Mike, breaks down the temper tantrum that the Bernie had in response to the motions for sanctions due to his actions. Another great article by our favorite English Professor.

Stately McDaniel Manor

“Oh yeah?  Well, O’Mara is a poopy-face and he’s done wrong stuff too!  Look!  Squirrels!  And lookit this: I’m so smart I can quote Shakespeare, and he can’t!  Nyaaah, nyaaah!”

Thus is the substance of Special Prosecutor Bernard de la Rionda’s reply to Mark O’Mara’s motion for sanctions against de la Rionda for violation of his legal obligations.

In this series of articles I have often commented on the upside down nature of virtually everything about this case.  It began before George’s Zimmerman’s arrest, when, bowing to the racial grievance industry and political pressure, Florida’s Governor and Attorney General appointed a special prosecutor.  At that point, there was only one reason for that appointment: to arrest and prosecute Zimmerman regardless of the evidence.  The Sanford Police Department had already conducted a competent investigation and had presented the facts to the local prosecutor who made an entirely reasonable and professional decision…

View original post 5,123 more words

New Discovery, A signed statement from Witness 8


Mark O’Mara has responded to BDLR’s rant except below:

What is at stake is George Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial, and in a broader sense, what is at stake is the sanctity of the criminal justice system and its ability to function properly under the incredible public and political pressures that have been placed upon it.

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/135-with-respect-to-the-state-s-response-to-defendant-s-motion-for-sanctions-against-state-attorney-s-office-for-discovery-violations (read more)

Released with BDLR’s response against sanctions was a new piece of discovery a signed statement provided by Witness 8 prior to the Crump recording on March 19th.  This previously unreleased statement is now the 3rd or 4th version of events according to the State’s Star witness.

As with other news in this case this new discovery raises more questions that it answers and puts into question the veracity of Witness 8 and both Tracy ans Sybrina the parents of Trayvon.


I was on the phone when Trevon decided to go to the Cornerstore. It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was raining to hard. He started walking then noticed someone was following him. Then he decided to find a shortcut cause the man wouldn’t follow him. Then he said the man didn’t follow him again. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer. Then Trevon turned around and said why are you following me!! Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up. I called back and text. No response. In my mind I thought it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story.

You can read the State’s response, including the letter here:

Mark O’Mara has responded to BDLR’s rant.

What is at stake is George Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial, and in a broader sense, what is at stake is the sanctity of the criminal justice system and its ability to function properly under the incredible public and political pressures that have been placed upon it. (link)

This statement is closely matches GZ version of the events. It also adds the detail that TM cut through the adjacent Apartment Complex.  More importantly according to her first statement the phone went off after TM said to GZ, “why are following me”, no other conversation was heard by Witness 8.  Extremely revealing is that after she what she heard she perceived it as just a fight. It is no wonder that BDLR choose to hide this written statement as it shows that Sybrina was not truthful in her statement, and makes all those little details that Witness 8 added later dubious.

IMO this is probably the closest to what Witness 8 heard that night, not much, but her testimony, even if influenced by others, was needed to bring charges against GZ.

Judge Nelson: “Denied”

Bernie, responds to MOM’s Motions for Sanctions, he manages to avoid the most of the issues, and insult and call MOM a liar. MichaelnotMike has an interesting take:

Lawyers always have to be cognizant that they do NOT do anything to piss off a Judge. Lawyers have to be respectful, never finger wag, and always fall on the sword even if the Judge clearly made a mistake.

See for example where in the Reply MOM West seem to be telling the Judge what is important for her to do on a motion to reconsider. They also imply that the Judge’s original Order was flawed because she FAILED to do her job.

Judge Nelson like all Judges takes offense when lawyers show disrespect. In fact, I recall reading some transcript of a hearing in this case. As I recall Judge Nelson made a statement about what she understood the issue to be. MOM responded something like “No, no, no, no” to indicate that was not the issue. Judge Nelson retorted “Please don’t tell me no, no, no no.”

Despite all his bumbling in the courtroom, even Crump is aware of that concept that you always show proper respect to the Court, whether personally appearing or in filed pleadings. He may have sounded moronic when he said “Yes ma’am, your honor” (you don’t address Judges as “sir” or “ma’am”) but Crump was showing the Court proper respect, which is all that counted.

That’s far better than, for example, addressing the Court as “Judge.” A lawyer never is supposed to say, for example, “Yes Judge, we filed that paper yesterday.” Referring the the Court as “Judge” is considered an insult. The proper form is “Yes Your Honor, we filed the paper yesterday.” Or “If the Court will allow me additional time I can…”

The point is, IMO Judge Nelson might be slightly angered at MOM West disrespecting the Court. In other words, she might already be pissed off at MOM West, so what the hell, they might as well file any papers they want.

Accordingly, Michael is not surprised at the denial, the Judge has shown that it arrogant and does not like to be shown off, curious that she allows BDLR so much latitude.

Judge Nelson cancels hearing schedule for April 2nd and Denies Reconsideration Motion from the bench

In another twists in this story the Judge canceled the next scheduled hearing and made a decision on one of the motions pending. According to the Defense the cancellation of the hearing was at the Judge’s request and the Defense was not consulted.


The Judge also ruled on the Reconsideration Motion file by the Defense, the Judge ruled from the bench-Denied. There was no reason given or legal argument.

Some legal analysts had predicted that the Judge would allow the Deposition of Crump if only a limited one, as Crump by his actions, words and Affidavit had waived any privileges. Crump was not a legal representative of Witness 8 so no privilege was attached, and his press conferences and allowing a member of the press during the interview, should have waived any privilege that was attached as the Family lawyer. Judges order below.

Click to access order_denying_reconsideration.pdf

There are still 2 motions pending before the Judge, both are sanctions requests derived from the Prosecutions past behaviour. The first sanction motion is in regards to the Prosecution hiding the age and knowledge that Witness 8 had lied under oath since at least August.

The other sanction Motion also deals with Witness 8, and the refusal by BDLR in allowing the videotaping of her deposition. The Defense had given prior notice in advance, complying with applicable law, causing a delay of 5 hours. MOM and the Defense started the Deposition without the videotaping but were unable to finish the Deposition.

More to come.

Here is Mike’s take on today’s following, “Interesting Times”, indeed.

Stately McDaniel Manor

Pity Judge Debra Nelson.  Her life has just become very, very interesting.  That’s “interesting” as in the ancient Chinese curse:

May you live in interesting times.


On March 25th and 26th, George Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, filed two successive and related motions that appear to be a significant departure from his past demeanor and strategy.  The first is a motion to sanction the prosecution for its slow rolling and refusal to provide discovery, and the second, a motion for attorney’s fees incurred as a result of the prosecution’s deceptions.

The first portion of the initial motion deals with DeeDee and her significance to the case.  O’Mara notes that Benjamin Crump interviewed her on or about March 19, 2012, and prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conducted a sworn interview with DeeDee on or about April 2, 2012.

In the Crump interview, DeeDee told Crump…

View original post 4,077 more words

BDLR flapped his arms and prevented the video deposition to DD. Now a second deposition must take place, why are images of DD forbidden, could someone recognize her?

Is BDLR afraid that a video deposition can’t be erased, or misquoted to his liking?

In related news the hearing scheduled for April 2nd, is cancelled, next one on April 30th. Is this to allow the prosecution enough time to lick its wounds or to re-access what to do?

Updated to reflect the right date April 30th for next Hearing.


It was the Judge Nelson who cancelled the April 2nd, Hearing no explanation given!


to read more