do all the analysis. Apparently Team Z doesn’t want to know what’s on that tape.

          Hey, if Omar is going to let the prosecution do all the work, he might just as well let them defend Fogen too! {:-O}

          • racerrodig says:

            Remember from day 1 O’ Mara has said he has evidence that shows Fogen is 100 % innocent. Well where is it….as I said before……..

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Can’t figure it out eh racer? Well, that’s only because MOM is a master strategist, he’s got everybody fooled. He strategically kept GZ innocence evidence secret, initially because they knew it would take time for the money to come in. But that damned BDLR kept the evidence mountain range growing so fast it blocked the cash flow.
            We should have all been millionaires drinking Mai Tai’s on the shores of Bora Bora, instead were still here performing miracles in the court of Judge Nelson. Putting Mr. Piñata West on the stand was a stroke of pure genius. Notwithstanding the silly motion failed but what can you expect from a court, being heavily influenced by BDLR’s dastardly production of evidence? We all know how unfair it is to produce evidence against The Foggenaught, even so, we expect the other side to stoop even lower as the case goes forward.

            Once we were sure there would be no further donations, we cleverly moved to withdraw our claim to the pretrial immunity hearing, thus allowing us to maintain the secrecy surrounding the valuable evidence of The Foggenaughts innocence.

            You see Mr. Racer, The Foggenaught’s crew knows that you and your ilk would like nothing better than to force us to reveal our exculpatory evidence so that you and your minions can go on the attack. Well, we’re waaaay ahead of you there, if need be The Foggenaught will carry that material to his grave, rather than allow you beasts to compromise or trash the sacred material. Every effort will be made to keep the evidence of The Foggenaught’s innocence hidden away from his enemies, it’s a sacred quest that, if it means The Foggenaught has to be confined for the rest of his life, he will not betray this sacred trust.

            BTW, We’ve already enrolled the Foggenaught in the Prison Cellblock Watch Program! So they won’t always get away anymore.
            I hope this helps to explain to you our strategy. Sincerely –Team Foggenaughts


      • ay2z says:

        racerodig, maybe MOM is so confident in the innocence factor, that he’s holding out for 200% innocent.

        Nothing in Tuesdays hearing. but the clearing of the waiver from defendant, had anything to do with moving the trial forward. Not even a bit of housekeeping. (well there was the afternoon discussion about jury selection in chambers)

      • Jun says:

        This is basically Omara’s spiel every time we see him on TV, whether for court or when he is selling snake oil on TV

        1) When presented with the opportunity to have complete immunity from civil and criminal action for the use of force, Omara skipped it because he is 2000000$ sure that trial is the best choice.

        2) Omara will roll the immunity hearing into the trial because he is good friends with the court and that is law, although stare decisis says otherwise

        3) Undisputed attacks and injuries and Trayvon has no injuries, when the issue has not even been disputed and debated in a reasonable manner in a court of law

        4) Someone give Omara money

        5) You must redact all negative information about Omara and Fogen, especially the issue where it was heard that I knew about hiding the passport and scheming money, I mean, Omara means, he is outraged by the discovery violation hence it should be redacted from the record

        6) Omara is not racist, and Fogen is also a non racist

        7) Omara makes a bunch of accusations and allegations with nothing to back it up except his own gossip that says it is so and having no witness to such allegation

        8) Omara is not ready, because the dog ate his homework repeatedly for over a year, but somehow the dog never is able to eat the speeches he writes where he accuses everyone else of something and his beg for money speeches

        9) Witness 8’s hospital visit or alleged hospital visit

        10) The media the media the media

    • Cercando Luce says:

      You are not the only one. I am however amazed that the press continues to base all its commentary on what GZ’s lawyers, or brother, or mother say on TV! Has not one reporter read through the evidence available?
      This unending credulousness has me thinking that we shouldn’t be making fun of O’Mara and West; they are master magicians, so well-versed in the art of deception and distraction that they COULD in fact persuade a jury to acquit based on what the jurors think they said. This team has managed to steer commentary in all the major (and minor) news outlets.
      If you’ve ever been fooled by a card trick, you know what I mean.

      • looolooo says:

        C Luce. Excellent statement. And unlike Rachael, I barely got a wink Tue. night. I was initially elated to witness BdlR’s steller performance, then my heart literally sank when I heard the questions aimed at the Fulton/Martin Attys by the willfully biased press corps. I was speechless when one after the other lodged their pro-defense questions at Crump, Parks, Jackson and the other guy. WTF! I won’t go into it, but Crump and especially Ms. Jackson laid it out for them. I’ve never seen her so emotional.

        Like you said. Have these people viewed the mountain of evidence that will/should convict Fogen?!

        Why hasn’t someone asked MOM about Fogen’s history of initiating violent confrontations, being fired for bullying, being demanding and overbearing. Why no questions about W9 his molested cousin (i’ve been waiting for someone to ask Joonyah about her), where are the questions about Trayvon being completely void of Fogen’s (satanic) DNA on his unbrused hands? Why haven’t we heard from the guy who complained at HOA meeting about Fogen’s confrontational and aggressive behavior? No questions to MOM about his lying about graduating. No questions about calling the cops on his landlord (whom he owed back rent). No questions about those packages he mailed to someone shortly after he murdered Trayvon. No questions about ………..

        And to even suggest that Sabrina and Tracy have a financial motivation…… O’mara and West are WORSE than Foolgen.

      • Jun says:

        The media is a greedy capitalist machine (not all but some of them)

        They dont care about people, they care about ratings and money

        Journalism, for the most part, has gone to crap

        There’s not a lot of trustworthy news media stations anymore

        You ever seen how popular Jerry Springer was?

        They are there to cause controversy

        Besides, all that stuff about Fogen is gonna come out in court at trial and it is gonna be proven that it’s all bullshit coming from Omara and Omara knows, otherwise, he would have his immunity hearing

        The media, I theorize, saw the over 2 million signatures and wanted to jump on the opportunity

        Besides if you watch the actual media folks in the courtroom, they were behind the state

      • looolooo says:

        @ Jun. How depressing. But you’re totally correct. Thanks for the encouragement.

    • racerrodig says:

      Well stated and trust me, you’re not the only one who feels that way.

      • FactsFirst says:

        I’m watching stateoftheinternet’s video of the 4/30’s hearing (part 4) At about 9:22, BDLR asked JN to “redact info from the GZLegal website and any other documents”.. Did anybody catch that? If so, What are they talking about?

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Ah, the dense… errr the defense were complaining about some unfortunate and/or unprofessional remarks in the record. Judge Nelson found that hilarious (in private) that lawyers trying a M2 would even waste time on remarks on the record that were not material. So, I think she was going to name the remarks, but thought better of wasting time and so just told them to submit what they wanted removed. It was just silliness you missed nothing.

          You have to read the moving papers, because very often all they do is make oblique references to the materials contained therein.

      • willisnewton says:

        Facts first: regarding what is being discussed at that point in the hearing- hard to tell but it seems to that the state wanted something redacted and the judge agreed. Then they led into a discussion about crumps settlement with the HOA so maybe it relates to that? Perhaps Crump is the common denominator.

      • FactsFirst says:

        Thanks, William! I figured if it had been published on the net, we should be able to find it and I just wanted to be nosey.. again, thanks..

      • FactsFirst says:


      • ay2z says:


        Don’t know if this connects to what BDLR said in court, but on the 30’s in the court docket– I assume this is a filed state motion, and not a court decision from the hearing.




    • Jun says:

      Bernie stated that in his earlier motion, that Omara is resorting to slandering and starting fights with prosecutors and lawyers, instead of focusing on the issue

  22. Rachael says:

    Fine Sundance, whatever – but it STILL has nothing to do with what happened THAT night.

  23. Sorry if this is repeated upthread, I’ll just put it here: There is a phone app for the Zimmerman case:


  24. colin black says:

    I still havent been able to watch yesterdays hearing anyone got a link..?
    Someone said stateoftheinternet had it up.
    But I couldnt see it at his site.

    Had hearing part one up.
    So started to watch an it wasnt yesterdays hearing but the last one.

  25. colin black says:



    My Brother will never be given the right to face a jury of his peers.How will it be poss to find enough Afroperuvianhispanicmericangermanonjewishaters to select the prospective jurours from.

    • Where was the movie “Deliverance” filmed?…..that would be a good place to start…..

      • colin black says:

        Well them loco local hillybillys would qualify as haters for sure.
        Also They are also non Jewish Id hope so thats another tick in the box.
        They may also have some Germanic bloodline as well many Americans or Mericans do.
        But your going to struggle with the African an Peruvian part of the equation.

        Im not buying it that any of those pig rapeing human rapeing murderous hillbillys had any of the African or Peruvian about there DNA.

        And after all acording to them thats the most vital part of there anncestry /heritage.

      • Plantain Republic says:

        L O L 😀

      • ay2z says:

        mountainmanpat says:
        May 1, 2013 at 5:07 pm
        ” Don’t cry for me Afro / Peruvia”

        ‘…the truth is, I’m a F’n racist’

        • I’m sorry…..I don’t understand your comment here……Are you implying I’m a racist?

        • If you were / are?…..then here’s a song for you……I think you should really listen to the last 2 lines of the song…..

          • PiranhaMom says:


            I don’t want to see two GOOD people wrangling.

            I loved “Evita!”, saw it with the original cast, and played the 8-track tapes in the car during my hour-long commute. But I forget the last two lines of the title song. Those 8-track days are way over 30 years ago …

            But I remember the second line, “The truth is, I never left you!” and I thought “The truth is, I’m an Effing Racist ” a great riff, and I smiled.

            Please don’t take an inadvertent comment personally – you are hugely admired … by ay2z and EVERYone.

            Let there be peace in the valley — and on the mountaintop.

            Pax, all.

          • To quote Elvis Costello……”What’s so Funny ‘Bout Peace Love & Understanding”

            All good…..just taken the wrong way before coffee….My bad? or such is life?

            MMP OUT

          • PiranhaMom says:


            You’re beautiful, my friend …

      • ay2z says:

        Oh no! mountainmanpat….

        Not saying YOU are racist at all!! I thought you were using the song line as a fogen voice parody “don’t cry for me, Afro/Peruvia” and I parodied the next line as “the truth is…. etc.”

        I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I put blockquotes around your line to distinguish your qyote, but it did not work, I think because I left the quotation marks in.

        Again, my apologies. I should have added more to explain what I was doing.


      • ay2z says:

        MMP, thanks. I may have missed the gist of the comments too, and taken a humor twist that wasn’t a good fit but an easy mis-understand.

      • ay2z says:

        Piranahmom and cielo, thanks, I always see MMP as a friendly soul and a dedicated and passionate follower of this case and all that it stands for. Visions of him mushing through the back country on his dogsled, (or machine), stopping off for a hot rum and bannock hot from the campfire. And then setting out his iPad for catching a ricocheted signal off the nearest peak to check in here

        Enjoy the Evita clip. When I went looking for a version, most had ads attached, seems everyone has a version out, but this one had no ad and is a beautifully performed version.

        MMP, hope you enjoy it too, complete with nice looking singer, beautiful voice.

  26. Mary Davis says:

    @ Rach @ SouthernGirl. Don’t you just love BDLR. I love his style, and imo he is very personable. Remember at the beginning when some of us thought that BDLR was not up to par. Well he never fooled me. Just look how he had West in that box. It was almost painful to watch. This is how he is gonna handle himself during the trial. Rest assured he will get a guilty verdict. Rachel, I also slept very well last night. I went to bed with a smile on my face.

    • Rachael says:

      Yes, I absolutely adore him!!! And I never thought he was not up to par. I knew it the moment I saw him in court. I did not find it painful at all. He was like an artist with a paintbrush and he painted that West right into a corner.

  27. I can’t help it:

    Lawyer Sparring

    Mark O’Mara: “Discovery violations!”

    BDLR: “Passports, hidden money and the Conservative Treehouse…”

    Sorry, it’s just a funny little theme I have noticed. Every time O’Mara says something, BDLR comes back with those 3 nightmarish things.

    That said, Fred is out for a while on errands and he will be addressing another post or topic later on.

    Hope everyone is well!

    • Well…..Warm….& Snowed in 😐

    • Jun says:

      Cant wait for another 50 million frivolous motions to be made by May 10th, 2013 from Omara

      I dont event know how they can claim discovery violations concerning witness 8, when they were repeatedly told and offered to depose witness 8, which is the source of the information they seek

      I believe since August at least, the state and the court told them to depose witness 8

      I also do not understand the FDLE, FBI, DOJ records claim either because they were offered and told by the state, to go straight to the agencies to get anything and everything they need, that they felt that they needed

      Then they made the cellphone claims when the state offered to them to come to watch the cell phone forensics be done and the defense declined

      So, why is it a discovery violation, if the defense refuses to be available, for the information they seek?

      Its the same as someone asking for a beer, and you saying “help yourself, it is in the fridge” and then that someone claims it is a discovery violation when they were offered the beer and to discover it on their own in the fridge

      • There haven’t been any ‘discovery violations’ at this point, I totally agree. (And so does the Judge, who found no prejudice at this point)

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          It just occurred to me that O’mara said the “cleaned up tapes happened before he became GZ’s lawyer”, then he goes on to say they were played for Tracey Martin. But way back then, the only tapes undergoing examination were the NEN call tapes where the big question of that day was what did GZ say? Coons, goons, cold or punks. While the tape played for Tracey needed no cleaning up, because the screams were clear. The only analysis done on that tape then was, to see if it could be determined whose voice it was. The experts determined that GZ was excluded, although they could not confirm the screams as Trayvon’s because they had no voice sample of his to compare it with.

          It seems what O’mara is doing is, trying to create confusion over which tape he’s talking about and when. He’s trying to take claims and statements made about one tape, and attributing them to the other tape.

          If so, then the fact that the judge blew right past his antics, tells me he’s already made her “pay me no mind” list.

          Meanwhile the waglist is harping about Trayvon’s “criminal record” and claiming that he was in a pre trial diversion program. Ha!

          Trayvon’s mother and father are both hard workers and, as we have seen, very classy people. They don’t to in for low brow high jinks of any kind and Trayvon lack even the slightest bit of “hipster isms” one would expect of someone growing up wild. He’s mannerly with a peaceful and jocular demeanor.

          But, even if they had discovered something of a record, it would have absolutely no probative value in this case at all. Because it could not have colored GZ’s view of this stranger, who he had witnessed doing nothing to warrant the interest of law enforcement, and therefore nothing to warrant his own interest as well.

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr.

            It seems what O’mara is doing is, trying to create confusion over which tape he’s talking about and when. He’s trying to take claims and statements made about one tape, and attributing them to the other tape.

            Yes. O’Mara (or was it West?) stated that Tracy heard a “cleaned up” version of the 911 call. Was it Bernie who said that Tracy heard the recording before the governor appointed special prosecutors? That led O’Mara to ask if attorney Crump has a cleaned up tape and he wanted the State to ask Crump.

            What the defense is doing is trying to limit the reason for the cleaned up or enhanced version to who was screaming, rather than there being two voices heard in the background. Bernie already told them that in court, and he also said it is not Brady material.

            We can read between the lines. If the defense is so sure they can prove it was GZ screaming, why the hell do they need an enhanced version of the recording? Naw — I suspect that O’Mara and West have heard GZ’s voice in the background cursing at Trayvon. They just want to know if the State has an enhance tape where it will be loud and clear to the jury.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            What??? Then they’ve got incredibly weak thought processes, even for a flop of a legal team. All they have to do is try to enhance the tape they have, if they can hear the voices clearly then they can assume that the SP has already done the same or will do it. I mean, even if you couldn’t guess, it’s been all over the net for months. BDLR has done nothing if not show that he’s net aware!

            MOM and WEST are astonishing! I’ll bet they don’t even go to the bars where the legal people hang out, for fear of the ridicule they’ll be served.

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr. The impression I get of the Feign Team is likened to the following;
            They ask for discovery — a book. The State gives them the book.
            A month later, the Feign Team complains that the State did not read the book out loud to them. The court tells them to hire someone to read the book out loud to them.

            Subsequently, the Feign Team complains they lack money to hire someone to read the book out loud to them, and when Judge Nelson begins to address that, West interrupts and says, “That really not the point I was trying to make.”

            Then he explains that his point is that someone else read the book before the State gave it to them, and they wants the names, addresses, social media accounts, last 5 years of tax returns, and blood type of every person who read the book.

          • PiranhaMom says:


            And, Xena, the reason O’Mara and West want “the names, addresses, social media accounts, last 5 years of tax returns, and blood type of every person who read the book” is to impeach them for some statement they made weeks after reading the book, unrelated to reading, unrelated to the book, but relating instead to, say, a later exchange like this:

            “Does that dress make you look fat? Of course not.”

            Because that person lied.

            The truth is, I look like Fogen in that dress, and they tried to spare my feelings.

            But O’Mara and West are certain that’s impeachment material, and that they will win their case on this.

            This is known as the “Fogen’s Dress” defense.

            Let’s see how it plays out

          • Xena says:


            This is known as the “Fogen’s Dress” defense.

            You explained it quite well. 🙂

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Yep, yep, yep! And MOM wonders why even the racists are abandoning his ship.. Man is that some bad lawyering, when you can’t even hold onto insanely emotionally driven white supremacist bigots.

          • One has to wonder why “white supremacist bigots” would support a self proclaimed Afro / Peruvian….a decent one at that.

            I would bet Afro / Peruvians aren’t allowed at cross burnings……

          • PiranhaMom says:


            O’Mara sez George wants a jury of his peers.

            Well, first of all, he’s a narcissist. It’s always “all about him.”

            So — I’m all in favor of giving Zimmerman six narcissists to decide his fate.

            How much “consideration” would these six give him?

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Give him what? They’d hate his very guts for taking the spotlight away from them. Worse yet, their knowing of the favorable and even admirable attention they’d get for a guilty verdict, the narcissist could bring back nothing else. 😆 Nope, the foggenaught does not want a jury of his peers, for sure.

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Lonnie –

            You got it, Lonnie.

            With a full of narcissists, GZ gets nuthin.’

          • PiranhaMom says:


            I’m getting the sense that if an outright White Supremacist does manage to slip past Bernie and gest on the jury, that the W-S juror is going to reject Zimmerman because “He’s not our kind of racist. Gives the W-S community a bad name.”

            That’s already happened in the gun-owning community (of which I am a member).

            Has nothing to do with Fogen’s supposed Afro-Peruvian ethnicity.

            Has everything to do with Fogen’s stupidity.

            Who really wants to stand up for a really, really dumb guy?

          • PMom

            My neighbor down the mountain stands up for him……Well he was last summer when I last talked with him…….

            Dude knows a lot about the rocks around here……not much else…

          • PiranhaMom says:


            Pat, I live in a politically-“conservative” region with many retired military. I have tons of contacts in the media and am considered, after all these decades, as good for a pithy quote or newsbite on the local political scene.

            So — when I run into old friends, the first thing they want to know is what am I “into” these days?

            When the Zimmerman Murder 2 case comes up, all they know is the GZ racist media barrage. I was shocked by their pro-GZ stance. I point out that the prosecution isn’t permitted to publicize their case, as the defense is doing – so they hear only one side of it.

            I’m met with an “ohhhh….” awareness response. Apparently people outside the legal profession are unaware of this.

            Next I say, “Answer me this … ” and I fling myself down on the floor and re-create “Zimmerman’s final struggle – and gunshot.”

            At the point that I struggle to hold onto my imaginary adversary, whilst trying to draw my gun out from under my butt, the audience is convulsed in laughter. (And yes, this does draw an audience. I’ve even “performed” in parking lots.)

            But the phenomenon I’m seeing each time is that EVERY Zimmerman believer starts telling ME how this claim by Zimmerman is total rot. I’m there trying to get the gun out from under my righteous gluteus maximus and the OBSERVERS are starting up their own dialog why Zimmerman has got to be GUILTY.

            So, a little show & tell makes the difference. EVERY TIME so far.

            Based on that, Pat, I’m thinking any unconvinced souls that O’Mara gets on the jury won’t remain unconvinced much longer.

          • racerrodig says:

            Same here with the reenactment. It’s to point that just fact telling conveys the point. We didn’t have many Zidiots in my area for some reason, and the few in the beginning were “rocks for brains” mentality, but when I put them on the the spot with “…Riddle me this Batman” it’s followed by “…let the stuttering begin…”

            From that point, they turn 180 or just stop spewing that Zidiot Rhetoric and move on.

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Racer –

            I’ve served on juries and idiots are rare. They may not understand gravity or aerodynamics, but they were able to register to vote and get a driver’s license. They passed at least one test in the process.

            On juries, the cream quickly rises to the top. The foreman or forewoman gets elected to the job quickly. Always seems to be an analytical person, not flashy, not charismatic, but hugely respected.

            The lone idiot quickly realizes he or she is at the bottom of the heap.

            Then, the phenomenon I’ve noticed is that the “non analytical but charismatic person(s)” on the jury – often in sales, with people skills, or “caring type of people” (health care professionals, hands-on medical people) gravitate toward the loser.

            They seem to sense their role in this life & death drama: deliver the dunce … by empowering the dunce to rise to the level of basic, intelligent functional thought – on the issue at hand. And they realize this person will need a coherent story to go outside the jury box with – go home to family, friends and neighbors with what he or she learned, and not be outcast.

            Part of this is role playing inside the Jury Room, in preparation for being polled on their verdicts. Each stands and declares “guilty” (if that is the consensus) and sees ahead the personal impact saying that has – the impact on themselves.

            This is how unanimity is developed. There just seems to be a “calling” on juries for each juror to use his or her life skills to deliver the verdict.

            I expect this to happen in this case.

          • racerrodig says:

            I do expert work for several lawyers in Consumer Fraud civil cases and I know a bit about juries. You have it nailed. I think the Zidiots I’ve run across thought they were on the most popular view side in the beginning. They were a small number and since they were easy to educate, I’d say even if one of them gets in the jury box, being outnumbered and with the weight of the evidence, I’d say they’d rethink this pretty quickly.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            The “average” racist will be hoping the case goes to deliberations, with so much controversy and so much in contest, that there is plenty of room to hide their racist opinions behind controversy.

            However, in this case a few OMG moments will clearly force them to realize that there just isn’t going to be that kind of cover available. They don’t want to go into the jury room and find all jurors but them self, voting for the exact same color, where they had hopes there would be votes for several different colors. 99 people out of 100, when they see that they are out of step with everyone else they will feel the pressure to capitulate. This will be most especially true, if they also understand why they’re all alone in their quest.

          • cielo62 says:

            P-Mom~ VIDEOTAPE IT AND POST IT!! With a warning, of course. “Don’t watch while drinking liquids of any kind near a monitor.”


          • cielo62 says:

            P-Mom~ YOU are an NRA member? Man, I HATE you and MMP, and even faux mccoy! Now I can no longer lump all gun owners in the same cesspit that I USED to. Learning wisdom really sux.  😦

              ( In Texas, the gun owners here are really rabid and not sensible at all. It’s easy to dislike them intensely)

          • PiranhaMom says:


            In a million years I would never be a member of the NRA. I love MMPat, and he finds value in it, and if it serves him, well bless him.

            Each of us is entitled to our own choice of affiliations. I have always considered the NRA a political pressure group, and when it comes to political pressure, I like to apply my own.

            In fact, I doubt the NRA would welcome me. I believe in strict gun registration, and to those who assert, “That makes it easy for the government to take it away.” I think that’s blather, and if it ever did come to pass, I have the perfect solution:

            I’d keep it on my desk.
            I challenge you to find ANYthing on my desk.

            I have a 9-shot Sturm Ruger revolver and underwent a 2-week LAPD investigation before it was a released to me. That was decades ago and was the standard. Mostly it’s loaded with snake-shot (tiny, tiny pellets) for the noise effect. I don’t shoot snakes. I like them and relocate them out of harm’s way.

            I hunt upland game only for food and serve and eat everything I kill. I don’t believe Safeway or Kroger or Stater Brothers should do all my killing for me. I try to use some skill – I hunt with a small, elegant Beretta 20 gauge Monocanna Ripieghevole shotgun with d’Ougree Marihaye steel monobloc barrel.

            I am not a vegetarian, and when I eat meat, I know it was once some animal’s life. I also dive to hunt – sea scallops, lobster and now very rarely, abalone. I know they were once alive, too.

            As to gun “rights”, I don’t think the 2nd Amendment gives me any rights except as a militia member or in the military. I think gun ownership is a privilege that should be earned, with periodic testing — more often than a driver’s license. As to “militia service” I think we should all be prepared, like the Swiss, to serve our country – and practice every week to keep our shootin’ eye sharp. I would exempt pacifists on religious grounds.

            So I don’t see any welcome from the NRA on the horizon, Cielo, but on the other hand, I do not need them, so we go our separate ways.

            FYI I am now sheltering 6 cliff swallow nests – messiest house guests you’ll ever have – they show up March 23 every year, then head out mid-summer after the fledglings have learned to fly.

            They are protected migratory birds, so they never see the Beretta.
            Beauregard thinks I’m crazy

          • cielo62 says:

            P-Mom~ Don’t know if I’ve said it before, but I’d love to meet you, too! AND Beauregard! And you see? MORE of my stereotyping; not all gun owners are members of the NRA. Just something else I’ve learned today.

              WOW! Cliff swallows! Under the eaves in school we currently have nesting European starlings, sparrows, mourning doves and pigeons. ALL messy but we are tickled to have them to observe. At home here, we have a blue jay that likes to tease the cats near the window. I just enjoy watching all this better than people.


  28. ay2z says:

    About the appeals court docket nomenclature, there are several terms for the source of filings, 1. petitioner 2,, appellee and 3. respondent.

    The firt two are clear, the petitioner is the person filing the wrut in this case, and the appellee is the other side of that coin, in this case, the Attorney General.

    But is the respondent just anyone or any entity that files documents or supporting documents in response? Anyone that is, other than either the appellee or the petitioner?

    • ay2z says:

      Oh SH#!&!! requires some creative leaps to figure out a few of those typos. Sorry

    • The party that files an appeal is the appellant. The party that files the response is the appellee.

      The party that files a petition for a writ is called the petitioner. The party that files the response is the respondent.

      Defendant filed the petition for the writ of certiorari, so defendant is the petitioner.

      The State of Florida and Benjamin Crump would be the respondents.

  29. Malisha says:

    I’m wondering if Lykkebak is filing an affidavit having to do with giving information from the HOA settlement to the defense. Perhaps Lykkebak is trying to intervene on behalf of some third party?

    • ay2z says:

      But he’s a criminal defense lawyer who, according to his website, specializes in this area, doesn’t say he does civil defense.

  30. Malisha says:

    Wow, that’s interesting! Lykkebak is one of those “superlawyers” who only take high-ticket cases, I believe. He’s also on the committee to legalize marijuana if I’m not mistaken.

    An affidavit saying that it’s possible to do an immunity hearing rolled into a trial? Huh? Or what? ❓

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Lykkebak is an Orlando lawyer – does this mean he’s also – at least marginally – part of Fogen’s defense team?

      • ay2z says:

        Can’t imagine the state asking for a specialist in criminal defense to write an affidavit. Must be the defense, could be related to the motions for sanctions etc as they had other defense lawyers provide affidavits about hourly fees, for example.

    • colin black says:

      If he wants to legalise Marijuana I have an idea for foggagge he should hire this Lykkebak an have him defend him.

      Have his defence rolled into a joint as one would have to be stoned to make any rhyme or reason of his version of events.
      One way or another the joint looms large in foggagges future.

  31. ay2z says:

    docket is updated with yesterday’s activities, but it’s confusing to post as is.

    An affidavit was added from a criminal defense lawyer, presumably in support of one of the defense motions.


  32. boar_d_laze says:


    I agree with everything you said in your initial post, but would like to add a few things:

    If the defense requested the Immunity Hearing (IH) and the Defendant testified, the Defendant would have waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as a result and could be called to the stand during the actual trial.

    In the trial, the prosecution goes first. If they introduce any statements made by the Defendant (or anyone else for that matter) during their phase; the defense can introduce the remainder of the statement for purposes of cross during the prosecution’s case or for ANY purpose during its own case.

    Mr. O’Mara may be waiting and hoping that he can choose from whatever statements Mr. Zimmerman made which are most helpful without exposing Mr. Zimmerman to cross. If I’d been in Mr. O’Mara’s shoes and had waived the IH, that would have been part of my reasoning.

    From a trial defense attorney’s standpoint, my largest fear about a pre-trial IH would be that a loss would fatally prejudice any potential jury anywhere. If the case were not so public, I think it would be damn near malpractice not to go for it — even given the facts.

    However Mr. Zimmerman’s case is so well publicized that it’s ruining the SYG defense for ordinary murderers who might otherwise have walked.

    While not knowing enough Florida law to express an actual “opinion,” my guess is that no motion in limine is necessary to keep stand your ground immunity away from the trial jury as it has a different standard of proof (preponderance) than guilt or innocence (guilt or innocence); it appears to be “judge” and not a “jury matter” anyway; and there’s nothing in the statute to indicate a jury decision was contemplated by the statute — there’s no indication of what size jury is required, whether or not unanimity is required, no suggested instructions, etc.

    The whole thing is too confusing for judicial legislation, let alone for a jury guided by ad-hoc instructions from the bench.

    I expect the trial judge could make an immunity finding one way or the other when and if the defense requested one as part of a Motion to Dismiss after the prosecution’s case in chief; and/or after a “not guilty” verdict.


    • If the defense requested the Immunity Hearing (IH) and the Defendant testified, the Defendant would have waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as a result and could be called to the stand during the actual trial.

      I do not agree that the prosecution could call the defendant to the stand, if he testified during a pretrial immunity hearing. They cannot do that if a defendant testifies at a pretrial suppression hearing because that would constitute compulsive self-incrimination or punishment in violation of the Fifth Amendment as a result of asserting a constitutional right to testify in support of a motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of a Fourth, Fifth or Sixth amendment right.

      I believe the same reasoning would apply to testifying in support of a statutory right to immunity from criminal and civil liability.

      Although I do not believe the prosecution can call the defendant to the stand, if he testifies at a pretrial immunity hearing, I do not believe there is any question that they can use his statements as admissions by a party opponent, subject to the rule of completeness as you pointed out.

      One of the problems with this SYG law is the ambiguity caused by the absence of legislative and judicial rules.

    • SearchingMind says:


      Could your pls. clarify the following:

      “If the defense requested the Immunity Hearing (IH) and the Defendant testified, the Defendant would have waived his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent as a result and could be called to the stand during the actual trial.”

      IMO, the 5th Amendment right to remain silent is absolute and can be invoked at any time – regardless of whether or not the defendant initially waived that right. If the defendant waives his right to remain silent and talks, he/she can invoke that right at any given moment and stop talking. I am not sure this is what you are saying. Pls. clarify.

      Would you also like to clarify the following:

      “I expect the trial judge could make an immunity finding one way or the other when and if the defense requested one as part of a Motion to Dismiss after the prosecution’s case in chief …”.

      My question is: “Motion to Dismiss” based on a claim of SYG/Self-defense immunity from prosecution? Pls. clarify (if possible citing any authority), because it seems binding case law does not support that position.

      • boar_d_laze says:


        With few exceptions, once a person has testified in a judicial proceeding in which he’s a defendant, he’s waived his 5th A privilege as to that proceeding. For instance, he cannot testify in his own behalf and then refuse to answer the prosecution’s questions — at least he cannot refuse without consequence.

        You see, the heart of the privilege is not the testimony itself, it’s the consequences of not testifying.

        Waiver doesn’t mean that a defendant can be forced to testify in the sense that a court can order him to testify under penalty of torture, or even under threat of contempt. It does mean the jury can not only take the Defendant’s refusal as indicia of guilt, they will be given an instruction to that effect.

        This is cut and dried, and well-settled since forever. You don’t get an IMO.

        The crux of the disagreement between Professor Leatherman and me is whether testimony in a pre-trial SYG Immunity Hearing would count as testimony in the same proceeding or not. When I wrote my previous post I thought it probably did. Upon reflection, since the jury isn’t present at an IH, I’m not as sure.

        Not to stray too far from your questions — the thrust of my argument was not whether or not Mr. Zimmerman could be forced to testify, but whether his risk of losing at the Immunity Hearing in such an intense spotlight was worth taking for a reward which could probably be gained later.

        And — let’s face it — Mr. Zimmerman’s chances at an Immunity Hearing didn’t look good.

        Waived or not, the privilege probably doesn’t signify as a practical matter in this case. Making a case of self-defense without the defendant’s testimony is almost impossible. For instance, so much depends on the defendant’s state of mind.

        The defense can (and almost certainly will) make a Motion to Dismiss once the prosecution has finished its case in chief on the basis that the prosecution has so completely failed to prove its case, that it should not go to a jury.

        If, at that time, the defense believes that sufficient evidence has been educed (through cross examination, prosecution exhibits, etc.) to show that by a preponderance of the evidence it may move for a finding… Maybe. I’m not sure if Florida Crim pro allows it or not.

        Similarly, the defense may make a motion for a finding of Immunity following the verdict. Maybe.

        The substance is whether or not the court (aka the judge) has seen enough evidence; not whether it was produced before or at trial. Substance aside, Florida Rules of Crim Pro may or may not allow it.

      • boar_d_laze says:


        You wrote: “My question is: “Motion to Dismiss” based on a claim of SYG/Self-defense immunity from prosecution? Pls. clarify (if possible citing any authority), because it seems binding case law does not support that position.”

        You misunderstood what I wrote. I never suggested a Motion to Dismiss based on “a claim of SYG/Self-Defense immunity from prosecution.”

        Self defense is an affirmative defense and must be proven by defendant.

        In case it needs further clarification, what I meant was that the Defendant could submit a Motion to Dismiss after the prosecution’s case in chief, based on the prosecution’s failure to present sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and could, simultaneously submit a separate Motion for Immunity based on evidence which (the defense would claim) was sufficient to support Immunity by a preponderance.

        That is, although submitted at the same time, and relying on some of the same facts the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Immunity would be distinct and separate.

        I did not say or mean to say that I thought it was a good idea, or that there would be enough evidence to support it… I meant that I thought it might be allowed under Florida’s rules of criminal procedure. The point being that Mr. Zimmerman probably had not lost the right to an Immunity finding from the trial judge, even though he’d waived the pre-trial hearing.

        On the other hand, in the event that Mr. Zimmerman is acquitted, I would be surprised if the Defendant did not submit a post-trial Motion for Immunity — presuming it’s allowed.

        I’ve been very clear that I’m not an expert on Florida Crim Pro, and that a lot of my “educated guesses” are based on experience in other jurisdictions. On the other hand, I am an actual attorney with fair amounts of criminal trial and appellate experience. Your reference to “binding case law,” while simultaneously failing to cite to it and asking me for authority is not impressive.


      • SearchingMind says:


        First of all, thank you very much for your clarifications. In my daily activities, I do take the principles of ‘precision and clarity’ seriously as I do utterances of other “actual lawyers”. As such I requested you to clarify some of your statements that are at best vague and misleading or at worst flat-out incorrect. People visit this blog to learn and we all want them to be correctly informed.

        I your reply up thread (and you do NOT disagree with me on the absoluteness of the 5th amendment), it seems you might have made even more serious mistakes which I will be addressing one after the other with a request for clarification:

        You claimed:

        “With few exceptions, once a person has testified in a judicial proceeding in which he’s a defendant, he’s waived his 5th A privilege as to that proceeding. For instance, he cannot testify in his own behalf and then refuse to answer the prosecution’s questions — at least he cannot refuse without consequence. (…). It does mean the jury can not only take the Defendant’s refusal as indicia of guilt, they will be given an instruction to that effect.”

        This assertion is again at best vague and misleading and at worst flat-out wrong – based on the following:

        A. It is unclear what “few exceptions” you have in mind;

        B. IF a defendant testifies on direct examination/examination in chief, he/she voluntarily waives his Fifth Amendment rights for cross-examination ONLY for subjects covered in his direct examination. Your assertion with regard to the scope of the cross examination is/appears all encompassing. And that is wrong. A defendant may still assert a Fifth Amendment right if the prosecution were, on cross, to veer into some other, uncharged area.

        D. IF the defendant in question refuses to answer questions on cross-examination, court may impose one or more of the following sanctions: “(1) permit the prosecution to comment on the defendant’s refusal to answer; (2) permit the prosecution to impeach the defendant’s direct testimony by continuing to elicit his unprivileged refusal to answer; (3) instruct the jury that it may take the defendant’s refusal to answer various questions into account when reaching a verdict; and/or (4) strike the defendant’s direct testimony.” United States v. King, 200 F.3d 1207, 1217 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). See also Williams v. Borg, 139 F.3d 737, 740 (9th Cir.) striking of state defendant’s testimony following his refusal to answer questions regarding prior convictions was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate on facts presented), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 937 (1998).

        E. The Court (contrary to what you state) may NOT instruct the jury to take “Defendant’s refusal as indicia of guilt”. Honestly, I am astonished by what you claim. Such will amount to serious, actual judicial bias and a direct violation of the 6th Amendment. Such an instruction will lead to (a) mistrial (b) a successful Motion to Recuse or (c) overturning a guilty verdict on direct appeal.

        It appears you misspoke. Pls. clarify.

      • SearchingMind says:


        Would you please clarify the following. Your wrote:

        “You misunderstood what I wrote. I never suggested a Motion to Dismiss based on “a claim of SYG/Self-Defense immunity from prosecution.”

        And yet, you claim:

        “What I meant was that the defendant could submit a Motion to Dismiss after the prosecution’s case in chief, based on the prosecution’s failure to present sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and could, simultaneously submit a separate Motion for Immunity based on evidence which (the defense would claim) was sufficient to support Immunity by a preponderance.”

        These claims are just wrong on several fundamental grounds:

        a. The first and the second statements are contradictory. Both cannot be correct at the same time. On the one hand you claim (a) “I never suggested a Motion to Dismiss based on a claim of SYG/Self-Defense immunity from prosecution”. On the other hand you claim (b) “the defendant (…) could, simultaneously submit a separate Motion for Immunity based on evidence which (the defense would claim) was sufficient to support Immunity by a preponderance.” Surely you are talking about “SYG/Self-Defense” based immunity, no? Or do you have a different kind of immunity in mind?

        b. Nowhere in any State of the Union (incl. the State of California) can an indictment or Information be “dismissed” “based on the prosecution’s failure to present sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”. Whether or not ‘reasonable doubt’ exist is a matter for the jury to decide – not the judge (where the defendant has elected for trial by jury). The judge may not dismiss a case because he/she thinks that the prosecution has not proven its case “beyond reasonable doubt” nor may any Motion be brought to that effect.

        c. In all States of the Union and specifically in the State of Florida, these are the common grounds for dismissing an indictment or information:

        1. Violation of the Statute of Limitations;
        2. Violation of Speedy Trial Rule;
        3. SYG/self-defense immunity (SYG not applicabel in all States);
        4. The defendant is charged with an offense for which the defendant has been pardoned;
        5. The defendant is charged with an offense for which the defendant previously has been placed in jeopardy;
        6. The defendant is charged with an offense for which the defendant previously has been granted immunity;
        7. there are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant, etc.

        Failure to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt is NO ground to dismiss a case – anywhere in the United States and no judge is vested with any authority do such.

        Again, boar_d_laze, it seems you misspoke. Pls. clarify.

      • groans says:

        @boar_d_laze, re:

        …what I meant was that the Defendant could submit a Motion to Dismiss after the prosecution’s case in chief, based on the prosecution’s failure to present sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and could, simultaneously submit a separate Motion for Immunity based on evidence which (the defense would claim) was sufficient to support Immunity by a preponderance.

        That doesn’t appear to be accurate under Florida procedure. In Florida, Motions to Dismiss are pretrial motions and, during trial, there’s a separate procedure for “motions for acquittal.”

        I don’t believe that a motion for immunity can be raised during trial, based on the Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Dennis case.

    • Malisha says:

      Also I believe that the prosecution CAN appeal a judge-made grant of immunity at a SYG hearing while a prosecution canNOT appeal acquittal by a jury. This would totally screw up all appellate procedures if allowed to be “rolled into” trial.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Excellent point, Malisha.

      • boar_d_laze says:


        You wrote: “I believe that the prosecution CAN appeal a judge-made grant of immunity at a SYG hearing while a prosecution canNOT appeal acquittal by a jury. This would totally screw up all appellate procedures if allowed to be “rolled into” trial.

        It’s not like there’s NO appeal after an acquittal. The prosecution cannot appeal a “not guilty” verdict, but it can appeal a variety of other things that went on during the trial.

        What’s the difference? Double jeopardy.

        Double jeopardy would not attach to a grant of immunity by a judge whether the grant was based on evidence brought forth in front of a jury or not, because. post-trial, the defendant’s criminal rights as to the same facts are no longer at issue.

        Appellate courts are usually (stressing the word “usually,” although “barely” may have been better) competent to tease out those threads over which they have jurisdiction, leaving alone those threads over which they do not.


  33. SearchingMind says:

    Re: Writ of Certiorari

    I THINK that Mr. Crump and Mr. Blackswell have responded to the Writ of Certiorari on the 29th of April 2013. That response is TIMELY pursuant to RULE 2.514(a)(1)(A)(B)(C) of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. I hope they can still include the admissions made by ‘Witness West’ on the stand on the 30th of May 2013 (re: edited tape, incomplete affidavit, etc.). Those admissions are very damaging for the claims made in that Writ and also in evaluating the personal and professional credibility of O’Mara and ‘Witness West’, (IMO).

  34. FactsFirst says:

    #Donated Wish I could afford to send you and Crane on a nice vacation… Thanks for all that you do… You are appreciated…. BET THAT!

  35. pat deadder says:

    I just don’t understand what the defense strategy was of putting West on the stand.When fogen was sworn in did they ask if what he was about to say was the truth I couldn’t hear if so they should have added for once.

    • ay2z says:

      Yes, he was sworn in as usual.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      The strategy is a lot of smoke and mirrors to cover the defense of no defense, Pat.

    • Xena says:

      @Pat Deadder.

      I just don’t understand what the defense strategy was of putting West on the stand.

      O’Mara proceeded on that like a party proceeds on a Rule to Show Cause to find contempt. That procedure is common in family cases, in which O’Mara has more experience.

      O’Mara called West to testify that the State violated rules of discovery, as if the court had already made that finding. They wasted the court’s time, but Bernie’s cross of West made West appear like what he is — someone making spurious, half-truth allegations.

  36. Rachael says:

    I slept last night better than I have in a long time!

  37. Nef05 says:

    Padowitz got me curious (Thanks ay2z – for the link to the interview). Here’s what I found. Florida Supreme Court appeal, two cases where immunity under 776.032 was denied and trials held. I focused on procedure only. So, on page 8 – there’s this,under procedures.

    § 776.032, Fla. Stat. (2006). “Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190 sets out procedures for the filing and consideration of a motion to dismiss in a criminal proceeding. The relevant provisions of the rule state:
    (c) Time for Moving to Dismiss. Unless the court grants further time, the defendant shall move to dismiss the indictment or information either before or at arraignment. The court in its discretion may permit the defendant to plead and thereafter to file a motion to dismiss at a time to be set by the court. Except for objections based on fundamental grounds, every ground for a motion to dismiss that is not presented by a motion to dismiss within the time hereinabove provided shall be considered waived.”

    SC09-941 – Florida Supreme Court


    Judge Nelson clearly gave them an extended deadline of 45 days prior to trial. Which was a year past the arraignment? I think that was more than generous. SO, if I understand both Padowitz and this document correctly – there will be no question of immunity during trial? Which leads one to wonder if O’Mara didn’t bother to have his interns at the crackhouse do some basic research (took me about 10 minutes or so) or he already knew this and is spinning the *roll into trial meme* for his donors, and will just play dumb when it eventually gets out (and it will, we’ll make sure of it 😀 )

    Would some of you guys take a look at it and see if you see the same thing I do, or if my understanding is a little off (I REALLY want this to be true, so I’m not unbiased, I could be reading into it what I want to see).

    • Malisha says:

      It’s about distraction.
      O’Mara had to distract the Fogenites about the fact that he could not risk a SYG hearing. Then he had to distract them (with frivolous motions and fussing and fuming) about the fact that BDLR put Fogen on the spot to say YES I DO WAIVE THE SYG HEARING.

      At trial he will have a thousand ways to distract the Fogenites. Every word said will end up being spun around by Junior and the Outhousers and possibly AllthatDershitz and JeraMeritless and there will be distractions aplenty for those worryberry-gnats and the composition of the jury and even the onlookers in the courthouse and the doxing of jurors and potentials and the Stilts of Stutz and the Hannityschmannityschmoo — the “rolled in SYG” will slip out of the little minds of the lofty Outhousers.

      A domestic relations lawyer knows how to do distraction. That’s all they EVER do. In the forum they’re trained in, there are only two procedures to follow: distraction and corruption.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Thanks for the morning grins, Malisha! 😀

      • Nef05 says:

        Exactly – besides spinning things that make no sense the sheer brazenness of the outright lies he spews is disgusting.

        • racerrodig says:

          And the fun part is most of it will never be said in court and unless every potential juror hears what he says, it is a incredible waste of time.

    • SearchingMind says:

      “Would some of you guys take a look at it and see if you see the same thing I do, or if my understanding is a little off (I REALLY want this to be true, so I’m not unbiased, I could be reading into it what I want to see).”

      You understand it correctly. Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability is no longer in play – according to binding case law. GZ has forfeited that right (regardless of what his rabid supporters say, some of whom hide behind the cliché: “liberal lawyers”). If GZ files a Motion for Declaration of Immunity during the trial, that Motion will promply be dismissed as “untimely” (no hearing will be required).

      HOWEVER, forget not that the rule you refer to has 5-major exceptions, four of which are explicitly stated and one of which (i.e. “fundamental grounds”) is ambiguous (the case law is casuistic on what is meant by “fundamental grounds”) . Anyways, none of these exceptions apply in GZ’s case, IMO. Basically, GZ will therefore get a normal murder trial where he – in order to put forward his self defense – must take the stand. GZ if effed.

      • SearchingMind says:

        I meant “promptly” not ‘promply’.

      • Malisha says:

        I believe “fundamental grounds” often means the judge WANTS to do something so a reason is given. I don’t think it will be an issue in the Fogen trial. Fundamental grounds were available when the immunity hearing was waived as well as at any other time.

      • Nef05 says:

        Great, thank you and pardon my late reply, please. I have to believe O’Mara already knows this, heck even the treehouse has already cited this info, so he must just be spinning for dollars. As you state – FZ is effed, so O’Mara’s trying to get what he can. (imo)

      • groans says:

        From what I’ve read, “fundamental grounds” would be things like constitutional grounds and jurisdictional grounds.

        IMO, a common law or statutory defense such as self-defense – and Florida’s relatively recent “super-sizing” of it to allow, PROCEDURALLY, for a pretrial determination of immunity from prosecution – does not rise to the level of the “fundamental grounds” exception to the timeliness requirements for Rule 3.190(b) pretrial defense motions established by Rule 3.190(c).

        From what I’ve read, the term “fundamental grounds” is probably best understood and interpreted by considering “fundamental rights,” which is a fairly well developed – if evolving – concept in the law.

    • ladystclaire says:

      @Nef05, Just want you to know that, I hope your mom is doing well and, that she can go home and recover in familiar surroundings. as for you, take it as easy as possible and get some rest. GOD bless, Lady

      • Nef05 says:

        Thank you so much, Lady. Positive support from all my friends real and virtual is helping me to stay sane and focused on getting her the best treatment possible. Unfortunately, we have a big fight ahead. Not only did they find a cancerous mass while she was there, (for a totally unrelated reason), she then fell and broke her hip (yes, IN the hospital) the night before we were to see the oncologist for a treatment plan, and had to have emergency surgery.

        Nevertheless, she has a very engaged medical team of specialists, a strong circle of love and support, and an iron will(which is why she tried to get up without calling the nurse, first). We are very hopeful and taking the time to express your support means the world to me. Thank you!!!

        • PiranhaMom says:


          Special prayers to you and your valiant mother, Nef.

          When it comes to spirit, you are your Mama’s daughter!

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      Added to the “notable comments” section in my Master revisable Timeline , where you will find a link back to the post. This is an excellent piece of work, thank you.

      • Nef05 says:

        I always consider your comments to be thoughtful, insightful and perspicacious. Being included in your master revisable timeline is an honor, Lonnie. Thank you!

    • racerrodig says:

      The basic law you are stating is what all of us have come to understand.

      “Immunity from Prosecution” is as obvious in it’s meaning as “please turn off the lights”

      • This headline just came to my inbox from sodahead…….Did they do this for kicks? 🙂

        “Is George Zimmerman Guilty of Murder? Lingerie for Men, LiLo’s Rehab Blog and More‏”

        • racerrodig says:

          He may have done it as some warped “kicks” thing to prove his manhood to Taaffe, it could have been a “dare” of sorts. The problem is that he’s so screwed in the head, we may never know.

      • Nef05 says:

        Absolutely. Which begs the question, what the hell is O’Mara thinking? Other than – stringing the donors along, of course.

        • racerrodig says:

          “…what the hell is O’Mara thinking? …”

          And he stated this is costing $400.00 an hour for his time and $350.00 for West’s time……for $750.00 an hour I’d expect a little better game plan………….but that’s just me.

    • groans says:

      IMO, Judge Nelson’s generous deadline of April 26 (at the latest) for the defense to assert immunity has been waived – Rule 3.190(c) is mandatory: “shall be considered waived” if not timely made.

      And I don’t believe the relatively recent statutory immunity constitutes “fundamental grounds” within the meaning of Rule 3.190(c).

  38. ay2z says:

    ‘need to demonstrate substantial injuries’, ‘suspect for reasonableness”……

    Posted 1 week ago.

    • ay2z says:

      Look at this timing! — published on Youtube Feb 25, 2012, one day before Trayvon was killed.

      Makes you wonder if this ABC Action News aired in Sanford (of course it did, ABC is everywhere plus internet) , and was it something that the killer of Trayvon watched in the day or days before he took his action against f’n punks.


      • Rachael says:

        At 1:17 – “First thing though Norm, we have to say, you don’t want to put yourself in a situation where you may have to use your weapon, correct?”. . . “We have a simple philosophy. It is easier to avoid it than to extricate yourself from it.”

        If he did hear it, he didn’t listen.

        I wasn’t able to listen to the rest, but that right there speaks volumes.

      • Cercando Luce says:

        It would be interesting to hear these journalists ask him what he thought of the events of the following day, 2/26/12.

      • ay2z says:

        Can’t find that story posted on ABC’s archive yet, so don’t know when it was aired yet.

      • ay2z says:

        ABC published this story one month after Trayvon was killed.

        “Firearm Expert on Trayvon Martin controversy”

    • Rachael says:

      Ahhh, that was good! Thank you for posting that.

    • ay2z says:

      (correction, the video above is dated April 2012, sorry for the mistake)

      Below ‘Firearms SYG expert’ video was published on Youtube the day before Trayvon died, that is correct. Don’t know yet when ABCgo aired it originally, but on or before this youtube date.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      This is well worth a watch – these guys have no dog in the fight and look at the case dispassionately.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Ooops – my comment not posting where I thought it would – I’m speaking of the first video posted by SY2Z.

  39. KA says:

    Does anyone have a thought on the new motions warned by the defense on evidence that will take “ALL DAY”?

  40. KA says:

    I am one who does not think MOM was after money today in court…I think he was after TIME! He was hoping a violation and prejudice ruling would mean a continuance…

  41. Two sides to a story says:

    JR on the Larry Elder show today. https://soundcloud.com/coreshift/robert-zimmerman-on-the-larry

  42. fauxmccoy says:

    riddle me this, leatherman

    how in the hell do o’mara and west plan to present an ‘affirmative defense’ such as self defense without putting the defendant on the stand?

    clearly, they wish to avoid just this or there would have been an immunity hearing. what are the chances of an affirmative defense with no testimony from the defendant?

    slim to none?

    • ay2z says:

      Good question. Call Hannity to do the compound questioning/selective answer technique in rerun?

      • ay2z says:

        Call in George Clooney to talk about the Perfect Storm?

        Bring in a plant genetics expert to talk about corn production?

    • Malisha says:

      They think they will show a picture of blood and the jury will gasp and every juror will think, “That’s horrible; no white man should have to get a bloody nose just to keep his neighborhood safe!” and then there will be an acquittal because it’s undisputed that (a) Fogen had a broken nose and (b) he was yelling “Help me Help me” but nobody helped.

      Or somepin.

      But they won’t want to put Fogen on the stand because he’ll get PTSD if they do. We wouldn’t want THAT.

    • The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

      The defendant has little chance to win unless he testifies.

      Because of the admission-by-a-party-opponent rule, the prosecution can introduce into evidence any or all of the pretrial statements by the defendant to prove that he did not kill Trayvon in self-defense.

      Because of the hearsay rule, however, the defense cannot introduce any of the defendant’s statements to prove that what he said is true (i.e., that he killed Trayvon in self-defense).

      In addition to the witness statements, forensics, autopsy and recorded 911 call, the prosecution only needs the NEN call and the defendant’s admission that he killed Trayvon. They don’t even need Dee Dee.

      Therefore, there will be no evidence of self-defense unless the defendant testifies.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        pretty much what i was thinking – between a rock and a hard place. no one other than the defendant can put forth any evidence of self defense.

        two of the elements of M2 are firmly established, the only remaining one is the ‘depraved mind’. i see plenty of evidence to support this element and expect there is just as much that i have not seen. jury selection will be critical.

        because of my anthropology background, i did work in market research for a while, designing those annoying questionnaires that survey companies use to call at suppertime to bug people. i spent way too much time last night working on my own mental questionnaire to root out racists. we know that there will be potential jurists who really do want to be on the jury, i would guess that they would be unwanted by either law team. i also know the questionnaires we designed were sneaky, so that the respondent never could figure out what we were asking and why. i would love to see the questionnaires for potential jurists. the prosecution has an advantage here in that their case has been prepared for the better part of a year (more or less) and they have had plenty of time and resources to work on this important aspect. i do not get the sense that the defense is benefiting from an abundance of either time or money.

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @faucmccoy –

          ” … i do not get the sense that the defense is benefiting from an abundance of either time or money.”

          Or brains …

          Faux, How would you root out a “contrarian,” a person who wants to get fame and maybe a small fortune for “writing the book:

          “I was the lone holdout on the Gorge Zimmerman Jury”

          I’m thinking of my ChiaPet of days past, Uni.

          Quizzing Uni, I think he would be sound, sane, intelligent and normal – except for the contrarian streak that he’d keep well-hidden.

          Any ideas?

          • fauxmccoy says:


            Any ideas?

            i don’t think you could ferret that out through a questionnaire, but it would likely be very obvious during voir dire and the professor has written some great articles about that. i doubt that either side wants super smart jurists and there would be a number of occupations which would be automatically rejected (my mother as a nurse often is).

            one of the questions i came up with was ‘have you ever been affected by affirmative action? if so, how? (you may even want to throw in the word ‘negatively’ before affected).

            the raging racist might find it too difficult to pass up his/her great opportunity to tell the world how he/she got done wrong. i’ve thought of others along this line, the trick is to be subtle.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      I think they’re planning to put West on the stand in place of GZ. Hahaha!!! O’haha can question him about the discovery he received.

  43. ay2z says:

    MSNBC, Politics Nation/Al Sharpton

    Sharpton states in the intro, fogen has waived rights to immunity hearing (altogether).

    Benjamin Crump interviewed.


    • ay2z says:

      And former prosecutor now defense attorney, Ken Padowitz comments.

      Calls this a very ‘crafty move’ that the state should be concerned about because can’t cross-examine Zimmerman now, with this affirmative defense. But not the immunity hearing, as waived ‘strategically’ today.

      Waiving it now means not able to bring it out at trial. Will be a self-defense position at trial, but not SYG immunity statute.

      Padowitz agrees with Prof, but thinks this is a wise, strategic, crafty move now that they have foreclosed on the immunity opportunity.

      (Didn’t O’Mara say that a year ago but now today has recloaked this regular self-defense in SYG immunity language? )

      • Two sides to a story says:

        What’s clever and strategic about it is that most of the paying supporters get sucked along and will be willing to donate. It’s strategic if you believe the state has no case.

        I believe the state has a case that will blow Fogen the Tugboat right out of the water.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          At least we now know that there is some kind of positional location data in the data recovered from Trayvon’s phone. O’mara doesn’t want to discuss it so it’s probably not exculpatory, like so much else about this case, GZ is toast!

      • Two sides to a story says:

        PS – And obviously Padowitz isn’t recognizing – or is flat-out ignoring how rattled OM is about putting Fogen on the stand. Heck, OM didn’t even want Judge Nelson questioning Fogen about waiving immunity.

        Strategic, pfft. He hopes to mesmerize a jury. NOT.

        • Xena says:

          @Two side.

          Heck, OM didn’t even want Judge Nelson questioning Fogen about waiving immunity.

          Right, but O’Mara said the other day that his client was prepared to answer questions if prosecutors wanted to ask him anything.

          • PiranhaMom says:


            Re: “Right, but O’Mara said the other day that his client was prepared to answer questions if prosecutors wanted to ask him anything.”

            Xena, O’Mara just didn’t get the chance to finish his statement:

            Fogen “was prepared to answer questions if prosecutors wanted to ask him, “Anything more we can add to your order, sir, and you wanna Supersize that for$19.99 more?”

          • I can just picture fogen working in fast food………a straw going into the deep fryer………employee theft….and firing Ronald McDonald (after numerous complaints to HR) cause he’s yellow……and somethings not right about him…drugs or sumtin……..

          • racerrodig says:

            And he’s just looking about at all the burgers and he doesn’t look like he training for anything. And we’ve had a lot of onion theft going on……..

      • Jun says:

        It’s a better move for Omara to just go to trial

        They can use a lot of the Fogen statements under the NEN call, which falls under exceptions for hearsay, and admissions by a party opponent

        Other than that, they have forensics and witnesses

        It’s really not necessary for Fogen to take the stand to convict him but Omara needs Fogen to take the stand, because all his claims are otherwise hearsay

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          The trouble with putting GZ on the stand, so that his claims can be made more than hearsay, is that his claims are in conflict with one another, and he’s a known and proven liar. So, it really doesn’t matter what he says on the stand, if he takes the stand he is certain to lose. If he doesn’t take the stand, he is only very likely to lose.

          Thus it is less risky to have him sit like a potted palm! A very big potted palm, but a potted palm never-the-less.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Better move as in the lesser of two evils in that his client can’t get on the stand.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Heh, Xena – yeah right – he goes into a panic when there’s any small possibility that someone will ask Fogen a question. Heaven forbid.

        • Xena says:

          @Two sides

          Heh, Xena – yeah right – he goes into a panic when there’s any small possibility that someone will ask Fogen a question. Heaven forbid.

          O’Mara wants to narrow the case down to one issue — photos of GZ’s boo-boos. The State needs to have the witness who took the photos in the jail house present them to demonstrate what GZ looked like a short time later.

          O’Mara’s broken nose mantra is easily overcome with a simple question — is the proper response for being hit in the nose, to pull a gun, aim, and shoot the other person in the heart?

      • Jun says:

        Not only is it an overboard response to kill someone over a punch (as that is hardly death or great bodily harm) but there is no evidence Trayvon punched Fogen and caused a broken nose from this allegation

        if some complete stranger is stalking you and keeps chasing you with a fucking gun, I believe that is a reasonable fear of imminent death, which is what Fogen provided to Trayvon by stalking and chasing him down with a gun, so anyone would be allowed to use self defense, although Trayvon did not

        Lastly, it’s aggravated stalking and aggravated assault what Fogen did, before he even murdered Trayvon, and Fogen had no right to be where he was

        • racerrodig says:

          I think “….shit….he’s running” will be enough for the jury. That and the 911 screams.

          • Yeah he was running, running from you ya scumbag, shithead, POS wannabe…….

            I can hear the zidiots now

            “If he would have taken track (a nonviolent sport) instead of football (a violent sport)…..then he would have been able to outrun fogen and there would have been no shooting…..so it’s Trayvon’s fault he went for football instead of track”

            Serious….can you hear it?

            HOODIES UP


          • racerrodig says:

            I heard he’s going to sue Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak & the Estate of Steven Jobs for allowing all of us a home computer ‘cuz if we didn’t he’d never have heard about this and signed the petition asking for an investigation…..That’s Zidiot mentality, just like Track vs Football. Hell I played 4 years HS & 9 years of Semi – Pro Football and I never shot anyone…..hell, I never followed anyone with ill intent. Go figure??

          • “hell, I never followed anyone with ill intent”

            So you never were a tackle huh?

          • racerrodig says:

            Wide Receiver & Corner back…..

          • So you would have been the one with experience running from people with evil intent………..another thing you and Trayvon have in common 🙂

          • racerrodig says:

            That’s one way to put I guess. I used to taunt DB’s by saying, “…you’ll always be able to recognize me…….I’ll be the guy wearing 84 about 20 yards down field wide open, just follow the flight of the ball”

      • Rachael says:

        Fogen had no right to be where he was? He lived there, even though he was a renter.

      • Rachael says:

        “but O’Mara said the other day that his client was prepared to answer questions if prosecutors wanted to ask him anything”

        Yeah right. And I have a bridge for sale.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Based on the convictions we see in other self-defense cases, Fogen will definitely have a problem with the “getting out of the shruck and looking for an address.”

      • ladystclaire says:

        @TS, he is El ThugBoat to boot the murdering POS!

      • Jun says:

        No, Fogen was not allowed where he was, as he was invading someone else’s personal space and committing a crime, therefore Fogen was not allowed to be where he was, when he murdered Trayvon

        “We dont need you to do that”

        • fauxmccoy says:

          jun says

          No, Fogen was not allowed where he was, as he was invading someone else’s personal space and committing a crime, therefore Fogen was not allowed to be where he was, when he murdered Trayvon

          “We dont need you to do that”

          you are getting this wrong, again. i brought this up yesterday and fred confirmed my interpretation.

          the ‘we don’t need you to do that’ is damn good advice and george should have heeded it. the fact that he did not speaks to his state of mind.

          it in no way limits the amount of common area of the RATL which both zimmerman and martin were free to legally be.

          we don’t have to like it, but it is a falsehood to assert that zimmerman did not have a right to be where he was.

          of course his ACTIONS upon being in such a place are a different story.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Basically the point we’re making is simply: George would not have been where he was, if he wasn’t engaged in stalking, a criminal action. Therefore, since he has no right to commit a crime, he has no right to permissions law would grant him, if he were not trying to use those permissions/rights for some criminal purpose.

            He had a right to be anywhere in the complex for any lawful purpose. Once his reason for being anywhere was unlawful, he loses the right to be there for that purpose. Thus, he has no right to be anywhere while he’s engaged in stalking or for the purpose of stalking.

            George was committing a crime and that robbed him of all of his rights and protections under the law!

            His lies are an attempt to recover or retain some rights and protections of law. But, because his lies and violations of the laws and the rules are so numerous, his lies are also too numerous and conflicting to be believed. Thus he is discovered to be breaking the law very early on, and his later conduct does nothing to address, ameliorate or abate the unlawfulness. Thus he did not identify himself, which is the only step that could begin to put him back on the right side of the law. Not taken, he remained a criminal until the end.

      • Jun says:

        I do not feel I am incorrect

        Fogen is not allowed anywhere near Trayvon, yet he repeatedly went after Trayvon, subversing himself into Trayvon’s personal space, therefore, he was not allowed where he was

        It is the same concept as a restraining order when they say to not go near that person, therefore, anywhere near that person, within so and so feet, would be a place, the restrained is not allowed to be

        When Fogen stalked and chased Trayvon causing Trayvon to try to flee and get away, while Fogen was armed with a gun, Fogen was technically not allowed anywhere near Trayvon anymore, because at that point it symbolized a crime to go after Trayvon

        Fogen can go anywhere he wanted that night, except to go after anyone with a gun and invade their personal space

        • I agree…..along with….How many times did he have the opportunity to identify himself as NHW?

          Trayvon….just as fogen had equal rights to be on the property…..

          fogen….no matter how the zimbots want to portray it was following, stalking, pursuing Trayvon….and he’s admitted as much….”Are you following him?”..fogen…”yes”..&..”I lost him”……both indicate that he was the aggressor…

          In that light he initiated the confrontation.

        • PiranhaMom says:


          Philosophically, I’m with you – but when you refer to “personal space” that’s applicable only when you get that Restraining Order.

          What SYG relates to is property – private vs. public – homes vs. the great outdoors, etc.

          Fogen has no right to be in my house, but he can be on the public right-of-way outside it – road, street, verge, etc.

          But inside RATL, as a condominium: there are only three types of “space” common-use area; private-use common areas (patios, balconies, etc.) and private areas (inside the homes).

          Both GZ and Trayvon were on common-use areas during the tragic chase and fatality – the condo’s private streets, walkways and grassy area.

          That’s the only part of SYG Fogen did not violate.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @pmom who says

            Both GZ and Trayvon were on common-use areas during the tragic chase and fatality – the condo’s private streets, walkways and grassy area.

            thanks, kind lady – i owe you one. i could not have described the situation with such diplomacy … we all know how i get over property rights 😉 god knows it galls me to defend ANY of gz’s actions, but this ONE, i do.

            gz had a perfect right to be in a common area of the RATL just as did trayvon. what is in question of course are his actions once he arrived at the spot and his state of mind while he pursued his unwise course of action. and that, is as diplomatic as i can get.

            jun, law is not about what you ‘feel’ it is about what is ‘fact’. it is an important distinction and why atheists and agnostics cannot even agree – one is a belief based system, one is a knowledge based system. (now i have likely opened a whole new can o’worms. so much for diplomacy.)

          • Why did “Diplomatic worms” make me think of politicians?

          • fauxmccoy says:


            prolly cause i was thinking just that while writing.

          • The old Vulcan mind meld huh?

          • fauxmccoy says:


            sshhhhhhhhh… don’t give out our secrets 🙂

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Faux –

            My heart feels the way Jun’s does. But Trayvon’s personal space was violated only as soon as Zimmerman grabbed his shirts. Thn it’s assault.

            I am a great hugger – men, women, dogs, cats, horses, sheep, kids (with their parents’ permission), and I don’t want to get charged with criminal conduct.

            However, I never break & enter to bestow a hug, nor do I trespass.

          • racerrodig says:

            I’ve felt those hugs in our conversations…..no space violations at all. Fogen and his relationships with people…….eh,….not so much. He tends to violate others space….cops, co-workers, fiancee’s, girlfriends, minors walking in the rain, dogs, family members,

          • fauxmccoy says:


            My heart feels the way Jun’s does. But Trayvon’s personal space was violated only as soon as Zimmerman grabbed his shirts. Thn it’s assault.

            understood – as i say, it galls me to defend his actions. what we cannot do as a group though is put forth legal falsehoods and i know that you and i will agree on that.

          • PiranhaMom says:


            The laws may be different in Canada than here.
            That may be Jun’s reference.
            I always wondered about the “Pas de Frottage” signs in buses in Quebec.

            Gotta tell ya’, a maple syrup grope is no thrill at all.

          • fauxmccoy says:


            Gotta tell ya’, a maple syrup grope is no thrill at all.

            i left the ranch i grew up on to move to san francisco at 18 after 3 semesters of college in the early 80s. to say i was naive is an understatement. i kind of figured that if i could wrestle a bull calf and turn it into a steer that i’d probably be OK if i kept my pocket knife on me at all times. it took me years to understand that public transit ass-grabbings were NOT accidental. but once i did … well look out, cause i was blessed with a 5’10” frame and farm girl muscle. life got much better after that 😉

          • PiranhaMom says:


            A loud, high-pitched “GET UPOR HAND OFF MY BUTT, YOU PERVERT!” on a crowded city bus works wonders!

            Years ago in Costa Rica I was touring the Jade Museum in San Jose with my husband, who was a tall, very polite and very elegant gentleman. It was late morning and the only person in the small single-floor museum was the uniformed guard – maybe 40, very serious, with glasses, Mayan, and barely 5 ft. tall. If that. Maybe 4 ft. 10.”

            My husband spoke no Spanish but I speak “Ranch Spanish” and I’m fairly carefree with word substitutes if I don’t know the right word. It always worked for us. So I was always “the translator.”

            Most Costa Ricans speak English, but this one did not. My husband loved jade and had bought tons of it for me, so we found the museum fascinating, especially since most of it was ancient – nose rings, breastplates, etc.

            The guard followed us to every exhibit and explained its history, in Spanish, and I would explain it to Peter. Unfortunately, the guard had his hand palpating my butt 90% of the time. I lagged back of Peter so he wouldn’t see it – he would have been horrified. And hell, while it was annoying, it wasn’t killing me.

            So after probably an hour we had completed our solo tour. Peter took out a $50 bill discreetly, tucked it into my hand to give the guard, and said “Please thank him. Tell him how much we appreciate his kindness. It was a wonderful tour.”

            I pressed the bill into the guard’s palm with both my hands, smiled, looked right down into his eyes and said evenly, in Spanish, “If you ever touch my butt again, I am going to cut off your cock and put it in the toilet.” The guy looked TERRIFIED! “O, Senora, Senora, No! No! Aieee!”

            His eyes were like hubcaps and he trembled.

            Then I nudged Peter to the door and we headed to lunch. All through the meal, he fretted. “”Do you think $50 was too much? He seemed so startled. I don’t want to be The Ugly American. He was a really good tour guide, really helpful ”

            “No dear,” I reassured him. “He was just grateful. Really, really grateful. I’m sure he’ll find a good use for it. Would you pour me another glass of wine, please?”

            I never told him what happened.

            The sun was out, and we had a lovely day.

          • fauxmccoy says:


            i hope you were enjoying a lovely heart of palm salad with golf sauce and a tasty plate of casada 🙂

            i have been to that jade museum, along with several others in san jose.

            your story is delightful 🙂

          • PiranhaMom says:


            I’m not looking at the statute right now but the requisite that you must be where you are legally allowed to SYG (instead of, say hot-prowling somebody’s house) is what makes SYG what it is – it protects you outside your home; in public.

            Years ago when I worked with police agencies making the counter-terrorism films, I did a lot of shooting and had cops as hunting buddies I remember an LASO Sergeant telling me, “If you find some guy crawling in your window at night, wait until he’s far enough in, then shoot him. You want him to drop INside, not outside. If he’s lying across the windowsill, dead – drag him in. You’ll save yourself a whole lot of trouble that way.”

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @pmom who says

            If you find some guy crawling in your window at night, wait until he’s far enough in, then shoot him. You want him to drop INside, not outside. If he’s lying across the windowsill, dead – drag him in. You’ll save yourself a whole lot of trouble that way.”


            my dad (dual degrees in law/accounting) drilled this into me since he first placed a revolver in my hands at the age of 5. my high school civics teacher reinforced it.

            as a very pregnant mom of one 2 year old, i had the misfortune of having to hold a cocked and loaded .38 on some jackass trying to break into my home. i locked my 2 year old in a closet first, for her own protection and to keep my focus clear.

            911 was on speaker phone, husband was checking other doors/perimeters, we had even shown the gun through the window to mr. joker. i will not lie, my knees were knocking, so i pulled up a child’s upholstered chair to kneel, brace and aim about 8 feet from the door. there was no way in hell that man was getting more than halfway into my home alive.

            i told 911 that I had a loaded gun out in hopes it would put a hustle on their ass, but i had to wait for county sheriff instead of city pd and it took about 10 minutes of sheer hell. i was glad the 911 operator kept telling me ‘do not open the door, do not open the door’. unlike defendant dumass, i knew good advice when i heard it. i was not gonna ‘invite’ this guy in by opening the door, which would be the difference between self-defense and manslaughter or worse.

            i appreciated all my father had drilled into me in terms of law and marksmanship; i appreciated the ever present reminder from 911. ‘do not open the door’

            luckily, sheriff did arrive to remove one very confused, drunk, enormous man from my doorstep. a man soooo confused that he yelled at me ‘hey, it’s me, manny, the cops are here! open up!’. i am grateful every day that the lock on my door held and that i kept my wits about me.

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @ Faux,

            Geez, Faux, that’s one scary story. And it would never occur to me it could be just some stumbling drunk. I would expect the worst intentions.

            I had only one similar invasion attempt, although it was a glass patio door, which doesn’t strike me as really protective if there’s a handy rock nearby. I called 911 with the same idea that if I told the cops there was an attempted break-in, but I had a gun trained on the guy, it would get them out in a hurry. I was in a County ‘island” in LA (Laurel Canyon/Mulholland), so a Sheriff’s Deputy was dispatched, in my case, pronto. (“Hey lady, put the gun down, OK?”)

            My cop friends always told me that guys have more fear of a woman with a gun than of a man with a gun – because “women are more unpredictable.” Comforting …

            I am HUGELY IMPRESSED by your tucking your toddler in a closet to keep your wits about you and concentrate on your potential assailant. HUGELY! Thank you, and Congrats! t

          • fauxmccoy says:


            My cop friends always told me that guys have more fear of a woman with a gun than of a man with a gun – because “women are more unpredictable.” Comforting …

            interesting — i too lived in an unincorporated county pocket surrounded by a city proper. i had an interesting conversation with dispatch, was honest that my gun was not registered (my dad had given me his). their response was ‘we do not care, you just have to put it away before the sheriff will approach’. then we had a bit of tense negotiation when they told me sheriff was on my street and to put away the gun. i said ‘not until i see their headlights in my drive’. their response was ‘fair enough’. from that point, all was fine. trying to block out the toddler’s cries was excruciating and knowing i was carrying daughter #2 in my 6 month pregnant belly was not a lot of comfort either. again, i am just grateful to all the experience i had growing up on an isolated ranch — we definitely learned to not panic in times of emergency, because official ‘help’ was a long ways off and a 30 minute drive.

          • That’s why my mate has a shotgun for home defense…She can be shakin’ all she wants…..she’ll still hit something..Me?…..whatever I can grab……22 or the .50cal Hawken…

            My late wife’s Dad retired as a Captain form the Garden Grove PD……one of the things he told me…..”Pat….just don’t leave them hanging out the window with w bullet in their back…..whistle at them or something to get them to turn around”

          • fauxmccoy says:


            i have put in a lotta time at target practice, but unlike my dad and bros i never did hunt (have no desire to kill anything) and no military experience. this was the first and so far only time i had a cocked and loaded gun aimed at a living creature, much less a fellow human. i think without the toddler/pregnancy thing, i’d have been less nervous. the husband and i debated on who should shoot, although he’s ex-army, it was my gun, i knew it best so we picked me. kneeling and bracing did the job, my hands were steady as a rock.

            although i now have a variety of choices, this is the one that suits me best, so it’s what i grabbed. it’s what i would grab if there is a next time, but i know i shoot better at a kneel with my arms braced than i ever will standing and after all, hitting the target is the goal. i understand the shotgun theory, but am fond of my trust 5 shot, center load .38 that my daddy gave me when i flew the coop 30 years ago.

          • racerrodig says:

            “…whistle at them or something to get them to turn around” Funny, that’s what my dad, a cop also, said.

      • Jun says:

        You do not need a restraining order, to have the right to personal space

        The simple fact that Trayvon tried to flee and get away from Fogen, as Fogen was stalking him while armed with a gun, and then went after Trayvon with a gun, it shows that Trayvon did not want Fogen within his personal space

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @ Jun –

          Maybe this is a cultural thing. Canadians are very polite people. Maybe there’s a Federal or Ontario Provincial law that applies to an airspace “bubble” around a person. Here, we don’t have that right.

          Being in PURSUIT of Trayvon is a separate issue.

          If I see a kid running out into traffic, I have the right to run after him and bring him back. And I can probably grab him to catch him, but only under Good Samaritan laws.

          Being in pursuit of someone TO assault him – it’s the assault that is the crime.

          I see where you are going with your philosophy, but here it’s different. I can be squashed in an elevator or ski-lift or bus next to people – but not groped.

          Groping is an assault. Getting squashed isn’t

      • Jun says:

        It’s not just a Canadian thing, it’s a human thing

        Fogen consistently and repeatedly violates people’s private space

        There’s a difference between chasing a kid down to save them from getting killed in traffic

        Giving someone a hug that both parties are okay with

        and then what Fogen did

        IMO, Fogen had no right to be where he was

        The kid committed no crime, and he even tried to avoid the situation by fleeing and running away from Fogen, yet Fogen insisted on making contact with Trayvon

        As soon as he caught Trayvon as he was fleeing, he invaded Trayvon’s personal space, thus, he was therefore, legally not allowed to be where he was

        He was even given an order by police, that pursuing the minor, as the minor was trying to get away and run away, was unnecessary, and then the officer even tried to get him to go in the opposite direction by telling him to meet back by his truck, which was by the mailboxes

        • PiranhaMom says:


          OK, Jun, I get it: To quote you, “IMO.”

          Yea, verily, my friend – my opinion matches your opinion in this case..

          It just isn’t enacted into law – probably for the reasons I cite (hugs, etc.)

          What we are discussing is that part of the SYG law. It references, for better or worse, “location”. Means: not trespassing, for example. Not invading private property. You can’t claim SYG even if you innocently wandered onto my property wearing a gun and I attacked you, so you responded. (Probably “my property” would have to be “posted.” But not getting into fine points here.)

          It does NOT refer to a person’s “private space.”

          It’s essentially real estate. You may not like it, so you’ll have to head down to Jacksonville and convince the FL legislature.

          We’re just discussing that point of the law.

          • Faux would be a better one to explain this than me….I’ll give it a shot tho……different cultures have different distances for what is considered “personal space”……here in the states?….about 18 inches is the norm…..think about it….someone comes closer to you than that…salesperson or whatever….you do feel invaded right?…….Yet in Arabic countries 18 inches would be considered an insult because their “personal space” is about a foot….

            OK off the soapbox now

          • fauxmccoy says:


            OK off the soapbox now

            in my family of origin, our standard is…..

            if i can lick my finger and stick it in your ear, then you are too damn close!

            and family hilarity ensues…. however, we’re damn serious about it in public 🙂

        • PiranhaMom says:


          Quoting you again. “As soon as he caught Trayvon.” Here the laying on of hands, the grab, that’s a crime. He assaulted Trayvon physically. That’s illegal restraint. .

          But that’s not part of SYG.

          (In most cases, if somebody shoots you, they are not holding onto you.)

          In SYG it’s WHERE YOU ARE when you shoot at somebody. If you are not in a location that it is legal for you to be in, the SYG will NOT protect you.

          Comprende, mon ami?

      • Jun says:

        According to Florida statutes on stalking, Fogen was not allowed within Trayvon’s personal space

        It was obvious by Trayvon’s fleeing trying to get away, that he did not want Fogen around him, yet Fogen repeatedly and continually tried to get Trayvon, Fogen utilizing with a gun and car

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      Hahaha… I love it, the defense attorney and former prosecutor who comes on to comment says the SP should be on guard because of this crafty and clever move by the defense. Hahaha… What he’s essentially trying to say is that the defense has cleverly thrown a rope over a tree limb and strategically looped it around their clients neck and pulled the rope taut. So that the clever defense is now ready for the SP’s charge. Because one smart, swift kick at the stool under their client and poof, the SP’s big winning case is gone! Hahaha, what a strategy, eh?

      • gbrbsb says:

        Lonnie. Your comment above posting your playlist of Trent’s videos has no reply so I post here a link that unitron just posted on the diaspora for a full 3hr recording with no breaks no commentary uploaded by TrayvonGeorge on Youtube should you want to include it on your site.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Thanks, I’ve already got it up, the first 6 .25 minutes have no sound but after that it’s smooth sailing, while Trent’s skips a few seconds between segments. Anyway I’ve got them both up at the same link so anyone can choose or switch to examine specific time slots.

          Good looking out, thanks.

          • gbrbsb says:

            Glad you have them both because at times Trent’s passion does detract from concentration somewhat but other times I find myself missing it… it’s like watching together with someone!

            (I don’t think any stream has sound for the first 6:25 mins.)

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            I decided to put them in the same place so people could jump back and forth easily if they chose. Maybe someone with software will clip paste and merge the two to make on continuous clean vid, but I doubt it.

          • gbrbsb says:

            But doesn’t Trent’s have the sound missing for the first 6 mins too. I thought that was a court sound problem.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Yes they all have the first six and a quarter minutes missing sound, but what I’m talking about here is, Trent Sawyer’s version is a collection of some 13 parts, between each cut and start there’s a couple of seconds missing. So, if there’s anything important cut, you can switch over to the continuous version and locate the place by time.

            I like Trent’s videos too, it’s like having company to watch with. I only wish he’d do two versions, one without commentary, and another with all the ranting he pleases. Maybe while he watches and records he can record his own commentary by putting his mike on another channel, that way he gets a clean copy and he can just add/mix his remarks into another copy. Just a thought.

          • gbrbsb says:

            Exactly how I feel!

          • fauxmccoy says:

            lonnie says (or maybe his desk does today)

            Maybe while he watches and records he can record his own commentary by putting his mike on another channel, that way he gets a clean copy and he can just add/mix his remarks into another copy. Just a thought.

            i can do without the commentary, the sound of repetitive bong hits however are priceless. 😉

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            One of his vids he had guest over and, in the background you can hear they’re doing some serious sky-scraping. It was hilarious.

  44. fauxmccoy says:


  45. Ty Flair says:

    Did anyone esle hear at the end of this hearing when West was on the stand and O’Mara ask him about a crime or something Trayvon did, and then BDLR question West and said it was know crime and it was not a weapon that’s when Judge Nelson stop everyone and said they are going to far. O’Mara is trying to brainwash the jury with that nonsense.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Yeah, we heard it! Right from the Treestump playbook.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Oh yeah that stuff about the screw driver and jewelry, the outhouse tried to turn that into a weapon and the costume jewelry into a Harry Winston heist, Chaplin had nothing on them. 😀

        • fauxmccoy says:


          gasp! he got the hope diamond?!?

          honestly, i can only imagine this ‘jewelry’ is along the lines that my 15 year old wears, rubber bracelets and earrings that turn your ears green.

          • racerrodig says:

            Junk jewelry from one of those “gum ball” style machines in every restaurant……..that or Cracker Jack boxes.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            I guess we’re not supposed to note that Dreamicis’s 300 dollar gold necklace, weighing some .2 ounces was appraised and it’s value noted. Yet the MDPD would not note the value of jewelry in question, if it was not of nominal value? Yeah, right, MDPD unable, unwilling to handle jewelry? That would be like saying that Tiffany is in the dark about diamonds. Silly! If the jewelry had any value it would have been noted, period! No noted value means it had none.

            Don’t send an outhouser out to buy jewelry for you! 😆

          • fauxmccoy says:

            lonnie says

            Don’t send an outhouser out to buy jewelry for you! 😆

            oh, not a chance, don’t you worry! i do not even let my husband do such things unattended 🙂 and i LOVE him!

  46. ay2z says:

    New activity in the 5th dist. court of appeals (need to search docket, not the high profile info, to see the additions:

    04/29/2013 RESPONSE Respondent
    04/29/2013 Miscellaneous Motion Respondent
    04/29/2013 Appendix to Response Respondent

    • ay2z says:

      maybe O’Mara has added the documents to his case promo site, I’m not looking to see, will now know soon enough what the panel of 3 decides.

      Will this be like an appeal after trial, or is a writ handled privately based on pleadings only?

    • LeaNder says:

      maybe O’Mara has added the documents to his case promo site

      ay2z, Crump has added Shayan Modarresto his team. Maybe Modarres has offered this himself. I already know the man from a pretty good article on SYG and O’Mara’s possible strategies, although I had to read his article twice [THE FLORIDA STAND YOUR GROUND LAW- A LEGAL ANALYSIS, filed on March 20. on the above Trayvon Martin warriors blog.] You can always check their site if you do not want to go to gzlegal.

      What I am wondering about how you could see this on the 5th district court yesterday, and I cannot even see it there today.

      • ay2z says:

        Hi, where are you looking on the 5dca site? Yesterday for you might be today for me here, I found it earlier today (May 2) , not May 1.

        If you scroll down, I posted all three pdf links, and also the main page with the documents listed and linked. (my first post had too many links in it so it was held up, Prof has been good enough to put it through later).

        Here’s the basic route, go to the main page http://www.5dca.org/
        and in the blue headed box ‘Court News’, click on ‘Public Information’.

        That will take you to the high profile cases listed, all six documents are linked there under defendant’s name, top of the table.

        Don’t do an online docket search for the pdfs.

      • LeaNder says:

        thanks, ay2z, I could see it today too. Fact is I am basically assuming not much delay in content depending on what area you enter the web. At least so far I have not noticed.

        Strictly I am close to Eastern time -5 hours now. And if I check ping logs I am only very few web hubs away from Florida. In winter the difference is six hours. They steal us one hour in spring and give it back to us in late autumn, with the result it is light one hour longer in the evening. My little sister advised me that I can celebrate the stolen hour of my birthday on the day I get that hour back. Since this year the “spring forward, fall backward” rule happened on my birthday in late March.

      • LeaNder says:

        Hmm, I checked the ping logs, fact is I can see it now, but when I try to ping http://www.5dca.org, I get the message: request time out. Maybe they do not allow pings. If I try another address in Florida it takes me 154 milliseconds, via three hubs to the address.

        I have to watch this, since I do not understand. You are not the first that made me feel that this is not what I expect and so far simply took for granted.

  47. Jun says:

    Here is my impression of Omara

    Omara with Fogen

    “Give me some fucking money”

    Omara to the Conservative Tinfoil Hat

    “Give me some damn money”

    Omara to the court

    “Give me some damn money”

    Omara to the state

    “Give me some damn money”

    Omara in the media

    “Blah blah blah, blacks jews chinese people white people, give me money”

    • ay2z says:

      Dark side of the M’om

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Classic! 😀

        • racerrodig says:

          Money, to get away
          Get a good job with more pay and your O.K.
          Money it’s a gas
          Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
          New car, caviar, four star daydream,
          Think I’ll buy me a football team
          Money get back
          I’m all right Jack keep your hands off my stack.
          Money it’s a hit
          Don’t give me that do goody Peter Pan bullshit
          I’m in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set
          And I think I need a Lear jet

          Money it’s a crime
          Share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie
          Money so they say
          Is the root of all evil today
          But if you ask for a rise it’s no surprise that they’re
          giving none away away, away, away, away

          “HuHuh! I was in the right!”
          “Yes, absolutely in the right!”
          “I certainly was in the right!”
          “You was definitely in the right. That Trayvon was cruising for a bruising!”
          “Why does anyone do anything?”
          “I don’t know, I was really drunk at the time!”
          “I was just telling him, he couldn’t get into number 2. He was asking
          why he wasn’t coming up on freely, after I was yelling and
          screaming and telling him why he wasn’t coming up on freely.
          It came as a heavy blow, but we sorted the matter out”

  48. Xena says:

    (Follow — after dinner.)

  49. elcymoo says:

    This article has a sort of ‘blow by blow’ account of today’s hearing. I have yet to see any article about it include mention of the way West blew W#8’s friends first name in open court.

    No ‘Stand Your Ground’ for Zimmerman… yet

    By Graham Winch
    updated 7:02 PM EDT, Tue April 30, 2013

  50. elcymoo says:

    I caught just the tail end of an interview on Al Sharpton’s MSNBC show earlier this afternoon, and I understood his guest to say that the Supreme Court of FL has specifically ruled that an immunity hearing must take place before trial. Rev. Al has pretty much stayed away from covering events in the case, once Zimmerman was arrested and charged.

    • Malisha says:

      Yes the Supreme Court of Florida has said SEVERAL TIMES that the proper procedure for a SYG immunity hearing was a separate pre-trial hearing which, if the defendant makes a motion for it, cannot be denied without a hearing.

      • ay2z says:

        Judge Nelson was prepared, even down to her smile as she handled this situation.

      • Trained Observer says:

        I had anticipated efficiency… yet still was surprised by the rapid dispatch of all the defense nonsense.

        Fogen must still be wondering, duh, whatever happened to my sure-fire SYG claim, did sumthun happen?

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          No no no… O’mara’s got him thinking that he’s only waiving his right to have the SYG hearing before trial, and not during or after. Later, when it’s too late for him to do anything about it, he’ll learn that he had no right to any such hearing during or after the trial. He’ll probably weep and snarl but by then O’mara and West will be on their way out the courtroom door, too far away for GZ to reach. He’ll have to settle for grappling with the court officers. 😆

          • NOPE…..He’ll still claim SYG…..Stupidities Your Defense

            BTW…May 1st. and snowin’ to beat all 😦

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Lonnie –

            One thing that struck me yesterday was how “untouchable” Zimmerman was to his legal team. They treated him like “the invisible leper” — they knew he was there but did not want to acknowledge it. Even in the huddle, they exuded no warmth or compassion or camaraderie or belief in their client. Poked him once – a shove to the shoulder. Like he’s an embarrassment to them; that they should be the focus of the judge and the camera for their histrionic prowess, but don’t want anyone realizing whom they represent.

            Zimmerman looked like he just came out of the cryogenic chamber briefly for this court date – but they treated him like he was hotwired.

            It’s not the first time I’ve seen this, but it’s getting even more noticeable. They loathe this guy, and everything about him.

            No redeeming features – and they’re not getting paid, either.

          • And no SHELLIE?………I would REALLY like to know what’s going on there?

            As with the AIS suit……they’re suing fogen and mom…….wasn’t shellie receiving security services also? and shouldn’t her name be on the complaint as well?

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            He treats everyone as though they’re abysmally stupid, it eventually rubs everyone the wrong way. I think Osterman saw GZ as a big piece of trouble just waiting to happen, so he figured; “Gee, I’ve got to get this guy a gun and be prepared to write a book”. Well, with only 24 copies sold it’s not worth being on the witness list.

          • Xena says:

            IMO, Osterman, O’Mara, et al. made the mistake of assuming there are people in the world dumb enough to give GZ huge amounts of money AFTER he betrayed his original donors.

            Each time that O’Mara and Junior appear in the media begging for money, they insult the intelligence of others, asking them to give money to a defendant who has proven to be deceptive not only to his original donors, but also to the court.

          • WHAT did fogen spend all that money on?…..We joke about fat & food & such………Seriously ……Think there might be some Dash Cash somewhere?

          • Xena says:


            Think there might be some Dash Cash somewhere?

            I seriously doubt it. I haven’t done the math, but is seems that there wasn’t much money remaining after his second bond. O’Mara got $40,000 from that to upgrade his office.

            When GZ was released on bond the second time, he resided in an extended stay hotel and rented an attached room for his security. A quick reading of rates for extended stay hotels in Seminole County returns an average rate of $3,000 a month. That’s $6,000 a month that he spent on hotel fees.

            When was the Hannity interview — in July? GZ was broke then. The donations just aren’t coming in a sufficient amount to cover costs. Let’s remember too that originally, donors did not know they would also be supporting ShelLIE. We still do not know how her attorney is being paid.

          • Guess I should donate another 2 cents……via Paypal of course 🙂

          • Xena says:

            @MMPat. You’re bad.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            They simply looked at the 300k that had already come in and thought, “gee people sure are stupid.” Which is exactly what stupid people always think of anything other people do for them.

            Smart people think long and hard and accrue lots of data, before they feel they can safely label anyone of their fellow humans as stupid. There is a great risk that one may be calling “idiosyncratic” or eccentric behavior stupid, which would be incredibly foolish to do.

            With 300k having come in suddenly, my first move would be to call in a media consultant to see if some kind of analysis could explain what had happened. Good possibility that if you know what did happen, you can tap it again and again. Instead these fools playing “guess what?” managed to alienate and destroy the golden egg laying goose.
            Hardly a wonder that now their goose is cooked.

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr

            With 300k having come in suddenly, my first move would be to call in a media consultant to see if some kind of analysis could explain what had happened.

            I would have done it free of charge. It’s simple. Donations were mere pennies until after GZ was arrested. Then the donations started flowing in. Remember too that when GZ was arrested, his attorneys had withdrawn, so GZ was at the mercy of being represented by a public defender.

            That means that donors were concerned about 2 things;
            1. That GZ he could make bond; and
            2. That he could afford to hire private legal counsel.

            Then along comes O’Mara and says he took the case pro bono. Then along came the bond hearing, and GZ sat like a potted palm while ShelLIE misrepresented her knowledge of the money. Then, donors learned that GZ used their money to pay his pre-Feb. 26, 2012 debts. From the looks of things with the second hidden passport, GZ was going to flee with the remainder of that money.

            But O’Mara says in certain words, Oh!! I took over the trust fund so we can account for every penny, so please send us more.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Yeah, the view that the defense fund donations might be preparing to flee with the money, can certainly have a negative impact on prospective donor decisions.

            Most especially since a hint of flight tends to make the defendant appear just a tad guilty, eh?

          • fauxmccoy says:


            your assessment and mine are quite similar. if they could have stuffed george in a burka, they would have. that would conveniently double as a punching bag later, you know 😉

          • Is a Burka proper ethnic Afro / Peruvian clothing?

          • fauxmccoy says:

            mmpat asks

            Is a Burka proper ethnic Afro / Peruvian clothing?

            well, not quite, but it hides a lotta flaws 🙂

          • PiranhaMom says:


            For the paunchy Peruvian, hat else?

            A pauncho.

          • fauxmccoy says:


            For the paunchy Peruvian, hat else?

            A pauncho.

            clever! 🙂

          • racerrodig says:

            Even his baby sitter, Lorna M. Truett, looks at him with disdain. Not even the obligatory, God it must suck to be you about now, pat on the shoulder.

          • How ’bout 2 Pat’s upside the head?

          • racerrodig says:

            Only 2? and what with ??

          • How many other Pat’s can you invite?

          • racerrodig says:

            I though you meant that 2 Pats and it might include an object in your hand, you know, something that might makes those pats on the backside of the head count.

            Pat’s will work fine for me as I have every confidence we can “communicate” in fine fashion with Fogen.

          • I read that 90% of communication is body language….U think he’ll understand?

          • racerrodig says:

            I think it’s undisputed that Fogen understands nothing…..swift and blinding violence maybe, but other than that, probably not.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            I’m sure they’ve become exasperated many times by GZ’s lies, to the point where they’ve had to simply scream at him to shut the “F” up! With no money coming in and MOM now out of pocket, the case is slowly but surely absorbing the 40k renovation benefit. Not to mention the security law suit in the background. Who knows what the frivolous NBC lawsuit will cost when it’s finally finished.

            Nope, there can’t be any joy in Zeeville now that GZ has struck out!

          • racerrodig says:

            racer “…..and here’s the signals given to “Ole Bad Ass Bernie” and he’s ready. Here’s the wind up and the offering and what a hook on that one Lonnie”

            Lonnie “…boy, he sure was late on that pitch racer……a 57 mph change up and Fogen still missed by a mile. That Bernie sure does live up to his billing……”willy” is an understatement.”

            racer “I’ll say, and with no balls at all on Fogen and 2 strikes it’s almost over but the clapping in this one”

            Lonnie “Sure is, but what an entertaining game, especially that 7th inning Motion stretch. I think they set the all time record for getting them hit out of the park racer”

            racer “:..ya know, Lonnie, we never expected Corey to be such a versatile player…….not only as a manager, but she is one hell of a catcher and manages the pitches so well, not one got by her.

            Lonnie “Right racer, and as a manager, she’s flawless, every call is dead on for the situation……..not a single mistake and look at how she rifles the ball to 2nd base when they try to steal one.

            racer “I’ll say…..but on the other hand, Bernie hasn’t really given them a base hit, just a few intentional walks, maybe he was just trying to see what they had.

            Lonnie “Well, that makes sense and they showed no signs of life and here’s another shutout in the making. So Bernie has the sign and he shakes off the call………oh, now Corey is going to the mound to confer with Bernie and now FogensPhooles Manager Moron O’ Mara is trying to get into the discussion.”

            racer “And the Umpire Judge Nelson looks like she may eject
            O’ Mara from the game…..and at this critical point.

            Lonnie “…….well race, I not so sure it’s critical, you know being a shutout this big.

            racer “That’s true Lonnie, my bad………36 to nothing isn’t exactly going to produce a critical moment at this point. So Nelson sends O’ Mara back to the dugout and we’re back to the ball game.

            Lonnie “So it’s the top of the 9th, 36 – zip, Florida the State vs FogenPhooles and one more strike and it’s a wrap……..Bernie from the windup…….now the pitch and……………….(whooosh – twhap)
            did you see that !! did you see that pitch…….that’s hall of fame stuff racer!!!”

            racer “Not a surprise here Lonnie, he’s not called “Bass Ass” for nothing. That pitch was over 135 mph on the gun……”

            Lonnie “Well gang, it just goes to show you what coordination between the good guys can do. A complete error free game by Florida the state and it seems FogenPhoole bobbled every ball hit to them.

            racer “Man, we knew this team was good and there were a few doubters early on, but look at that undefeated record.

            Lonnie “Got that right……over one year of error free ball and not one run scored”

            racer “Amazing……simply amazing…….and now back to the studio for the post game show presented by The Prison system of Florida and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

            Lonnie “Been a pleasure tonight folks…..and good night”

            racer “And from us here in the booth…..good night fans”

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            LOL!!! A really good write. Completely enjoyable! Thanks.

          • racerrodig says:

            I’d say you and I would do a bang up job in the booth and mmp could be the on field reporter…..

      • lurker says:

        I don’t believe we have seen Z and Shellie together since he was arrested, have we?

      • Cercando Luce says:

        “La donna e mobile, la, la, la, la-la-la”

  51. Please anyone…..Is there a link that I could watch the hearing from this morning?

    • ay2z says:

      On youtube, look up stateoftheinternet, but it’s got additional commentary, just so you know. 🙂

      • Trained Observer says:

        Today’s hearing is on stateoftheinternet? Am not finding. 😦

      • ay2z says:

        Here you go, in several parts, plus there’s the post hearing media event–


        Look on the uploads page

      • Trained Observer says:

        Thanks, Ay2z!

      • ay2z says:

        proceed at your own risk, and for some remove children from earshot. I hadn’t listened to them but for the waiver section earlier and caution re explicit language (ie: section 7)

        The hearing might be available in fewer sections later, but could be on a defendant support site.

      • I suggest if anyone’s offended by Trent’s comments they shouldn’t be following this case in any way besides the local newspapers.
        this is a case about the murder of a 17 child who was first stalked at night while he walked alone, all the while expressing his fear to a friend on the phone as he literally was forced to run for his life. which wasn’t enough because he was caught, then held down while screaming bloody murder. and his horrific cries are the last words his mother and father will ever hear from him because they are captured forever in the 911 calls of the neighbors who never bothered to help him, even as the hollow point bullet entered his young heart and silenced him forever.

        those facts in this case are truly offensive, no cuss words could compare to that.

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @ Shannon –

          “those facts in this case are truly offensive, no cuss words could compare to that.”

          Amen, Sister, Amen!

          • there’s a comment below for you my sister 🙂 xoxo

          • PiranhaMom says:


            We were brought together here to face down an act of depravity, an act of cowardice, an act of hatred.

            Is our most powerful weapon our intellect? Our ability to analyze? To articulate? Our passion? Our vehemence?

            No – Trayvon has given us the greatest weapon of all:


            We love this young person for what he was, for the love and respect and caring he shared with his family, his schoolmates, his friends. We love the fine man he could have become. We love his potential for leadership that could have served his community, his country, his world.

            We grieve his loss, and the pain caused to his parents, his brother, and all who knew him.

            But above all, learning about Trayvon is to love Trayvon.

            Love over-powers hate. Every time.

            Thank you for sharing, Shannon.

            This love is what drives us all, to seek …


          • racerrodig says:

            WOW !!! Powerful statement. I never quite looked at it that way.
            You certainly hit that one on the head. When you read anything posted by a Zidiot, you can read hatred in between the lines if not directly.

            Yet the members of Team Trayvon all seem to stand strong because of love.

            My sons band is doing this song and we’re having an outdoor rehearsal on Sunday. Maybe I’ll join them and we can do this version of this song………dedicated to Team Trayvon and in memory of Trayvon Martin……


            We feel it in our fingers We feel it in our toes
            Love is all around us And so the feeling grows

            It’s written on the wind It’s everywhere we go
            So if you really love him Come on and let it show

            You know we love you we always will
            Our mind’s made up By the way that we feel
            There’s no beginning There’ll be no end
            Cause on our love You can depend

            I see your face before me As I lay on my bed
            I kind a get to thinking Of all the things you said

            You gave your promise to me And I gave mine to you
            We need someone beside us In everything we do

            You know we love you we always will
            Our mind’s made up By the way that we feel
            There’s no beginning There be no end
            Cause on our love You can depend

            It’s written on the wind It’s everywhere we go
            So if you really love him Come on and let it show
            Come on and let it show Come on and let it show
            Come on and let it show Come on and let it show
            Come on and let it show Come on and let it show
            Come on and let it show

          • PiranhaMom says:


            That would be an incredibly beautiful dedication to Trayvon!

            Every young person must love this song, as well as the “over-30 generation” (as in “Don’t trust anyone over 30 … )

            You’ve just given The Trayvon Nation its national anthem.

            Thank you Racer, I thank your son and all his friends, and EVERY young person in America who has burst free, and is bursting free from the degrading chains of racism.

            On my brief flight with Dr. King so many years ago, he emphasized that “the children, the children will bring a new day to American, when we will be free from racism.”

            Again, Racer, you’ve just given The Trayvon Nation its national anthem.

          • Excellent choice, Race.

            Remember the tune.

            Always liked the Troggs.

          • cielo62 says:

            Racer~ I LOVE this song! I can hardly wait to your son’s band perform it. It makes sense that it be the song to bind us and represent us. We are all strangers and yet we have bonded for a greater purpose, to seek justice for a life snuffed out by hatred. We have love for Trayvon the person, love for the potential he had, love for the parents who had such a fine young man and love for all of those who seek to commemorate, honor and protect Trayvon’s legacy. Our love goes beyond to incude all OTHER “Trayvons” in the world, needlessly targeted by evil minded, hate filled bigots. DANG! Shannoninmiami is right; sometimes it hits me how much I love this group, the lesson learned and the passions shared. Hoodies Up!

          • racerrodig says:

            Thanks….And Hoodies Up !! I’m hoping all goes well tomorrow so we can do this. I guess I missed the obvious in this one as we all seemed to use “Justice” as a mantra when in fact as you stated so well, it really about love for a fellow human being and the unfathomable loos suffered for no reason.

            I’m thinking it will all work out.

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Racer –
            @Cielo –
            @Shannon –

            Justice is intellectual, and we strive for it.
            Love is visceral, and we are overcome by it.

            We are suffused with love for Trayvon and his family.

            We can’t help ourselves.

          • racerrodig says:

            No argument here

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Meanwhile, GZ, who took it all away, lived in a horribly hellish world of chasing authority for it’s power. Authority should be obtained for competence and used to improve services and their delivery. All he wanted, the authority for, was to strut and punish. He wanted the authority, without having obtained or displayed any competence.

            He believed that by holding himself out as of the white race, he could obtain authority by birthright. Each time his “authority” failed to materialize, Daddy had to come bail him out. Here in Sanford, however, he found he could get ahead of Daddie’s power, by using it to gain entrance and manipulating from there. While this got him close to a seat of power, there was “no cigar”, his personal life suffered and went south.

            But, if it was some insane quest for power, that drove the hope of a capture and hold of a suspect, why would he go further and kill? Surely from his learning about the law, he would know how serious a matter a homicide would become? He had enough “juice” to have a reasonable chance to get away with a failed capture. But, whether that would be enough to get away with a homicide is another matter entirely. For that he would need some assurances. Perhaps he already had those assurances in hand when he decided to pull the trigger. No matter, the fact is that, he decided that another human being should not live any longer, based on what? What, exactly, was the basis of that decision?

            We’ve been able to eliminate fear and self defense, since there was no reasonable threat of danger or bodily harm of any kind, for GZ at that moment in time. It was he, who was holding on to the victim and preventing the victim from escaping. When, if his story were to be true, it would have been him trying to put distance between him and his attacker. Obviously, if your attacker is on top of you, the last thing you are going to try to do is hold onto them. In fact, there is no scenario where a victim attempts to hold on to and/or restrain his attacker. Worse yet, if the victim has a firearm, then it is doubly unnecessary and counter intuitive that the self defending victim would attempt to restrain his attacker.

            Only the superior aggressor, the one with the firearm and complete control, restrains the victim-being-called-an-attacker-for-the-purposes-of covering up a crime. So, was this homicide the product of some sick enjoyment? The statement “you’re going to die tonight”, would seem the product of just such a sick mind. Remember, we not only have no proof that Trayvon said that, we have no indication that he would have ever been in a position to even think of making it come true. The only person there, for whom such a statement would have any real meaning is, if GZ had said it to Trayvon!

            The trouble is, had any sane person heard such a threat, as a survivor, they would have kept it secret. It is such a sick statement, it might be even more easily attributed to the survivor than the deceased. Since Trayvon’s time was occupied with terror, screaming for help and pleading for his life, it’s unlikely that he said this to GZ, and more likely that GZ said this to him. Making GZ one really sick puppy, a deranged killer bent to feasting on blood lust.

            Clearly from the opening remarks in the NEN call to the fatal gunshot and beyond, GZ had long since surrendered his grip on reality in favor of holding on to some detestable fantasy.

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Lonnie –

            This is very astute:

            ” … Obviously, if your attacker is on top of you, the last thing you are going to try to do is hold onto them. In fact, there is no scenario where a victim attempts to hold on to and/or restrain his attacker. Worse yet, if the victim has a firearm, then it is doubly unnecessary and counter-intuitive that the self-defending victim would attempt to restrain his attacker. ”

            Listen up, friends! Anybody disagree with ” … there is no scenario where a victim attempts to hold on to and/or restrain his attacker. ”

            Absolutely NO scenario, right?

            Much indebted to you, Lonnie!

          • cielo62 says:

            P-Mom: HOODIES UP! ( as I strike a proud pose, moisture in my eyes)

            Sent from my iPod

        • cielo62 says:

          shannoninmiami~ passionately spoken!

          • omg! sometime shit amazes me. sometimes things are just perfect..
            yesterday I saw some comments you and Patricia (piranhamom,) and jun were chatting about ( oh yeah it was about gz’s right to be where he was standing)
            and as I read I just had this overwhelming feeling of love ( or something ) for you guys!! I really did. I don’t know why that particular conversation or whatever.. I just felt like you all were so awesome and I wanted to give you all a hug!! there’s some people here that I just love and I don’t care that I’ve never seen you guys or don’t agree with something..it’s weird personally, cas i’m NOT a huggy type. but I wouldn’t mind this time 🙂

            I LOVE 98% of the people who come here!!LOLOL ((((HUGS))))) to you all!! =^..^= ShannonInMiami

            PS> Professor, if you see this I’m talking about you & Crain too!! (((HUG))) i’ll never forget you, thanks for what you’ve brought to so many people and all the people you’ve brought together. without you I know I wouldn’t be in such a warm space right this second!

  52. ay2z says:

    NBC’s Today show video on today’s hearing.


    • ay2z says:

      O’Mara hard at work at his office desk, report says he may use the immunity defense “in June in front of a jury rather than in front of a judge now.”

      O’Mara shows on NBC cameras which seems to be done before any hearing, because this is an early NYC show, had to be taped for airing before today.

      O’Mara says (quote)

      “knowing that we are going to try the case. Knowing that we are going to get the acquittal from the jury [pause] verdict, but we certainly hope on an acquittal, why would we need to have this judge address the issue of immunity?

      If we only want her to address the issue of criminal immunity, we’ll get that from the jury.”

      Note O’mara says ‘this’ judge, not ‘the’ or ‘a’ judge.

      Ben Crump is interviewed also, and says they believe that trying both in a jury trial will only confuse a jury.

      Seems that’s what O’Mara wants– confusion, deflection, smoke, mirrors.

  53. willisnewton says:

    It seems their only hope would be to have the state completely fail to prove its’ case. Seeing as how the defendant admitted he followed the teen, and shot the teen, and that he cannot introduce the idea of self-defense unless he himself takes the stand to do so, I don’t see how that can happen.

    The prosecution’s case may be as simple as, “say, George, is that your bullet we found in that unarmed, dead teenager?”

    • crazy1946 says:

      You do realize that Fogen can actually answer that question with a simple no it is not my bullet! The gun and the bullet belonged to his soul mate, shellie!

    • pat deadder says:

      willisnewton So sofar fogen has spoken the truth 3 times I followed,I shot him, and I want to waive my right to a pretrial immunity hearing.So his batting average is not good.It wasn’t my bullet or his bullet it was the bullet.

  54. “wait and see how jury selection and the prosecution’s presentation ”

    OMG! wow! so that’s what omar & GZ THINK they’re doing? that’s the plan?
    But I just can’t believe they are still so arrogant.
    the way omar argued with the Judge about not questioning GZ in front of everyone was so over the top to me. he’s defiant and disrespectful. and even though he didn’t win, he didn’t have to worry about getting in trouble! why??

    And when omar busted out of thin air something about a criminal record or weapon!
    that was pretty evil to me, in this situation if you know it’s not even true. that’s personal. what kinda lawyer goes there, why? what does he get out of it? he’s not the one on trial with reason to lie??

    • elcymoo says:

      I think what O’Mara must have been referring to was regarding the investigation into how and why SPD officers were allowed access to Trayvon’s school records. The so-called ‘criminal activity’ was probably TM’s possession of jewelry the cops never determined to have been stolen, and the ‘weapon’ was likely the screwdriver that media outlets early on obligingly reported as ‘a possible burglary tool’. What else could O’Mara have been sneakily trying to get on the record in order to taint the prospective jury pool?

    • Malisha says:

      Judge Nelson ignores nonsense whenever possible.
      That’s superb!

    • Jun says:

      yes, and he’s still trying to convince that he does not work with the Conservative Tinfoil Hat

      The criminal record thing is straight from there LOL

      There’s no criminal record and it’s a baseless accusation and Omara has laid no foundation

      Besides, it is inadmissible and he got access to the records

      • Xena says:

        West looked like a fool when he was asked about the treeslum. Bernie is no fool. For him to raise that allegation means that the treeslum is being monitored by the feds. West does not want the public to know that he is taking legal and procedural advice from a White Supremacist blog.

    • lurker says:

      I think that the Defense team’s behavior with regard to allowing their client to be questioned by the Judge spoke volumes about what is likely to transpire at trial. O’Mara offered up that last minute, desperate attempt to avoid the whole thing by providing an affidavit. And Z. was practically propped up by the Defense they were standing so close. And O’Mara moved in SOOOOO quickly on that one question to which Z. answered beginning “on advice of counsel . . .”

      They do not trust him to say a single word in open court–even if the responses are limited to “yes” and “no.”

      BTW–I saw somewhere this AM that a Defense spokesperson declined to discuss Georgie’s weight–suggesting that it may come up at trial. Think that they might try to pin it on medications he is taking as a result of the stress induced by all those big, bad organized Negroes who have it in for him?

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @lurker –

        re: “Think that they might try to pin it on medications he is taking as a result of the stress induced by all those big, bad organized Negroes who have it in for him?”

        No lurker, it’s the stress caused by eating all those big, bad Nachos and Pizza …

      • Malisha says:

        Come up at trial? Wait, wait — what does girth have to do with guilt? It cannot possibly change what happened on 2/26/2012. If it could, I’d just go off and do some stuff I had been dreaming about (in my sickest dreams) and then put on 100 lb. and wait for trial. YES INDEED! The following year I could do a bit more of that stuff and then lose 100 lb. and wait for trial. Year in year out I’d be as innocent as a lamb — or a really big sheep!

      • Jun says:


        Does not sound like a good door to open to make that claim

        Bernie can easily counter that and suggest the pain of the victim and his family and Fogen’s alleged stress will then become secondary or else they will feel after hearing all the evidence, that it is another scheme from Omara and Fogen squad KKK

        Judging by Fogen’s history, I believe he is an unbalanced individual who has trouble controlling himself as in lack of self control and also lacks being empathetic and insightful to how others feel hence him over eating constantly add to that the nervousness of the first time ever having to face consequences for his actions, you end up with the present eating disorder

        Before he was arrested, he was coolbreeze and even during first bond he was coolbreeze, until, he learned that it’s not easy to pull one over on the judge, the state, or the courts

        Look what happened when they recused what is known as the fairest judge in Florida

        I’d hate to see what happened if they try to recuse Nelson

        Lastly, Omara adds to the stress because he is a greedy and whiny opportunist

        My theory is that, Omara knew about the money all along and played along with it until he could gain control of the money so he could keep it until it really backfired

        Omara then saw that he could hustle a bunch of redneck yokels, so what does he care, he’s a greedy opportunist, and Trayvon is nothing to him, Omara just wants money

        I bet you in private, Omara screams at Fogen about the money and where his money is going to be

        Omara’s aged 50 years from this case but hey, that’s what happens when you get greedy and lose your morals

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Exactly, a comedy of errors! It would be hilarious if only Trayvon had lived. A pack of lying schemers outsmarting themselves, twisting each others tails and going down the drain together for their efforts. Ugh! A very ugly mess.

          • racerrodig says:

            Heaven forbid the actual killer be charged with his crime. Are they that ignorant ?? Those silly Zidiots…

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            I’d like to catch one of those idiots petitioning the law for redress of grievance so we could take the other side, just to see how they’d like it.

          • racerrodig says:

            I could deal with that.

  55. ay2z says:

    Oh…. missed the article, didn’t expect that one so fast!! Sorry, back to read!

  56. ay2z says:

    What is to prevent O’Mara from convincing the jury that they can consider the immunity issue, sanctions?

    WFTV’s analyst Schaeffer says the defense is keeping immunity in their pocket for future use, even for civil immunity in the future.

    If there is this much confusion in the news meda’s legal analysts, then how can a jury keep it straight and not just go with their gut feelings and intuition beyond what instructions they get?

    • Jun says:

      There are people who are not intelligent but give people some credit

      The jury instructions are simple and Nelson is there to instruct them

      It has long been ingrained that the immunity issue is pretrial and the burden is on the defense to raise it and that there are deadlines

      The ship has sailed

    • What is to prevent O’Mara from convincing the jury that they can consider the immunity issue, sanctions?


      Bernie moves in limine for an order prohibiting the defense from mentioning immunity during jury selection and the trial. Judge grants the motion.

      This is an example that demonstrates why we have motions in limine.

    • Malisha says:

      I believe Judge Nelson knows how to give jury instructions that will both make sense and take hold. She DOES know how to lead a dance!

      • Jun says:

        Nelson is to the point

        I like to call her the NY minute judge, because she works fast and accurate and understandable in a point form easy to follow

        well except for West, because even after repeatedly being told he was allowed to try and get the evidence from the agencies and witness 8, he claims that it was prevented from being given to him

        The post trial hearing should be hilarious

        I think the court will wonder why it took them over a year to investigate Deedee’s hospital records, when they were repeatedly told to depose witness 8 and find out straight from the source

    • Tzar says:

      there is not JUST confusion in the media, confusion is created when it helps ratings or bias.

  57. Two sides to a story says:

    It appears that the defense is banking on jury selection -[ that they’ll get a mostly white jury that will let Fogen walk. I predict they get mostly white pissed-off jury who will convict him.

    • racerrodig says:

      I predict your prediction is correct. Not only that, he can’t have an Immunity Hearing once the trial starts.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        The performances that the defense team are used to doing for playing supporters aren’t going to play well in the courtroom, as we saw with Mr. West today.

      • Jun says:

        LOL No matter how much Robbie The Racist Diva or Fogen want to claim to be white, they are not

        Now they want to claim to be Afro Puerto Rican

        A racist would convict Fogen but then that leads to appeals courts issues

    • The defense will be relying on racial prejudice, fear and hatred to fund the defense and win the trial.

      Exploiting racial prejudice for fame and fortune is disgusting and despicable.

      • ay2z says:

        Yes, it is. They may have convinced themselves of their higher moral obligation to defend client at all costs.

        Win at all costs.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Yes and that’s too risky to play out for a jury. They could manage it with their media extravaganza, but it will look despicable in the courtroom. Maybe Judge Nelson and the jury will throw in some extra time for their mess!

      • ay2z says:

        O’Mara said at some early interview, he was not about to attack the victim’s mother.

        Well, he’s eating those words fast.

      • Professor that’s so scary!
        hopefully none of those jury duty slips
        find the mail boxes of 6 POSs that would go for that idea!

      • ladystclaire says:

        @ay2z, yea, just like he also said, that he wasn’t going to try this case in the media and, that’s exactly what he’s been doing every since he told that LIE. this man is a true lying B*****D!

      • ay2z says:

        If racial bias plays a role, then it will truly be a jury of the defendant’s peers, won’t it.

        • racerrodig says:

          Even in FL they won’t have 6 racist, male, gun toting, un or underemployed, overweight, rat bastard shit heads that took 7+ years to fail a college course that graduated 315 out of 317 in HS to seat on the jury. Oh, that lie like snake shit and married a mess like SheLie and has friends like Osteridiot & Taaffe.

      • Trained Observer says:

        “graduated 315 out of 317 in HS”

        LOL … And how, if so (and who would doubt it, given his track record ever since), did he beat out the two on the bottom? Any theories?

        • too wurdz……….Beavis & Butthead

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @ Trained Observer –

            And that’s only because Beavis was sent to Juvie for the last five months of the school year, for dealing (third offense), and Butthead was in Orthopedic Hospital since December for rolling his car @106 mph on a mountain road with an open six-pack of Bud beside him – quenching his thirst.

            Cost the taxpayers $877, 438.15 to take care of both of these geniuses, and saved Zimmerputz from graduating last.

            On paper, only.

    • Jun says:

      The odds are fairly good in our favor for the jury

      1) Bernie and Corey’s office are experienced in dealing with this and Bernie has tried a multitude of homicide cases and even got the death penalty on people

      2) Jurors generally like to be treated with respect and dignity and Omara is a fucking snake oil sales man and con man. I do not feel the Jurors will like being treated like they are stupid and hustled.

      3) What’s changed the dynamics of criminal trials is the advent and elevation of forensics with technology and scientific discoveries, namely DNA. CSI and many other cop shows are very popular and most Americans understand DNA evidence. There’s no dna transfer whatsoever on Trayvon that shows he attacked in any way. DNA has helped free people from prison. It has also helped find and convict people of their crimes.

      4) Jurors like things to the point that it is understandable. Omara is a beat around the bush and not answer the question kind of guy or a conspiracy theorist kind of guy, where there is no logical connection in timeline. Jurors will be confused by his points and likely get bored when they go on and on and on and on about nothing. A prime example is when Bernie asked them why it took them over a year to provide witnesses and why it took them a year to partake in discovery, and West just beat around the bushes in Washington state.

      5) There’s so many ways to go at Fogen that the state, and the feds, will have a lot of fun. Crump wants a piece of the guy that murdered Trayvon too, in civil court.

      6) Omara is a proven liar and scam artist that just makes baseless accusations and hypothesis.

      I am going to be positive and see the cup half full because the positive result is also a reality

      • thank you jun. I love to hear reason after a full day of idiocy!
        and you brought the *real* back!

      • racerrodig says:

        I believe you are correct on all counts especially #3. I believe a jury will be seated that is looking for the truth, not a Carnival Act, and a slip shod one at that.

      • abbyj says:

        Jun, Great points about the jury. Everything that MOM stands for will rub them raw. Very positive to read. Thanks very much.

        • Xena says:

          Something just occurred to me. The Jodi Arias trial just might have more persuasion on perspective jurors than GZ’s case. Jodi has attempted to demonize Travis Alexander, and based on most comments and commentators, that is not appreciated. Let’s say that the jury finds her guilty. That means that her demonizing of Travis does not justify her claim of self-defense. It does not mean that he deserved to be killed.

          If per chance O’Mara and West use a defense that demonizes Trayvon, they can expect to lose the respect of the jury. And, like with Arias, her lies stand out more than anything else presented at trial.

      • Jun says:

        Only really devious people would find that okay to trash a murder victim

        On top, its a 17 year old boy

      • Trained Observer says:

        Even white supremecists who might be able to sneak on to the jury, I believe, are not going to stick their necks out for Fogen in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

    • Xena says:

      It’s really going to piss off jurors because they are going to be sequestered.

      • “The Jodi Arias trial just might have more persuasion on perspective jurors than GZ’s case.”

        I also thought of something about the Jodi aryass case regarding the jury. we know from their questions what they think already. and that’s why everyone LOVES that jury.

        Now imagine now perspective zimmerman jurors are seeing how America loves those jurors and hates the CA ones. maybe they might also see how much money and positive attention, pretty much super star status, at least in AZ, those jurors will be afforded after finding her guilty and socking it to her- for lying on TA especially the child abuse stuff and for portraying him as an asshole sexual deviant.

        hopefully if for no other reason, even any idiot racists make it on the jury, their greed or self promotion will over come their racism in this case? hopefully!

    • Tzar says:

      and this is in the interest of justice because? If one ever wondered about the health and vitality of racism in America, the idea that it can still be considered, attempted, leveraged as strategy to set free a child killer certainly would testify.

  58. First!

    Just tweeted the article.

  59. PiranhaMom says:

    How can this be prevented during trial?

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      Simple, the Judge will issue a ruling which the defense can try to appeal if they like. Chances are they will fail. The trial will have to be short, the defense cannot risk a long drawn out exposure of their empty hands to the jury since doing so will make the jurors aware that the defense is merely wasting the jurors time with bullshot! As the prosecution serves up meat and potatoes.

    • cielo62 says:

      >^..^< Bite them all. Beauregard agrees.

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @Cielo –

        Beauregard is hell on rats!

        • cielo62 says:

          P-Mom- well whaddya know? All the Zidiots are rats! Get ’em Beauregard!

          Sent from my iPod

          • PiranhaMom says:


            Do you remember the Kliban Cats when you were in college? I had a sweet MomCat T-shirt from that era. The cats – rough cartoon beasts, always with a crazed look in their eyes, had a little rhyme that always comes back to me:
            “I love to eat them mousies, mousies is what I eat.
            I chew they little heads off, and eat they little feet.”

            Beauregard is a big, brawny strapping boy, and for the first time he took an interest in video – I had a LapTop and a LapCat through the whole Hearing, When GZ’s mumpy face went full screen, Beauregard would put his face right up to it.

            I would love to say he growled – but what cat growls at food?
            I think it was the beady rodent eyes that grabbed his attention. And what a feast GZ would make!

            I sang the Kliban Chorus to him:

            “I love to eat those ratsos, ratsos is what I eat.
            I chew their big fat heads off, and then I eat they feet.”

            That’s my Beau!

          • cielo62 says:

            P-Mom- still love those Klibans cats! I have a mug with that song on it. Bite they little heads off. Nibble on they tiny feet! Gorge of George!

            Sent from my iPod

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Cielo –

            “Nibble!” I forgot the nibble! Thanks for the reminder!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s