Blogging and such

Yes, we’ll talk about Sundance but let’s start with this because there’s a concept a whole bunch of you need to grasp

When I started vlogging, that’s with a “v” for video, I learned the hard way what the essence of “blogging”, or in my case at the time “vlogging”, was all about. One could say it’s part of the Ethics 101 of blogging.

Essentially, you, who wish to express YOUR thoughts on something, find a space be it YouTube, WordPress, whatever, then you post your thoughts. But before I go on allow me to go back a bit on some history.

Now some time in the history of the internet someone decided to create something called a “comment section” and since then people have come to expect, almost like it’s a right they have, such “comment sections” under everything such as blogs, news article, etc. Also as time went on the nature of these comment sections created many problems for the host; spamming, trolling, etc. but that is not necessarily the problem so to speak.

One must consider that every time one comments on someone’s blog that it’s like you banging on the front door of their house. The nature of blogging though is that it’s often public so my analogy is a bit flawed in that regard so perhaps one can say it’s only similar to it. The main point being though is that every time you comment you are drawing the attention of the host. So let us use the most recent personal example I’ve experienced in crude terms. Someone knocks on my door, I open it and they tell me Joe Schmo is an asshole and walks away. Then someone else knocks on my door and does the same. This continues all day for days from many people. How long would you deal with that? What would you do? Move out? Or get a private property sign and a shotgun. Probably somewhere in between but you would find a way to stop it.

Blogging sites offer similar solutions. I can put my blog on private for only selected individuals to see, like a private property sign, or I can simply not offer a comment section or block people like a shotgun. But doing either has its drawbacks. First thing that tends to happen when one does not offer a comment section is the host is considered evil for denying people the “right” to comment and often accused hiding something, lolz. But often, people when they are hosts, like myself on my blog here, desire to have discussion on what is being blogged about. So the host finds themselves in a predicament, open the comment section to satisfy the desire to discuss while at the same time having to deal with all the crap that comes with doing so.

The popular solution has become to allow comments and simply block people when desired. However this “middle ground” is not really a good solution. The main problem being that it creates an “echo chamber”, that is essentially everyone commenting to the same effect which in itself creates problems.

Another problem is the type of comment, which took all of two minutes for someone to spew, requires hours of breaking down and research to properly answer and if this is not done then supposedly it’s the fault of the host.

There are many other issues but that should suffice. And don’t get me wrong, I have learned all of this through my own personal error.

The only way to truly rectify all of the problems is simply to not have comment sections at all. However it is in the human spirit to discuss and argue and as such what many of us desire. Throughout the ages and thousands of years before the internet there have been many forms to satisfy this desire; the forum, the debate, the formal debate, outright argument etc. Many of those have their own pros and cons as well much like with today’s modern internet forums, blogs, etc. and I enjoy partaking or witnessing all of them. But through it all, past and present, there has been one form that is the best, the formal response.

The formal response is simply you writing your thoughts on your space, whatever form that may be and me writing mine on my space whatever form that may be and people read each, they in turn can write their own responses on whatever space and forms they may be and on and on it goes. We have a rich history of such things with folks in all areas of life writing papers, articles, books etc. discussing each others arguments and making their own. This is truly the best solution for all and in today’s time on the internet also very inexpensive and easy to do.

An example of the Formal Response we even saw in the George Zimmerman case from O’Mara to Jonathan Capehart titled “A Response to Jonathan Capehart’s Editorials In Regards to the Zimmerman Case”

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/98-a-response-to-jonathan-capehart-s-editorials-in-regards-to-the-zimmerman-case

Did O’Mara go over to Capehart’s article a bitch all day? Did he run off to the treehouse and complain? No, he gave the formal, traditional response much in the spirit that has been done for hundreds, even thousands of years. If you notice, the tone in O’Mara’s writing is not exactly pleasant. As a matter of fact that is essentially the way it has been going back to Aristotle and probably before and often the tone is much worse. But keep in mind that it is nearly almost always most substance over ad hominem.

Also in the end society is just going to have to get used to the idea the right they thought they had to post what they want everywhere they want never existed in the first place.

That being said let’s move on to the recent personal example but before we do a bit of history about this blog in particular and myself.

I started this blog in July of 2012. The initial reason why I opened a WordPress account was that it was necessary to do so in order to comment on a WordPress blog, in my case theconservativetreehouse.com. There were other options to sign in with but I chose WordPress because I also wanted to use it as a space to post my thoughts on the George Zimmerman case and its surrounding aspects. My “About” page at the time simply read:

For now I will be using this blog to place reference material and to express my thoughts on the George Zimmerman case. As time goes on I may add various other postings but to what extent I’m not sure. We will see how it goes.

And that’s just what I did and as time went on the reference material I mentioned grew into this:

https://diwataman.wordpress.com/evidence-for-the-george-zimmerman-case/

And I have discussed not only the facts of the case itself but its surrounding aspects. As a matter of fact it’s those surrounding aspects that grabbed my initial interest in the case. The case itself is not so interesting, it’s not like a Sherlock Holmes mystery or something. Here is what I wrote on August 3, 2012 titled “It Was Never About George or His Case Anyway”

This is just a short message for those who are interested in my interest in the Zimmerman/Martin case.

Quite simply it was not and has never really been about George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, what occurred on Feb 26th or his case. The only reason I have to know everything there is to know about the case itself is to have the power to fight fiction with fact. Regardless, it’s about the next “George Zimmerman” and how the Chief of Police, State Attorney, Mayor, Governor, General Attorney, and the citizens will react in that future case. But just as importantly how they all act, or don’t act, in a case like Daniel Adkins.

This case, and what caught my attention from the beginning, was just what the Scheme Team; Ryan Julison, Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson, Daryl Parks, Jasmine Rand, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton sold it as being wrapped up in and what the media helped facilitate; RACE. They sold it, I’m reacting to it.

As I said this is just a short message. Later I will expound on this matter.

And I meant it. This for me is not about George. How could it be, I don’t even know the man and injustice happens everyday to a lot of people, why focus on one man. My interest is in society itself and what it does with all of this. When I posted my list of “What Should Be” https://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/what-should-be/ I also was serious. That is what ought to be, that is what should be done to clean up this mess but that isn’t going to happen without a lot of work. But more importantly I want to prevent it from happening. I want to express it, discuss it, understand it, argue it, inform on it etc. perhaps one day to organize on it and THAT is this blog, any other characterization to the contrary is either misunderstood or nefarious.

If your only interest is the strict legal aspects or the simple facts of the case this blog is really no place for you. What I’m trying to do transcends this case and deals with race and people involved in a manner that many might find to their disliking. If that’s you I suggest you go elsewhere.

Now let us move on to Sundance and what has been going on and again a little history first.

Before I found the treehouse I was vlogging about this case and in April discovered a site in which the first thing I said was “Doing some great work here.” and I jumped right in. That “great work” as I put it was in the fact that they, Sundance and the commentators, were doing exactly what needed to be done which was to figure out the truth of what was actually going on because practically everywhere else consisted of bullshit or tamed commentary of simple facts of the case.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/21/update-10-part-2-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-deedee-reveals-the-false-truths/#comment-106429

It was that spirit that drew me to, in later months, as I drew weary of YouTube, to comment and contribute more heavily at the treehouse. Did Sundance and people commenting always get it right? Hell no but at least they were trying and at least they were trying to deal with the surrounding aspects as well which again either most places avoid or were in the fashion of the Scheme Team and couched in traditional terms of black victim/white perpetrator.

People were pissed and still are because of various reasons. Because of the blatant lies by the Scheme team, media etc. Because the obvious at first glance of the actual story begins to show at least question of should there be charges against this man leading one further to realize the injustice of not only a murder charge but the outright assault on one unknown man from practically every media outlet in the country sustained everyday for months, every blog, vlog and comment, and from everyone from people in the SPD, every black organization you can think of and all the way to the President himself. My god man, I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy, there was no way he wasn’t going to be charged.

That is what many people wanted to know about and discuss and that is just what we get from the treehouse. Does Sundance himself get stuff wrong? Of course. Do I always agree with the nature in which he handles some things? Hell no. So let’s now move into the specifics.

For the first few months of my blog I had the comment section of each post turned off. Instead I offered a section where one could send a personal message or go to a single page to leave a comment. Then, I think is was in November, I began to offer the comment section on all my new posts, I recently also went back and opened comments on all my old posts. Things were moving along quite smoothly until the treehouse shut down their Daily Open Threads on the George Zimmerman case on March 14. They did this suddenly and without warning and needless to say shook a lot of people up who found those open threads enjoyable, informative and who commented nearly everyday on.

Along with the closing of the threads came the message from Sundance that “If you are looking for the George Zimmerman Open Discussion Thread:” with a link to my blog and that “Daily conversation is available” with again a link to my blog. Not only was that NOT true, there is not, never has been nor ever will be a daily GZ thread posted here but the characterization Sundance was making of my blog got worse in the comments section;

“Your entire blog is one big GZ discussion thread.”

“Diwataman’s entire blog is a George Zimmerman discussion. He does not need a “specifically labeled” daily GZ post because EVERY post is about GZ 100%. 24/7”

Even when he was offering words of kindness it comes off as insulting:

“Now, as the case progressed, there are multiple forums specifically focused on the Zimmerman trail and the evidence contained within it. Rumpole and D-Man are the two best examples. So with the specific specialty of the Zimmerman case in mind – it makes sense to direct attention to their wonderful sites.

No-One knows the details of the evidence like D-Man, he is also a man of integrity, humor and insightful intelligence. He’s actually the go-to person when I had questions.”

So not only are the characterizations of my blog insulting, it seems to me that somehow Sundance separates himself from what I have done and talked about, and apparently everyone else, and sets himself above the rest as if I, we, are merely interested in the details of the facts of the case whereas the larger “more important” or “complex” aspects are only for him to discern and disseminate. That is what bothered me the most.

But ask me what my reaction was? Nothing. I was pissed and emotional so I let it go. I could have immediately written a blog about it to the effect of what I written here and much more and believe me it would have been harsh. Did I run off to Joe Schmo’s blog and start griping about Sundance? No. Why? Is it because he’s my bestest buddie? I don’t even know the man. Is it because I’m scurred to call out the main man? Please, spare me. No, it’s because there’s no point and there’s better ways of handling it. It’s because we are, all of us, essentially on the same side. I’m not here to fight you or Sundance.

Now when Sundance gets something I feel is wrong on his blog you will find, if you even bother looking, people outright disagreeing with him. I have disagreed with him but I don’t always do it in the comment section because of the nature of some things rather I do it by email. When I disagree on the blog I do it right and that’s why I don’t get banned. Sometimes I just don’t say anything and let it go. You take it for what it’s worth and move on. Simple as that.

So since the GZ Daily Threads went down I have slowly and increasingly began to get comments about Sundance. How he’s a nut, a loon, a “conspiracy theorist(oh my no not that), asshole, idiot, etc. etc. Then I really got hit with it a couple of days ago when Sundance wrote his blog stating O’Mara was not only knowledgeable of the details of the settlement between the Retreat at Twin Lakes Homeowners Association and Crump et al. but also had a say in the matter and agreed/directed they should be paid off.

“Mark O’Mara was a legal resource party to the HOA and identified insurance carrier because of his insight into the case and potential liability/risk for the insured. In short he was/is advising them.”

Some snips from some of his comments:

“It was O’Mara’s advice to settle.”

“But Mark O’Mara apparently was a key decisionmaker. It was his final nod that led Liberty to agree.”

“Then we rec’d confirmation that this was indeed his advice/decision.”

“I do know he was the final approver for the settlement with the Martin family.”

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/04/06/calling-back-all-the-mark-omara-fans-questions-for-you-serious/

The main point of contention was how could Sundance possibly know this and because there was nothing concrete shown, the people, who already had a gripe with Sundance, took it upon themselves to inundate my blog with hate filled, factually inaccurate, opinionated vitriol pointed at Sundance.

Strangely enough these are all GZ supporters. I was actually worried back in November when I opened the comment sections that it would be Trayvonites I would get hit with, not at all, not hardly but maybe one or two, no, I’m getting hit with everyone on “our” side.

What did I have to say to Sundance saying this? Nothing. Did I run off to someone’s blog and call Sundance an idiot? Nope. But here ya go. I don’t agree with him. At first it seems plausible because of what O’Mara said to the Sentinel and because Crump gave O’Mara a CC of the settlment stuff but that’s all we have, simple as that. I told him I think he jumped the gun and should have approached it differently, I told him that in an email recently.

That’s how you deal with people on your own side when there’s disagreements. If it get’s bad enough I suggest you take the formal approach, open your own fucking blog and bitch about Sundance all you want. What in the hell makes you think I want to hear it? If I want to hear it I’ll look at your blog or I’ll go read Fred Leatherman’s site.

As it stands now you are all free to comment here on my blog, you have been able to since last November but if this continues after this post on future posts that have nothing in it that addresses Sundance or the treehouse I’m shutting down my comment section on all my posts for good but I sure as shit ain’t closing my blog, I have no idea where people got that idea.

There is much more I could address on all of this and if you will please take notice I called no one out specifically in this post, it’s essentially the overall tone with some specifics I’m talking about, so don’t take the shit personally, unless you’re really obviously one then you know who you are. I’ll address people specifically in the comment section of my last post more and this one if I feel up to it. All of this crap essentially saps my interest in the GZ case so don’t expect a highly responsive Dman for a while.

And keep in mind my intent of this post and the examples used are to enlighten and enrich our discussion and for those who don’t get it, well, you never will so I can’t help ya.

Until then, peace out my brothers, sisters and everyone in between.

Advertisements

210 thoughts on “Blogging and such

  1. I know how you feel Dman.

    I get what you are saying.

    In regards this sort of thing…. a forum is a little different to comments on a blog because people posting are already vetted to some extent… only members can post.

    I guess stretching your analogy to breaking point… the people knocking on my door are all tenants in my own building.

    I enjoy reading at CTH even when there is disagreement.. expressed in a proper way….. but to take that disagreement away from CTH and in effect post behind people’s backs I find distasteful. Personally, like you, I can disagree with Sundance and not feel I have to make an issue of it publicly… I can walk away. Read and see how it works out. It is his blog. People can disagree on the substance… maybe Sundance is a bit intimidating, but he has always stuck me as open to people who disagree provided they cite some substance to back their point of view. And to make personal comments about the host of any site just demonstrates bad manners. Sometimes CTH drifts into areas of the case or topics that are of little interest to me…. I skim read… conversation is never long bogged down.. it is dynamic and evolving all the time.

    The advice I have offered at RT is that if you have a beef with Sundance or what is being said at CTH…. post it at CTH.

    Or away from CTH……
    You can always post a totally contrary opinion to what is posted at CTH.. You don’t have to make it personal and spell out that it is contrary to SD or anybody else… it can be an opinion you put forward on its own merits. It may be the counter to what is said at CTH… the two points of view are then out there… competing on an intellectual level.

    • Good thoughts and yes, I’m sure every blogger, vlogger, forum host etc. knows exactly what I’m talking about lol, but things like that have to be repeated every so often and I think framing it all that way with the examples used was a good way to deal with a few issues going on.

      Typically what I call the formal response is reserved for people coming from nearly wholly polarized positions and that’s where it often gets nasty but usually a little nasty with mostly all substance. And often times it comes not because one finds the one they are responding a complete and total idiot, though sometimes that is the case, rather because there’s a certain kind of respect if you will for their position, you just happen to be taking a kind of no holds barred approach is all. But when it goes on with people of the same “group” if you will it becomes a bit cloudy and difficult to do.

      This isn’t all so much about having “respect” for the blogger and for people to shut up. If I am being an asshole I expect to be called an asshole but I expect it with reason otherwise it’s just empty opinion. This however is not that as it’s not even me who is being discussed! lol.

      Also I wanted to add, that I find the idea being floated around that somehow this blog was created specifically for the purpose of satisfying the vacuum left by closing the open GZ threads bizarre as this blog was around long before that happened.

      • Sad you had to make this post to adults. You did it well. I always liked reading your blog and it is and was the go to place for stuff. Hopefully people will get the drift. or drift on. Thanks again for all you do.

    • Yes.
      I read a wide variety of conservative viewpoint blogs in the mornings. I comment very frequently on them. Some, such as Michelle Malkin and HotAir, I stopped commenting on quite some time ago? Why – because there were Progressive trolls who would literally disrupt any flow of conversation and target certain people for their snark (usually people who were making very good points) and they were not moderated and allowed to continue with their behavior. So I left. Used to read avidly, but haven’t read MM since 2009 for this very reason.

      There is a vast gulf between offering a differing viewpoint with politeness over some of the self-righteousness and snark of those who do not agree with the viewpoints of the blog owner. And then those who were snarky are shocked – shocked – when they are “uninvited”.

      If it’s a conservative viewpoint blog, I don’t want to be forced to scroll through the Prog talking points over and over again. Yawn. Enough of that, and you’ve lost me as a reader.

      I don’t see different perspectives from the conservative baseline – as an “echo chamber”.

      If Progs/Liberals want to frequent a Conservative website, they should do so respectfully with the understanding that the hosts and main commenters really don’t want to hear the Prog party line or be told that they are “wrong”. That’s the job of MSNBC and Huff Po. But so many liberals don’t get that, and their insistence on continuing to offend people by pushing their viewpoing is …. offensive.

      I also have found the attempts at self-rehabilitation of some of the banished with complete revisionist history tres amusant. Are they not aware that the threads they talk about were read by many – who probably didn’t see it through the same starry eyed lens of complete innocence that they now loudly proclaim.

      And yes – the bashing and snark is old, and distracts from any meaningful convo. The only appropriate reply is the blog equivalent of “get a room” Jeesh!

      Thanks for posting a thread which allowed some air-clearing and honesty.

  2. Rumpole I have no choice when it comes to disagreeing with Sundance. I was banned, and then he made things up about me. However, I do maintain my own blog and everyone is welcome to come and comment if they want to get something like the Dman mentioned.

    Dman: I love your vlog because of the content. You do in fact stick to the facts which is why I come here to see what you are posting.

    I welcome supporters of George’s case. If you have something to say about SD then I will probably allow the comment, but that will depend upon the tone of the comment.

    I hope by making this offer that people will find a home where they can comment upon my open threads which are there for any subject. If I am writing about one topic you do not have to confine yourself to the topic!!

    • See I always find that response perplexing. “…I have no choice when it comes to disagreeing with Sundance. I was banned…” NO! You do! lol, of course you have a choice, you write your thoughts on the topic on your own blog, and if you want to throw some criticism in there about the other persons position then by all means! Have at it! That’s the whole point of what I’m saying! (Please don’t take the exclamations as a negative)

      I see I kind of confused a few by saying “vlog”. This is a “blog”, “vlog” is meant to convey a “video blog” such as what is often done on YouTube, that’s where I got my start partaking in the “blogosphere” back in 2006.

      I don’t always stick to the facts so to speak. I often offer my own thoughts based on sometimes no concrete evidence at all. Sometimes I even get conspiratorial! Muwhahahaha!

      I don’t mind so much myself when a post goes off topic, it’s the nature of conversation and argument but when it becomes what it’s becoming, well…

      • dman, when I say “stick to the facts”, I am referring to the fact that there is not a lot of wild speculation. Unlike the Trayvonites, you do not make stuff up. The way you look at something and present it, is much more clinical than just speculation. In particular I commend the work you did on the 7-11 video.

        I chose to use the word “vlog” even though this is a blog because you do a lot more than what I have been doing. I do not use youtube because I am not literate when it comes to putting things together like that. You do both in as much as you have uploaded stuff to youtube 🙂

        Again, I am willing to allow certain subjects and yes I have my limits too because there is a lot of stuff that is simply downright conspiracy theory and well… I discourage that kind of thing because I hate seeing people panicked by nonsense including the nonsense about climate change :). I cover such topics on a topic specific blog 🙂

    • Aussie, Please provide a link to your blog. I don’t think I have never been there. Do you allow bashing people from other blogs? I hate sorting through those kinds of posts, even if it is from anti GZ sites.

      • click on my name. You will find me that way.
        There are posts that do not get through. If people want to give a varying opinion that is fine.

        I will allow people to make a statement but not necessarily to bash other people. On my own blog I called SD out because of what he stated. I had a right of reply considering that he has done worse to me than he has to the Dman….but that is SD.

        I want to allow people to have a place to post their thoughts.

        • I make this comment because this is a post about blogging, etiquette, etc.
          You do realize that such shameless non stop blog whoring that you do trolling for traffic is unseemly and extremely poor etiquette, right?
          Once, twice, hey! I’ve got a blog – okay – but you are well past that point of no return.
          It also makes you really pathetic.

          • pull the other one. It is an offer that people can take up it is not trolling or anything like that….. If people do not want to take up a generous offer then that is fine with me… plus it is not an offer for Trayvonites.

  3. How to deal with commenters that go off the rails has been a problem for every blogger. We all handle it differently. You used the analogy of the front door. I used to tell readers when you come to TalkLeft, it’s like being invited into my living room. If you wouldn’t say it at a get-together in my living room, don’t say it in comments. I may have the strictest set of commenting rules on the Internet (or so I’ve been repeatedly told.) And for Zimmerman, I had to draw up a second set with more rules. I think commenting on a blog is a privilege, not a right. TalkLeft or any blog is not the Government, there is no first Amendment right to express yourself. If you want the level of discourse to be moderate to high, the blogger has to set the limits.

    I think the commenters here do a good job. They are intelligent and know the facts and minutae (sp) of the case. I also like the polite tone used to respond to each other. That’s hard to find on the internet where everyone uses a pseudonym and can shield their identity. You don’t seem to have the commenters that I call “blog-cloggers”, people that post over and over saying the same thing just to dominate the thread, or “chatterers” (in this case that would be be people who support the other side — the state– and respond to every comment supporting Zimmerman with a snippy one liner, usually coupled with an insult.) Once you set the limits, as you did tonight, I don’t think you will have any problems. People come here because they value your insights and the tremendous work you have done on this case, and they are grateful that you openid the site to comments so they can participate.

    I didn’t think you’d shut the site down due to the comments in the last thread, but I’m glad to hear you say it. And that you addressed the issue early on and let everyone know how you feel about it. You have built a very nice community here, and I think everyone respects that.

    • Here, here. And if you think a blog is going off in the wrong direction, the comments are becoming something in which you don’t want to participate, DO NOT READ IT. Step back, give it time, see if swings back into something you find worthwhile or informative. If it doesn’t, so what, move along. I appreciate the information and writing of several blogs including this one on this very important case. I do not have the right to hassle the writers if I don’t see eye to eye with them because as Ms Merritt says this is your house and I can stay or leave but I can’t act like a jerk to you or your guests. Manners and a little respect go a long way in life and commenting on blogs.

    • Jeralyn at TalkLeft, yes, YOU ARE A TYRANT! lol, But you are correct, “If you want the level of discourse to be moderate to high, the blogger has to set the limits.”, point well taken. In all my many years at YouTube though I can tell you it’s outright nasty and I always allowed it. I let everyone on and I didn’t care, except of course when threats and such happen, then people got banned. That’s in part what the quote on my YouTube page is about:

      “Don’t let your heart get big because of your knowledge. Take counsel with the ignorant as well as with the scholar. For the limits of art are not brought, and no artisan is equipped with perfection. Good discourse is more hidden than green stone, yet may be found among the maids at the grindstones.” by vizier Ptahhotep (ca. 2200 BCE)

      I get what you are doing over there though so I find it offensive not in the least. You are again correct, the State has not made race as part of their charge against George so there is a truncating of that discussion. I could disagree though in a sense by saying that by the mere use of the word “profiling” or “profiled”, one is trying to convey “racial profiling” or “racism”, that is exactly why O’Mara went after Gilbreath on the stand about it and played the word association game with him. And recall Gilbreath’s response, he “acted” dumbfounded like he didn’t know what O’Mara was talking about when asked what would he thought of when saying “profiling”. PULEEASE! lol, he knew but he played dumb, no one would say “criminal”, everyone would say “racial”. The state knows but they are skirting the issue then trying to deny it. Frankly I don’t know how one can even possibly understand this case without understanding the larger issues, this case is just a result of that, you really can’t have one without the other and it’s the case which informs on the larger aspects.

      Your comment is very much appreciated in all regards, thanks.

      • diwataman – you are always the ultimate gentleman. The thing I really appreciate about you whether it’s allowing those of us to bang on your door and enter with no price for admission, you have been more than tolerant of those that visit your home.

        You made so many good points in your comment, thanks for the insight into your feelings of what has transpired and your views on comments. Your contributions & facts shared have been invaluable and a great resource for everyone supporting GZ, thanks for all you contribute, it can’t be said enough.

        The thing I have noticed is no matter what negative thing is said about MOM, it makes many blogger’s angry, me included. I guess I tend to look at the bigger picture of getting to Trial, I consider the difficulties and challenges MOM/West have in defending GZ. I support the Defense’s efforts, NO ONE knows what goes on in their “war room” & the countless problems that continue to arise that make their job harder than it is, many problems we aren’t even aware of, they get my support.

      • Dman, I agree with your comment, 100% and I am an outsider !! LOL with American cousins who have a father who is of Hispanic origin – my late Uncle John was Mexican-American and he was a Marine 🙂

    • Jeralyn. I LIKE the fact that you have strict rules and keep your forum focused and mostly on legal aspects. It makes for a great place to find information and reasoned discussion on it. I don’t post a lot.. but I do read and look there for reference. There are plenty of other places to meander and gossip already. Different venues serve different purposes. The group where owners and posters broadly speaking believe in GZ’s innocence do comprise a sort of de-facto alliance in my mind and one treats allies differently to “the enemy” (The enemy being wilful ignorance as it has manifested itself over the past 5 years at some sites, as far as I am concerned)

       photo dom2.gif

      I like your taste in music as well.. judging by the occasional thing you post 😀

    • Jeralyn this is well said. I personally do not comment on your blog, but I do like to go there and read your posts on the Zimmerman case. I love the very high standard that you have set for discussion.

  4. Nicely put and a much needed reset. The one thing that always needs to be remembered is manners. Its human nature to vent frustrations but when done politely without personal attacks, it can be therapeutic.
    I enjoy your site. I hope people actually read what you’ve invested so much time into writing.
    Thank you.

    • No doubt and thanks. I want to stress though that for me personally I don’t mind when people tell my they think I’m full of shit if in fact they truly believe that. I often find the comments of that nature amusing. Of course if it’s all that person ever provides it can get boring and tiresome. I don’t want people to think they can’t straight up disagree with me on anything I’m saying, I actually encourage it, and I don’t even mind the occasional insult thrown in to that as long as it’s contextual. Do I prefer the more thoughtful and criticism free responses? Sure but we all actually need from time to time a bit of the other.

      • Hey, you know a good percentage of my comments to you are joking around and stuff, so I suppose I should let you know I really mean this: GOOD job on this post… we needed it. The pro-MOM vs anti-MOM, pro-SD vs anti-SD stuff… a little here and there on rare occasions, ok. But when it starts getting heated and personal… nah, that’s just dumb. If nothing else, it gets us totally side-tracked on what we’re supposed to be talking about. That being this case specifically, and more generally the much broader implications (BGI, injustice, etc).

        But really, as we learned from Stan on South Park, the true meaning of these discussions is… presents… or more specifically CAKES.

  5. I very much agree with the two statements I pasted below. I share Dman interest in the racial issues. His incisive videos make me smile. I get in trouble at TL for commenting on the motives of the scheme team or the racial aspects, as TL admits she has strict rules. But there is also a very self righteous group of regulars there, a clique, much like the core bunch at CTH, yet the two groups are political polar opposite. I think the open style Dman has set up has potential and already has a self regulating tone, just not sure how to further this goal “But more importantly I want to prevent it from happening. I want to express it, discuss it, understand it, argue it, inform on it etc. perhaps one day to organize on it and THAT is this blog” . Yet that is my interest too, I said so much in the comments, how or is it hopeless?
    I really liked the beauty of the post What Should Be, it struck at core values too easy lost these days, courage and conviction over self interest. I have been reading TL, CTH, McDaniel and DMan since last March. so I watched the various CTH drama cycles and the resulting purges of many capable and reasonable posters, so I am not at all surprised people are discussing it here and at the McDaniel blog. It seems inevitable given the circumstances. CTH banning practice is arbitrary, there is no right way to avoid pissing them off, the admin are free wheeling. TL is wonderfully fair, she warns people and reminds them of the rules. You know why a poster is made silent. At the CTH, there is some very ugly dialog, I am not interested in drudging up details, but the post in which SD describes why he banned itsMichealnotMike and some who moved here was totally uncalled for. I did not believe his accusations and was troubled by his post. Seems he could use some of your advice Dman and not react when emotional or angry.

    Congrats on the increased interest in your blog Dman.

    TL> You have built a very nice community here, and I think everyone respects that.

    Dman >This case, and what caught my attention from the beginning, was just what the Scheme Team; Ryan Julison, Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson, Daryl Parks, Jasmine Rand, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton sold it as being wrapped up in and what the media helped facilitate; RACE. They sold it, I’m reacting to it.

    • Thanks for your thoughts and I want address a couple of points.

      “I get in trouble at TL for commenting on the motives of the scheme team or the racial aspects, as TL admits she has strict rules. But there is also a very self righteous group of regulars there, a clique, much like the core bunch at CTH, yet the two groups are political polar opposite.”

      I can’t necessarily speak to the TalkLeft GZ forum as I don’t post there all that often but Jeralyn herself, as far as I have seen, offers why she doesn’t allow certain things discussed, there is reasoning behind it, so you can’t take that personally. But more importantly I find the idea of this “core bunch” you speak of at the treehouse personally offensive as I consider my self part of that core considering the massive of amount of commenting I’ve done over there, the contributions I’ve made, and how long I’ve been posting there. You really should not think of it in generalities like that, get specific, who are you talking about, what exactly did they say and respond to that, don’t make it a general characterization of the entire thing itself is what I’m trying to say really.

      “so I watched the various CTH drama cycles and the resulting purges of many capable and reasonable posters, so I am not at all surprised people are discussing it here and at the McDaniel blog. It seems inevitable given the circumstances.”

      I’s not so much that people merely discuss their thoughts on Sundance and/or the treehouse or that they disagree. It’s that they are turning my posts into that and it becomes wholly about Sundance himself and their personal gripes with him. I can’t help it if the moderation practices over there piss people off, why do they feel the need to turn my posts into a Sundance bash fest? Especially when the content of the post has nothing to do with Sundance or the treehouse unlike this one.

      “there is no right way to avoid pissing them off, the admin are free wheeling”

      Again, you have to be specific as I have seen examples to the contrary, who are you talking about and what did they do? And if someone pissed them off and still wants to comment there then I would suggest writing them and working it out or as I stated about simply create your own blog and post what you want without restriction.

      Okay, hopefully that didn’t come off harsh or anything. Now…

      “Yet that is my interest too, I said so much in the comments, how or is it hopeless?”

      I am a pessimist and a cynic so don’t expect me to offer hope, lol BUT I will say it is what “you” make it. “If you build it they will come” I once heard said.

      • I do not consider you as the core group, you came to CTH during the GZ issues as many did. That is not the core group. The “refugees” are the core group, have you read their about page describing how the blog came about after the core group left another blog which blew up in division?

        I gave a specific example regarding one of the prolific posters IMNM, there are many other for instance Dedicated Dad who disappeared without warning. IMHM coined the term the Scheme Team and located plenty of the documents during the initial investigations of the public relations process. I found their contributions valuable.

        Free wheeling refers to using their power to exclude based on personal bias, specifically political alignment. IMO, the CTH is not an inclusive blog, despite the principle of many branches, they make this point clear during discussion regarding banning people. Surely you are aware of the intense PROG bashing. They make a point of singling out Jello as the exception. I was honest about being a democrat early on, and a few people responded favorably, other than Jello, none of those people post anymore.

        You say “I can’t necessarily speak to the TalkLeft GZ forum as I don’t post there all that often but Jeralyn herself, as far as I have seen, offers why she doesn’t allow certain things discussed, there is reasoning behind it, so you can’t take that personally.”

        What makes you warn me about taking anything personally? did not happen, this is an online blogging experience, how could that be personal?
        I mentioned TL moderation based on her stated purposed as an example of a non- arbitrary standard.

        As to your last sentence, not sure what to make of it. “I am a pessimist and a cynic so don’t expect me to offer hope, lol BUT I will say it is what “you” make it. “If you build it they will come” I once heard said.” You seem to contradicting your prior statement I comment on. I have experience considerable experience with the messing business of “building it” in my local community specifically organizing against territorial street crime and black on white youth violence. I said so much on the CTH reminding folks that GZ organizing a neighborhood watch is a form of community organizing. One of the core admin admonished me as just another community organizer, dismissing the fact that I experience a beat down very similar to GZ . It was rather unkind and ugly and at least a couple of people were shocked by the admin cold hostility. Is that a good enough specific example?

        I did not participate in making personal comments about SD. I only made general statements. I did send a correction via email to CTH and SD posted my email with my real name without first asking if that is cool. I was surprised by it but did not complain. At the time my partner and I were applying for jobs during the worst of the recession, naturally I would have preferred a lower internet profile. I did not hold against them or take it personally. Later I pissed of the admin who identifies as a military wife, because I challenged her unfair statements against Michelle Obama. I had seen personally the respect for Michelle Obama Joining Forces initiative at the West Point graduation banquet, and I shared my experiences. The responses from the “core group” were downright middle school, very divisive and disrespectful. A year later the admin referred to my position on the Joining Forces program in an unrelated post, basically reminding me my politics did not match hers, and she never forgets. I also corrected misinformation about how those on disability survive, the budgeting challenges of the so called “takers” since the CTH fails to make clear distinction in grouping the disabled with welfare. That was another interesting foray into opposing politics.

        take care

        • two things, please forgive the failure to edit errors.

          and Dman, I think when your son hits the age of rhetoric wisdom/ debate your house will be most entertaining.

        • My take aways from reading your various postings;
          (a) you seem to feel that you are always “right”
          (b) you default to casting yourself as a “victim”

          both of which are strategies which are deconstructed at CTH at length.

          and, from my perspective, you were the one who behaved childishly and rudely – a viewpoint you dismiss because
          (a) you are always “right” and
          (b) you are always a “victim”.

          but i digress.

          found it interesting after reading this thread, to see SD post this as a reply to another commenter:

          “You might want to note the descriptive of this site “The CONSERVATIVE Treehouse”.

          The ideology of modern progressives – in more than a general sense – runs counter to the views of individual freedom and conservatism we support.

          Nor does the Republican (Decepticon) advancement provide any value in approach at pushback.

          Dependency initiatives and the vast assemblies of collectivist ideologies (ie. it takes a village) whether they be Democrat advanced, or Republican advanced, are not values we promote, espouse or support.

          EVER.”

          I think your oft-stated fondness for “community organizing/action” would fall under that umbrella.

          You remind me very much of the strident liberals who feel that it is their “right” to push their viewpoint on everyone else, even when it is clearly not wanted or shared by others.

          For example. I am pro-life. If someone came to my living room and began pushing their planned parenthood viewpoint, and continued pressing the point when it became clear it wasn’t wanted and/or appropriate, and became snarky and belligerent when advised of same, I would most definitely ask them to leave.

          I also find your perception that people were dismayed at your banning very puzzling. I went through the thread, and can find no voice lamenting your disappearance.

          If there was a feature to skip over certain posters, you would be one that I would automatically skip over at CTH. So your disappearance from the conversation is no loss from my viewpoint as a reader, who enjoys reading the Conservative viewpoint over her daily cup of morning coffee. It’s been a “must stop” for me for quite some time – (pre GZ). If I wanted the Prog/Liberal viewpoint, there are ample other places to do so. I am an avid reader of CTH because I don’t want to wade through that garbage, and they do a good job of providing a space in the blogosphere for other Conservatives who feel the same.

          Just because you think whatever it is you want to share is so timely and invaluable doesn’t mean that others feel the same. This will no doubt be absolutely shocking to you.

          • I wasn’t banned. I chose to stop posting. The rest of your comment is simply an ad hominem attack, with plenty of inaccuracies.

  6. As usual, you are forthright, insightful and pulled no punches. Thank you for clarifying what your vlog/blog is all about. I seriously thought your “vlog” (new word for me) was just about the GZ case and I have always thought you had the patience of a semi-saint. Thank you for your hard work and all that you do for others. “There’s a heart in my chest, it’s a happy heart.”

    • This is a blog, sorry for not clarifying more robustly on the term “vlog”, that was meant to convey cutting my teeth on the blogosphere not in the traditional sense of actual blogging rather through the medium of YouTube through video, hence the term vlog.

      This blog for the most part is about the case and its surrounding aspects, I am focused on that but it should not be thought of as one big open thread where every post is about the facts of the case, that’s absurd and offensive. Not only that but I don’t post “daily” anything, I simply don’t have the time.

    • My fault for not understanding what a “vlog” is. I don’t post very often I try to stick to what is on the thread when I do. I am sorry if you took what was meant as a sincere compliment as “absurd and offensive”. I have never posted anywhere “daily” and am suprised that so many people do.

      • no,no, as I said “it should not be thought of as one big open thread” and that every post is merely “about the facts of the case”, I wasn’t necessarily applying that to you when you said you thought this blog “was just about the GZ case” I just wanted to make sure that was clear is all. It’s that characterization that I find absurd and offensive, not the mere mention that I focus on the case and it’s surrounding aspects.

        • My crystal ball is still in for repairs. I have never seen anything posted here except “aspects” of the George Zimmerman case, which is why I thought your blog (or flog or whatever you want it to be) was just about the GZ case.

          • You don’t need a crystal ball, that’s what this big ass post is about and you can look back through all my posts and see what they are, there’s not even 200 yet so it’s not really hard. I’m not saying that it’s offensive to say that this blog is focused on the Zimmerman case nor am I saying that is what you are saying. I’m merely expounding off of and clarifying my position off of what you first said ” I seriously thought your “vlog” (new word for me) was just about the GZ case”. That’s all I’m doing. I’m not saying that you mentioning that is wrong.

            • The word “thought” is past tense. What I thought is not what I now THINK (present tense.) I feel like I am caught in the Tim Conway Harvey Korman skit that I posted yesterday 😆

              BTW- can someone do a screen grab on the latest Sentinel article. They keep locking me out and when I clean out my cache, my passwords all have to be re-entered.

                • I do switch browsers occassionaly, but I suspect I may get blocked because I am in Florida and they think I should be paying for a subscription. Oh well- I got the gist of it from other posts.

                  • That was happening to me when I cleared my history to access the site. I was told to uncheck “cookies” when I delete the history and my password would remain. It worked!

  7. I find that the character attacks on anyone, which I see a lot of on several blogs, is uncalled for. This includes the owners of blogs (including anti-GZ sites), the parties in the GZ/TM case, supporters of TM and his family, etc, the attorneys in the case, etc. I never understood what Angela Corey looking like a pig (not saying she does, but as stated by another commentor) has to do with anything with this case for example . I have never posted at TL but really have the utmost respect for how the owner has not allowed character attacks on anyone in any, shape or form. . I think the tone has to be set in that character attacks should not be allowed on anyone because once it seems to okay to do to one, everyone becomes fair game.

    Yeah, this blog shouldn’t be about attacking Sundance and his blog but take care that character attacks on anyone, including the Pro-Trayvon sites , are not allowed either. If we don’t like it being done to us, we shouldn’t do it to anyone else just because we don’t take the same position as they take.

    I may not agree with the position of the people involved in the prosecution of GZ, but I support that they have a right to believe in there position as I believe in mine and have not attacked their political affiliation, their intelligence, their personal lives(Tracy Martin could have 20 children, that is his business unless it can be proven to be relevant to the case at hand), their race, gender or hair color.

    All that has mattered to me since the beginning of this case is the facts that could lead to a man who, appears to be innocent, being found not guilty in a court of law instead of lynched in the court of public opinion. Since it is highly unlikely that I am going to be inviting the players in this case over to Sunday dinner, I don’t need to know much else.

    My perspective and have a beautiful day all.

    • Well, as I said then this is probably no place for you then. I understand what you are trying to say but given what this case actually is your humanistic polite approach just isn’t going to cut it. I have and will hold nothing back when it comes to even the parents of Trayvon Martin themselves. They, many of the other actors involved and those who support them will get no reprieve from me and find no quarter here.

      • D-Man,

        I can respect your world-view (everyone has one from which they are viewing this case), What else is a person with a humanistic, polite approach to do! LOL

  8. The citizen bloggery (is that a word?) emerging or expanding in re: the TM / GZ case is both fascinating and promising. We have the tools and resources to end-around traditional media and focus on the macro and/or micro, while allowing we humble ‘civilians’ to pontificate on the owner’s posts.

    Perhaps more interesting, however, is the dynamics of fractioning – not only left / right, conservative / liberal, black / white, but the internecine squabbles. Not to mention the often developing group-think on more sites than not, essentially defeating the purpose and uniqueness of this medium.

    Thanks again, diwataman – fine work, and I hope the comments remain on-line and the ‘malcontents’ remember they are your guests. Cheers.

    • Thanks and good thoughts as well. It’s clear more and more people are turning away from traditional sources and working it out themselves, absolutely both fascinating and promising as you say, more people need to do it, it’s amazing how much I hear regurgitated talking points from single source media. And you are right, this medium does become a bunch of little enclave like of group-think echo chambers, which may certainly be the downside to it all but the fact that there are so many differing sites out there I think deflates any power in that.

    • Analyst said: “Not to mention the often developing group-think on more sites than not, essentially defeating the purpose and uniqueness of this medium.”

      I’ve seen this situation repeatedly. It happens on both message boards (forums) and blogs. On message boards, the group-think develops among the posters, and the moderators sometimes “help” the process along. On blogs, it tends to develop around the owners. I have visited more than a few blogs that start out relatively balanced, with the owner feeling generous and quite deliberately respectful of commenters with dissenting opinions (from legitimate contributors, not internet trolls or people desperate for attention). Then something magical (and not in a good way) happens over a period of time, and the owner morphs into a bit of a tyrant capable of abusing and berating those who aren’t marching in lockstep with her/him. The moderators, of course, are marching in lockstep, and some of them tend to become bullies. As the situation spirals downward, what’s left is the owner, her or his moderators, and a handful of followers who revere her/him or are just happy to be included in a group of any kind.

  9. Thanks for the clarification. Thanks for keeping the comments open.

    I have chosen not to host my own blog for a lot of the headaches you mentioned. We are learning as we go forward.

    Let’s hope for some news this week to get us back on track.

    • YW and NP.

      “I have chosen not to host my own blog for a lot of the headaches you mentioned. We are learning as we go forward.”

      Yes but you can still use your blog to write what you want without restriction and simply not turn the comment section on. That might have been a good way to go with your post on what caused the whole thing between you and Sundance rather than posting it as a comment on his site. But who is this “we” that you mean and where are they going? I’ve already learned my lessons years ago, though I’m human and sometimes repeat the same errors to this day so in that sense I’m still learning but for the most part I get it and usually can get it pretty quickly by first surveying the particular blog/vlog first then working my way into commentary, everybody handles their site differently so it’s a continuous learning of the nature of the particular blog, the host/mods/admins themselves and what they do.

      I don’t consider what it going on as being “off-track”. It is part of the discussion. You can’t really operate in a vacuum with something as dynamic and polarizing as this case is and you’re also dealing with human beings so “drama” so to speak is bound to happen within any group.

      But I agree when it becomes wholly about that it distracts away from the discussion of facts of the case but as I also said my interest, in fact my main interest in not solely the facts of the case. And by the way perhaps if O’Mara would actually ever post some we could talk about it. Where’s the photo of the Skittles? Why was the State posting evidence but O’Mara does not?

      • As soon as “I” hit the reply button, I saw “we” “us”, right after reading to give my comments on what “I” “me” thinks. Do not generalize or think you speak for a group…but in my defense, Jeralyn did it too! lolz

        A little secret about me, sometimes I have to be told more than once. Sorry.

        I didn’t intend to keep posting on why I can’t post at CTH. I am so done with the conversation. If a question or suggestion comes up again that I should read or post there, I’m going to take Minpin’s advice and ignore it.

        As promised, I sent an email inquiry to Mr. O’Mara’s spokesperson today. He said he’d talk to Mr. O’Mara about it. Then it hit me. I feel awful about that. It’s 63 days until trial, I can’t have George’s lawyer responding to rumors that come up. When can George Zimmreman catch a break?

        I did learn in talking with OLG today, they expect to hear news of the Writ this week. (Whether it will be heard or not).

        Thanks again Diwataman. If I haven’t expressed it enough, I appreciate your work and attention to this case and those interested in this case. ♥

  10. I appreciate the source of information on the case your blog (and you!) provides, mainly only commenting when I have a question or theory that might be answered, considered or expanded on by others …most having great input to share. I always try to carefully word my comments so that any reply will not be an emotional reaction that is merely a waste of time to read.

    Hopefully YOUR VLOG will continue to be open to help keep us up on the case.

    • I just want to stress though you may not be referring to this exactly. You don’t have to walk on eggshells in response to my thoughts on anything, if you have something to say, say it, say it in your natural voice but yes I do prefer it have substance rather than purely criticism.

  11. Most of us are here for the long run and have respect for each other. A few people outside of our normal group came here to express dissatisfaction with another site. Maybe they got it out of their systems. Great job. DMan.

    • It isn’t just a few, its a lot. And it isn’t going to stop unless I do something, hopefully this will do it or else I’m turning off the comment sections of my posts altogether. Understand what has happened here. Sundance posts on something stating his thoughts, then people come over here to complain. As far as I can see Sundance is not going to stop posting about this case so he is again bound to say something that people will again turn my particular post at the time into a Sundance bash fest. That isn’t merely going off topic, that’s using any thread available to you to bash who you want regardless of the content of the post and that is bullshit and “aint nobody got time for that”.

      • I will give my personal formula for dealing with this problem. I look at the headings through my reader, if I find the header to be off, I do not bother reading. If I do read and find that some of the subject matter is in my view garbage, then I simply do not bother reading any more of what has been written. In that way I give that site the flick and only read what is relevant. I find that I get far more from reading TL, Mike Daniels and your site Dman. All of you stick to the facts. I have no quarrel when you sound off… it is ok by me.

  12. Thanks, DMan. I can understand your frustration with your blog being used as a podium for others to argue with or about Sundance. You’re doing the right thing by asking that it stop here and now. Your blog should be a reflection of the issues YOU want to talk about and care about. I totally get what you’re saying about someone knocking on your front door, too. I follow that basic rule on Facebook. When I post something on my wall, people are free to come and respond to it, but their responses have to be respectful of the fact that they are placing something on my wall. I don’t go to their walls and comment on things they say in a disrespectful manner, and I expect the same treatment (although I think that a large proportion of Facebook users do not understand the difference between MY wall and THEIR newsfeed – they see my post in their newsfeed and assume that it’s on their wall). I’ve defriended more than a few for violating that, even after I repeatedly requested that they clean up their acts. As for Sundance, as I told someone last night:

    “I really, really, really don’t give a crap about all of the Sundance/O’Mara stuff, even though I’ve certainly had questions about some of the things he’s said. I feel some sense of loyalty to him because his blog completely changed my mind about Zimmerman. The first time I went there, it was to seek information as a person who was 100% convinced that Zimmerman was a racist murderer. I actually posted a status on Facebook about this case in the early days that said “I demand justice for Trayvon Martin!” Reading through that blog reversed my thinking, and I owe Sundance and all of the posters there a big debt of gratitude for having the courage to speak the truth about the case at a time when speaking the truth made you look like you were a supporter of the ugliest form of racism. That said – even if he’s right about O’Mara, at this point, Zimmerman is riding to the courthouse on the O’Mara train, so it’s no longer helpful for Sundance to continue in bashing him. I just don’t want to get into that with him or join in the chorus of those duking it out with Sundance on Diwataman’s blog right now. Sigh….”

    Hopefully people will all understand that ultimately, most of us are on the SAME SIDE of this issue – we want to see justice done, and in this case, we truly believe that justice means a complete exoneration for George Zimmerman, along with punishment for those involved in pushing a false race-based narrative. I know I feel that way, and I think you, Sundance, Nettles, Jordan, Rumpole, and everyone else who posts here on a regular basis probably do as well. We can have disagreements about things but do it in a civilized way.

  13. I got put on permanent moderation over at the CTH. I understand that my ribald sense of humor is oggensive to many, but SDC decided that I was a prog masquerading as KDW just to discredit him. He has suggested that I have posted under other names but will not specify. Fine. This is all the bashing of SDC that I will do here.

    Thisbeing said, I have never been as distrustful of Mike Omara as SDC even though he is not a champion of the Second Amendment or the right to self defense. MoM doesn’t need to be passionate on these issues to represent GZ. IMHO, West combined with MoM is an effective team.

    I am still trying to sort out where SDC got the info about MoM being a consultant in regard to the HOA suit. If true it is a devastating conflict of interest.

      • Nettle – it sounds TOO late to me for Crump to take it back, I REALLY want to know the $$$$ paid which is not supposed to be available to the public. Maybe BDLR will screw up and release it.

        Remember when Crump won a big Civil Suit previously? He had a picture taken with a check that appeared 4 X 6 ft., IF Crump didn’t think he could continue to make money off this case such as the trash can tours, we would again see the smiling moron holding up a check.

        • I think you are right. It’s too late and word is out about what it is. That may have a negative impact on the donors texting in $10 at a time.

          Rene’s article today reveals that Crump didn’t share with the court the settlement amount. He blacked it out in the copy Rene saw but she determined it was more than one million.

      • Why does she keep writing “It is believed to be more than $1 million”? That passive voice writing drives me nuts. WHO believes it? If someone held a gun to my head (or a massive pile of newly-developed zero calorie Dove chocolate in front of my face), I’d bet that the settlement was LESS than $1 million. Considerably less. So apparently Rene has some inside contact who has actually seen the settlement figure, or Crump gave it to her but made her promise to not reveal it.

    • Hello Nettles18,

      Good catch as you always seem to do! Now, do you have any insight or intuitive feel for what this
      Crump Court Filing may contain? If not, I guess that we would have to wait until next Monday, April
      15 to find out; instrument was filed on the 4th, so ten calendar days ends on Sunday the 14th.

      And as County Clerk Ms. Morse states, it appears that it’s too late for Mr. Crump to “get it back” and
      that it WILL become public information. I’m pleased that finally someone in a position of authority tells
      Mr. Crump that

      “… we do not agree [with you] that the information contained within … is subject to confidentiality …”

      • I know exactly what this filing is JB. Rene Stutzman got a glimpse of the first 5 pages of the 12 pages in the filing.

        It’s the details of a settlement, believed to be more and a million dollars, between the HOA and the parents and estate of Trayvon Martin. An email posted at Talk Left leaves me to believe the settlement occurred sometime in November 2012. In Rene’s article she posted on Friday (link provided), she quotes Mr. O’Mara statement made in February that he knew of the settlement which was made several months prior. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-04-05/news/os-trayvon-martin-settlement-20130405_1_trayvon-martin-benjamin-crump-george-zimmerman

        In Rene’s article today, (link provided in the comment above) she tells us the amount of the settlement was blacked out by Mr. Crump before filing it with the court.

        Mr. Crump wanted it kept confidential. It’s unclear why he filed this now. Some opine that he hopes to strengthen his argument that he is opposing counsel and therefore should not be deposed by Mr. O’Mara. That doesn’t make sense because GZ wasn’t a party to the settlement and Mr. Crump isn’t a party to the criminal case.

        I wonder if Mr. Crump isn’t trying to influence the Judge or tamper with the jury pool but getting the settlement in the news this close to the trial. It looks bad for him with the timing, imo.

        Anyway, in addition to preparing his argument to the Writ, Mr. Crump now has to appeal to the court to keep the filing confidential. Times a ticking.

        • Not only does it not make sense for that reason, I agree it seems to me it is an attempt as you say to avoid being deposed, but the problem is IT’S THE WRONG COURT! BWAHAHAHA! O’Mara went to the 5th DCA not the Seminole County Courthouse!

            • One question that I haven’t seen addressed yet that I’m trying to understand is how can Crump file anything in the case of the State v Zimmerman? I want to know how a thing like that is even allowed. How can a person just walk into a courthouse and say “hey, I’d like to put this document in a criminal case I have no actual involvement in.” WTF? If that’s the case I’m off to the Seminole County Courthouse to file a few things in this case.

              • I want to know what the penalty will be to the clerk, for giving five pages of court confidential material to the press. This was no accident. This was a strategic leak, enabled by the court. It was properly filed as confidential, and the rules are simple – it stays confidential for at least 10 days.

                • Well, it seems it wasn’t a very effective leak, does anyone have these five pages?

                  [edit] I mean it wasn’t effective because we don’t have the five pages is all. Also we still don’t know what Crumps intent is so how could we measure the effectiveness of any “leaks”?

                  • Wasn’t effective? The Zimmerman case news all weekend was about a settlement, and absent the clerk of the court showing 5 pages of confidential material to the Orlando Sentinel, NONE of those reports would have been made.

                    • Yeah I phrased that badly and I realized it after hitting “Post Comment” and quickly tried to edit in a little reasoning. I don’t think the clerk took it upon herself to post it on the website as some sort of strategic leak. Certainly if that was the case this clerk could do better wouldn’t you say? Like post some anon info about the actual case somewhere really shaking things up. I’m not even sure at this point if Crump was trying to keep the entire thing under seal or just some of the info contained in it like the amount and names. If it’s the latter clearly Crump wanted it out there so what’s he worried about then.

                    • cboldt – the press always gets the information BEFORE the public in Fla. as witnessed In Casey’s case, sometimes we had to wait forever it seemed UNTIL all the information that had to be redacted was and the Media released it to the public, especially in discovery. No doubt OS has a reporter hanging around, Casey’s case continues to be the most reported story in Fla. and endless filings continue to be made, still a National Media story, so the OS probably has a reporter there to cover everything released, not a reporter to only report n GZ. Since Fla. does things differently than other States, Fla. it seems doesn’t provide the information directly to the public BEFORE the media is notified, if they did, it seems the redacting would fall upon the Clerk of Court. I know the MEDIA outlets had to do a lot of the redacting in previous cases.

                  • Rene had them in her hand on the local news on Friday night. She referred to them in her interview. There was video of her on-air report on the Friday (April 5th) article, but it has since been taken down.

                    • Nettles – that’s how it is done in Fla., the Media reported the highlights of discovery BEFORE the Media released the information in Casey’s case. I have followed 2 high profile cases in FLa., Casey’s and Adam Kaufman’s in the past couple of years and it was done the same way in both cases. Too, it may be that since the copies from the Clerk’s office are not free to the MEDIA or anyone else, perhaps there are not many that want to go to the Clerk’s off, PAY for the copies just to read when they can count on at least OS to report the story.

                      It’s unfortunate that this story is a snore for the Orlando media as far as being reported, WFTV that won awards on reporting in Casey’s case hardly mentions anything in the case, sometimes Click Orlando will have a story but it could be several days after a filing, a news conference etc. I continue to be surprised at the lack of interest in GZ’s case, locally and nationally.

              • I am wondering who at the courthouse accepted this document, added it to the record, decided that it won’t be confidential in 10 days if Nelson was supposed to be on vacation last week. Was the document, which pertains to a civil matter, accepted in an attempt to shore up Crump’s position as opposing council even though it has nothing to do with the criminal case? Can a court clerk accept or reject documents for a criminal case? How did Stutzman get the document before the 10 days are up to release it? With Crump agreeing to the terms that the payment was not for a wrongful death, which is a part of the document, it doesn’t fit his narrative, or the prosecution’s charges of murder.

    • Nettles, I’m posting this as a reply to this comment you made here at 11:42am as an example of what I’m in part talking about. Look at all the comments before 11:42am and the majority of the ones after. One has virtually nothing to do with the other. Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve always appreciated you keeping an eye out for the current info and posting it. The problem that comes with that though is that it distracts from the conversation. Oddly it was the reverse a couple of days ago. I post about Crump getting paid and “everyone” wants to talk about Sundance. I post about Sundance today and now the conversation is about Crump and such. WTF? I can’t win.

      That’s part of my frustration, Sundance characterized my blog as an “Open Thread” and so every post is treated as such. Now I don’t mind when the conversation goes off topic because that is the nature of conversation and argumentation, and I understand when new information is announced you want to let people know but what is aggravating though is when I post about something and people start dropping in off-topic stuff because that’s what they want to talk about instead. Do people not get how much that screws things up?

      Think about someone perusing for information and discussion how to repair a transmission and finds a post titled “How to Fix a Transmission” and find the majority of the discussion is not about transmissions but about carburetors or even baking cakes. Would you not find it frustrating to find conversation about the topic you want to talk about only to find you have to sift through a bunch of off topic comments? How long would you stick around reading that post? That’s just one problem.

      The other problem that comes with it is that the host himself may be interested in what the conversation is on the topic he’s posting, or else why would he post it. And so the comments come in yet they have nothing to do with what he’s talking about. Can you imagine that? How would you feel? I really suggest you start blogging so you can get a sense of what I’m talking about. How would you feel if you posted on your blog this article by Rene with your thoughts on why Crump did this, what it might mean for whatever, blah blah blah, and I come over and drop a comment in about O’Mara being an asshole for not dealing with this months ago or whatever, then the conversation spirals into nothing but O’Mara talk, comment after comment after comment, the little notification bar lighting up all day with comments about O’mara. You don’t want to deal with that frustration so you make it my frustration instead.

      Here is someone we know that offers a forum with a “general discussion” thread on the GZ case. That is a “open thread” if you will, regarding the Zimmerman case. On that thread you can change the topic every five minutes if you like, as long as it pertains to the case somehow, though that even on an open thread could become frustrating, usually there’s a natural flow to the conversation on forum threads like that.

      http://randomtopics.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=862&sid=1a0c1fd79274e22c1fb3e8434590e432

      • D-man-

        I will normally scroll through the thread a couple of times a day, and will offer a comment depending on what I read, which topic may or may not be the one you started off with, but has become part of what is in the thread.

        I suspect that more than a few commenters do the same thing – and if the subject is interesting, the thread goes off into another direction.

        In addition, you have attracted commenters for whom a rational discussion is preferable to outbreaks of hyperbole. The quality of the commenting is what attracts the audience.

        So you do have a conundrum for which there is not an easy answer. I am just appreciative of the venue you offer.

      • There’s an 11:14 post too, the letter from clerk of the court to Crump.

        I think the steam ran out of the topic subject, that being blogosphere dysfunction with some specific examples. I’m damn sure my contributions here are outside the topic of your post, and I apologize for contributing to the disarray.

        • And one she made while I was writing my comment, lol, you are right though, that was the first one that changed the nature of the comment section and I should have posted my reply to that one. It’s not the end of the world to me I just want to let people know, I’m not pissed at Nettles, I’m glad she seems to be taking it in stride on what I have to say using her there as an example.

          • No troubles. I’m learning. I recall when I was on the legal page on facebook run by George’s defense, my posts got deleted A LOT for not staying on topic. It’s been a while but I take the message and will try to do better.

            I did tell you, sometimes I need to be told more than once.

            Please don’t look further down on the Cashill article 🙂

  14. D-man

    Thanks for your clarifications. The tone at this site has been refreshingly free of invective and I hope continues in that manner.

  15. “I really, really, really don’t give a crap about all of the Sundance/O’Mara stuff, even though I’ve certainly had questions about some of the things he’s said. I feel some sense of loyalty to him because his blog completely changed my mind about Zimmerman. The first time I went there, it was to seek information as a person who was 100% convinced that Zimmerman was a racist murderer. I actually posted a status on Facebook about this case in the early days that said “I demand justice for Trayvon Martin!” Reading through that blog reversed my thinking, and I owe Sundance and all of the posters there a big debt of gratitude for having the courage to speak the truth about the case at a time when speaking the truth made you look like you were a supporter of the ugliest form of racism. That said – even if he’s right about O’Mara, at this point, Zimmerman is riding to the courthouse on the O’Mara train, so it’s no longer helpful for Sundance to continue in bashing him. I just don’t want to get into that with him or join in the chorus of those duking it out with Sundance on Diwataman’s blog right now. Sigh….”

    Hi Ackbarsays,

    Your perspective sums it up for me. I remember my initial reaction was the same as yours when I first heard the 911 calls and heard what I thought (and it was told as such) was the voice of a child screaming for help and then shot. I posted a comment on my FB page to the effect that I hoped whoever did that was punished to the full extent of the law and most of my buddies there agreed (some are still holding to the narrative put out in the immediate aftermath of the shooting).).

    Well, the rest is history as it is said. My one common belief with the CTH was “there was something afoot in this case” after seeing so many inconsistencies in the narrative which led me to the CTH. I learned one crucial thing and that is the media is not as forthcoming as I once believed and to seek out facts and apply some critical thinking.

    I am not in agreement with all MOM has done as I wondered, (even though I kept my thoughts to myself) why the PCA was not challenged at the initial hearing for GZ. With that being said, I also thought long ago, that while this didn’t seem like it should have went to trial, that a trial may be a good thing because all the facts can come out. The other stuff with the financial affidavit at the bond hearing, and now the HOA thing, I just believe that there is bigger picture that we may not be privy to and that MOM Is GZ’s lawyer and this is ultimately between them. I don’t see what good saying all this about MOM could do especially since it is coming down to the wire with the trial starting in a little over 60-days.

    I believe that the prosecutors are doing (with political pressure) what they do in other cases:prosecuting a case they believe in (probably with help from others) and that if the defendant is not guilty, the evidence would bear that out. My only concern about that is in this climate, there are too many people who are amenable to the narrative that was put out in the media about this case so the prosecutors job may not be all that difficult even in the light of facts and truth.

    I wish MOM and West would defend GZ with a little more fire and street savvy, but once again, I cannot see the bigger picture.

    While I believe that GZ is not guilty, I don’t necessarily agree with how some feel TM should be written off because of smoking weed or drinking lean or during poorly in school. How many of us could have been written off, based on that logic, for some of the stuff we did in our teens years. I think what I want to know is what was his (TM) state of mind that would lead him to attack GZ and not to stop even when accosted by someone who stated they witnessed the attack? What motivated him to do that? On the other hand, if I was juror, I would also want to know why GZ told the person on the NEN call, “to just have the police call me when they get here” when asked where he would be. I also want to know his state of mind also. Regardless of my belief that he appears to be not guilty based on evidence presented so far, I think GZ made some poor choices that night

    I think we are losing sight of the forest for the trees. We are losing sight of the facts that really matter in this case and focusing on the “sideshows” which started with the introduction of the narrative. I Pray that the facts proving GZ not guilty can be brought out by MOM/WEST and the best thing we can do now is to pray that they are guided to do just that. They (MOM) have the added burden of trying to prove GZ’s innocence as he has already been deemed guilty in the court of public opinion. Prayers for them as they continue to fight the battles in this case.

    • I like to think that MOM and West already have evidence that will blow away the State in court. This may be ping logs or GPS data confirming that TM lost GZ and was laying in wait to ambush him, phone records which show TM and DD were not talking at the time of the confrontation, surveillance video showing that TM was casing homes or looking in cars on his way home from the 7/11, school &/or police records showing prior violent behavior by TM, or even a TM family member who is rightfully sickened by Tracy and Sybrina’s behavior and has agreed to cooperate with the defense. This last notion is one I have been thinking about for a while, as it would explain what some feel is MOM’s overly deferential attitude toward the Martin family and the BGI in general.

      IANAL, but IMO DD is already completely undermined as a prosecution witness. I have thought all along that she would be called by the defense as a witness as her statement confirms that TM got to BG’s townhouse safely, and that TM initiated the verbal confrontation with GZ. That she lied under oath is just the icing on the cake. It doesn’t seem to me that deposing Crump really has any relevance to GZ’s innocence or guilt at this point, but rather is an example of MOM/West using the privileges associated with criminal discovery to lay the foundation for future civil and criminal actions against the prosecution, scheme team, and the legacy media.

      IMO the defense wants a trial. I believe that their case is so strong, that they feel they can get a directed verdict or outright acquittal without the need for GZ to testify, while making their case for malicious prosecution, misconduct by various officers of the court, and slander in open court.

      • Hi Libtardh8r,

        Appreciate your thoughts which gave me the impetus to clarify my previous post:

        Clarification
        The point I was trying to make am trying to make is that there are certain aspects of GZ’s behavior that night that cannot be overlooked by a jury who is considering all the evidence in arriving at a verdict. For a jury that may already be predisposed because of the publicity in this case, it won’t take much to see GZ’s actions as being contributory to the tragic outcome regardless of TM’s actions which is what the prosecutors are going to argue. MOM and team are going to need something that will completely prove GZ innocent (I know that normally, a defendant doesn’t have to do that, but this is not a normal case is it?). I think they know that and probably don’t need the added burden of quarterbacks on the sidelines criticizing everything they do. I, for one, give them a shout out for being out there on the field considering the opposition they face. I bet they don’t hear that often.

        • it won’t take much to see GZ’s actions as being contributory to the tragic outcome

          Which actions in particular?

          • “Which actions in particular?”

            Tara,

            Let me first say that being an observer of this case, outside of a courtroom, believe that GZ is not guilty because of reasonable doubt. However, I have wondered about some of the action’s of GZ and questioned them as I feel a juror should do. First, I wonder why GZ told the NEN operator instead of having the operator to meet at his truck, he instructed the operator to tell them to call when they arrive as if he was not going to be at his truck. I am not saying he went on a hunt for TM but one can see how it looks that way.

            Secondly, when he and TM met up, why did GZ reach for his phone at that moment. As GZ said himself, when TM was circling his truck (or whatever TM (owas doing), it looks like he has something in his pants (or hands, I cannot remember which now) which caused GZ to be in fear. It could be argued that TM felt the same fear when GZ reached into his pocket, not knowing what GZ was reaching for. . I am not saying this is what is, but these are questions I would have if I were on that jury, to resolve it in GZ’s favor or not.

            There are some valid questions that need to answered. However, I believe (but I won’t be on that jury if indeed it gets to one) that once TM had him on the ground, and there was no out for GZ, then self-defense is reasonable.

            • First, I wonder why GZ told the NEN operator instead of having the operator to meet at his truck, he instructed the operator to tell them to call when they arrive as if he was not going to be at his truck.

              There are (at least) two problems with your statement.

              First, you are assuming that it was not OK for George to be on foot in the condo community where he lives. This is absurd. Just because he reported a suspicious person doesn’t mean he needs to hide in his truck or his condo until the police arrive.

              Second, you are assuming that even if he had returned immediately to his truck George would know exactly where the truck would be positioned within the complex. Had he been able to return to his truck without being punched in the face, perhaps he would have driven around the complex. The police would have to call him to find his location.

            • “First, I wonder why GZ told the NEN operator instead of having the operator to meet at his truck, he instructed the operator to tell them to call when they arrive as if he was not going to be at his truck.” I thought he was already out of the truck at that point….

              “Secondly, when he and TM met up, why did GZ reach for his phone at that moment.” From the best available information,With the police due to arrive any sec/min, GZ went around the corner for a street sign and to see if he could get a visual on the direction the very suspicious character who ran off a full two minutes before. GZ was on the phone with dispatch while he walked around the corner and expressed apprehension this suspicious character may still be around. Enough apprehension to not even say your address out loud in fear of reprisal.

              I believe when GZ got off the phone with dispatch, TM emerged from the shadows and headed directly towards GZ. Everything happened extremely fast.

              TM “You got a problem”
              GZ dumbfounded and probably right to be fearful. “No” Looks down, sign of submission. Reaches for phone*
              TM “You do now”
              Assault commences

              GZ only had a split second to react and barely even got a word out. Is it possible GZ in that split second did not reach for his phone, and instead reached for his gun? I don’t think so, but who knows. Judging by the assault that was about to happen to him, I’m not even sure that would have been the wrong move. Not to shoot Trayvon of course, but at least so that Trayvon doesn’t assault you. The words Trayvon used “You got a problem” || “You do now” are very indicative of someone intent on assaulting (or jumping as the kids call it) you. Bottom line, I don’t think GZ reached for his gun, I don’t think it’s provable either way, certainly beyond a reasonable doubt, and finally, even if he did, I don’t think it changes the fact that GZ was screaming for help for 45 seconds having his head pounded into the pavement. Every criteria of self defense is met.

              I don’t care what color Trayvon is. To give every benefit of the doubt to the 17 year old constantly suspended from school and with absolutely no parental guidance/discipline is using very poor judgement of character. The only reason to give someone with that kind of track record every benefit of the doubt is precisely because of his race. There is no other logical reason.

              • “I don’t care what color Trayvon is. To give every benefit of the doubt to the 17 year old constantly suspended from school and with absolutely no parental guidance/discipline is using very poor judgement of character. The only reason to give someone with that kind of track record every benefit of the doubt is precisely because of his race. There is no other logical reason.”

                I see. To look at the argument the prosecutors will put forth and try to come up with answers to resolve it is to have a poor judge of character. And to see it from another angle to see how it all fits is to give the deceased the benefit of doubt because of his race. Can’t seem to get away from the “R” word, can we?Oh my, I feel for this jury, if and when they get to deliberations and seek to fairly analyze all evidence to arrive at a verdict.

                • “Oh my, I feel for this jury, if and when they get to deliberations and seek to fairly analyze all evidence to arrive at a verdict.”

                  The “fairly analyzing all evidence” is the easy part. Very easy part. The hard part is going against the BGI for fear of reprisal. (and I mean everyone involved including judges, politicians, witnesses)

                  I see you are claiming to be on the fence, and think GZ may be guilty.

                  • “I see you are claiming to be on the fence, and think GZ may be guilty.”

                    Uh, no. I believe GZ appears to be not guilty but I do claim that I try to keep an open mind and look at all evidence, much we still haven’t seen. . Now unless, I got it wrong, I don’t think the prosecutors are going to give an open statement proclaiming GZ to be innocent and that they will present evidence to back it up throughout the trial.

                    What a disservice to justice if someone goes to sit on that jury and mind is closed to hear all the evidence because of pre-determination of guilt or innocence. I believe you can believe in one or the other but be receptive to hear all the evidence. I thought that is what many accuse the Pro-Trayvon supporters of not doing.

                    • I have studied this case for months. And a big eff you for insinuating I am not looking at this case objectively. You are offering nothing new. Leave me alone, and stop derailing this thread.

                    • “I have studied this case for months. And a big eff you for insinuating I am not looking at this case objectively. You are offering nothing new.You are offering nothing new. , and stop derailing this thread.”

                      This is in response to jack203’s comment below for which I could not reply:

                      1. “A big eff you for insinuating I am not looking at this case objectively” – I did not insinuate anything about you. Stating how I am looking at the case which I thought we were entitled to do with out being insulted in such a demeaning way as being told to “eff you.” But okay, do you!

                      2. “You are offering nothing new.” Never claimed I was offering anything new; just offering my perspective just as you do.

                      3. “Leave me alone, and stop derailing this thread.” So you can posts a reply back to me but if I post a reply back its derailing the thread? Okay

                      I am just not into attacking someone just because i may not agree with them so I won’t return the favor, Have a nice day.

                    • Hey Angel… wow…. not sure what’s going on, but glad I’m not in the middle of it! 😉 How you doing? Haven’t talked to you much recently.

                • To look at the argument the prosecutors will put forth

                  The Persecution’s only hope is to establish that Trademark was a scare chile runnin runnin walkin runnin. It will be easy for the Defense to create reasonable doubt.

                  – Scare chile was “right by” Brandy’s apartment yet ended up back at the T in the sidewalk he passed MINUTES earlier (thanks, DeeDee!)
                  – Scare chile initiated the verbal confrontation (thanks again, DeeDee!)
                  – Scare chile was seen on top of George, punching George
                  – Scare chile punched George in the face so hard he broke George’s nose
                  – Scare chile had only knuckle injuries, George had face and back of head injuries plus the back of George’s clothes were wet and grass covered

                  That’s sufficient for reasonable doubt, anything else will be icing.

                  • Reasonable Doubt

                    “Lack of proof that prevents a judge or jury to convict a defendant for the charged crime. The prosecution must provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the defendant’s guilt, otherwise he or she is entitled to an acquittal.”

                    I’m not sure that Angel understands what “reasonable doubt” is. It is not to instill that TM was innocent, but rather to instill a doubt that GZ is guilty of the crime charged. There is no way for the prosecution to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that TM may have thought that GZ was reaching for a gun rather than his cell phone, as she implied above. The decision of the jury is to be based on the “preponderance of the evidence” rather than on some questions they may have that can never be answered. No one can ever answer the question of what TM might have been thinking.

                    • “I’m not sure that Angel understands what “reasonable doubt” is.”

                      Hi Minpin,

                      I know what reasonable doubt is and have said many times, that I believe he is not guilty because of the evidence presented so far and because the law holds that he is innocent until proven guilty.

                      I had a few questions about his actions that night however, that I wanted to resolve in my own mind, at least. but what did I ask those questions for? I been told to “eff you” and now my intelligence is questioned! I think since I am of the belief that GZ appears to be not guilty, I will not ask any more questions about the evidence and see how it rolls in the Court

              • “The only reason to give someone with that kind of track record every benefit of the doubt is precisely because of his race. There is no other logical reason.”

                There is an equally prevalent and biased group of folks who can’t see past Trevon’s age who are completely willing to hold him blameless because he was technically a ‘child.’

                I can’t even begin to tell you how many times I’ve seen some Trevon supporter or another try to rationalize that “George was the adult, therefore….” or that Trevon’s delinquent behaviors were “normal” teenage shenanigans … as if to imply that an adult who finds himself the victim of an underaged assailant has no right to defend himself.

                This is one of those ‘bigger issues’ in the Zimmerman case that our criminal justice system at large is having to deal with, and a discussion that desperately needs to take place in this country… can we continue to sympathetically view and treat young offenders as ‘children’ when the reality is that virtually half of all violent crimes being committed in this country (not to mention a significant portion of property crimes as well) are being committed by ‘children.’

                * and my apologies to diawataman for contributing to an off topic line of discussion

            • You heard George trying to describe the location of his truck early on in the call, right? And then later, after Trayvon “ran”, George tried a couple more times to describe the location. But he and Sean just could NOT get on the same wavelength. It would have been comical if we didn’t know what happened later. So in my opinion, THAT is the main reason George said to call me when you get here. That way he could say, “Ok, I see you! Keep going straight and I’ll be waving my arms like a Bernie and you’ll see me.”

              • Maybe George didn’t know right at that moment where he’d be. The dispatcher told him that it wasn’t necessary for him to follow Trademark, it didn’t mean that he had to run back to his truck. I wouldn’t have, and I’m female! Hopefully there will be at least one juror with b*lls who also wouldn’t. But it all doesn’t matter, because there is clear evidence, proof I would say, that Trademark had reached Brandy’s apartment but he backtracked to locate George. There is NO other way to explain the location of the fight and shooting.

        • Angel: “there are certain aspects of GZ’s behavior that night that cannot be overlooked by a jury who is considering all the evidence in arriving at a verdict”

          Like what? Like calling NEN immediately when he spots someone he’s never seen before acting suspicious, roaming around looking at houses in the rain, acting like he’s on drugs, in a neighborhood plagued with home invasions and breakins? a person that walks around GZ’s car with GZ in the car looking at GZ while GZ is still on phone with NEN. Smells like intimidation to me. That move alone is enough to make me think this kid is up to no good. To me a normal person does not approach GZ in the car. I wouldn’t. Why would I? <Answer that. I would just keep truckin home. He didn't. What may be your contention or a jury's contention is that George should not have had a gun. But he did. And he had it legally. Although GZ was seen to be on the bottom taking a beating, called out for someone to help him, TM continued his assault even tho he had to know someone now had seen him doing so. Without the gun, GZ no doubt would have continued to be beaten until police arrive … what? a minute or so later. One can do a lot of damage in a minute. One minute can be the difference between life and death or serious life altering injury. GZ said TM went for the gun. What do you suppose TM was going to do with it?

          • “Like what? Like calling NEN immediately when he spots someone he’s never seen before acting suspicious, roaming around looking at houses in the rain, acting like he’s on drugs, in a neighborhood plagued with home invasions and breakins? a person that walks around GZ’s car with GZ in the car looking at GZ while GZ is still on phone with NEN. Smells like intimidation to me. That move alone is enough to make me think this kid is up to no good. To me a normal person does not approach GZ in the car. I wouldn’t. Why would I? <Answer that. I would just keep truckin home"

            Yes, I would have kept trucking home and agree that TM seemed to be up to no good. GZ had every right to defend himself. Yes, no doubt about it.

            • Angel, I think what you are saying in the bigger picture (for the trial) is that you are concerned that if they try to thugify TM, defense may take the chance of offending jurors. Please correct me if I am wrong as I don’t want to put words in your mouth. But if that is the case, I think the defense CAN do that indirectly and not make it look like that by pointing to trends by young ppl in today’s society. The pick em out-knock em out game, the roaming flash mobs, the MMA (fight club) craze, the thug culture (if they have the balls to go there). Will they go into Tracy’s background as a father … leaving a troubled teen alone and not nipping in the bud the stuff going on at school. I have no doubt that BOTH sides will have to bring to light the behaviors of both victims, GZ and TM. It’s obvious you can push harder on the man on trial, but it won’t surprise me at all that the defense will make a case as to why or what state of mind TM had to throw a punch and then get on top of GZ and beat him.

              • “Angel, I think what you are saying in the bigger picture (for the trial) is that you are concerned that if they try to thugify TM, defense may take the chance of offending jurors. Please correct me if I am wrong as I don’t want to put words in your mouth.”

                ottawa925,

                No you are not putting words in my mind. I do think MOM will have to be very careful about putting the victim on trial but I think he knows that and has been very mindful of that in his interviews or he does run the risk of alienating that jury. And that is my point I think, is that based on what we know from this side of the courtroom, GZ does appear to be not guilty but a jury has to see all the admissable evidence to arrive at a verdict, some evidence we have not seen.

        • It is O’Mara/West’s job (and the judge’s, but I don’t really trust her to do so) to properly instruct the jury. Reasonable people can differ about the wisdom of some of GZ’s actions, but the law is clear and not open to interpretation.

          The jury must be instructed that GZ had no obligation to stay in his vehicle, and was well within his rights to carry a concealed deadly weapon, to attempt to reestablish visual contact with TM while waiting for police to arrive, and, ultimately, to use deadly force in response to the prolonged assault he suffered at the hands of TM. Whether he was looking for a street sign of a house number, whether TM ran or skipped away, and whether TM was looking at houses or into windows are all meaningless to the central questions, which are who started the physical altercation, and would a reasonable person who was being straddled by a 6 foot tall, in shape young man, who had been sucker-punched in the nose, had his head repeatedly bashed on the concrete, and was screaming for help for 40 plus seconds without any abatement on the attack fear great bodily harm? I am as yet unaware of any evidence that contradicts GZ’s story, and there is plenty of evidence corroborating it, so I don’t see how any jury is going to convict him.

          • The Defense will also include information about the many break-ins and burglaries committed in prior months which easily explains why George called the non-emergency number. What murderer would alert the police to an impending murder??? The murder charge is absolutely insane.

            • Let’s not forget about how GZ gave the SPD full cooperation including submitting to a video walk through of the shooting, taking a voice stress analysis, and giving several statements (all without benefit of counsel) while the Martins lawyered up and hired a PR guy. Tracy and Sybrina lawyered up before Sybrina drove to Sanford. Before TM was buried.

    • Angel I remember your first posts at CTH and you have grown, a lot!! You show a lot of maturity in the way that you think. You are correct because even in my country, the MSM goes out of its way to disregard the truth in a lot of matters… but…. even there things do change when the government tries to interfere in our right to free speech 🙂

      • “Angel I remember your first posts at CTH and you have grown, a lot!!”

        Hi Aussie,

        Yes, this case has shattered some illusions that I had about some things which is a good thing. I think this case is significant that it has brought up issues that are far-reaching then this GZ case that we individually and/or collectively need to deal with.

  16. Pingback: Welcome & Such (sticky) | dannywarrior

  17. “The main point of contention was how could Sundance possibly know this and because there was nothing concrete shown, the people, who already had a gripe with Sundance, took it upon themselves to inundate my blog with hate filled, factually inaccurate, opinionated vitriol pointed at Sundance.”

    In my defense D, I apologized to you prior to things getting out of hand.
    Fact being, I made a very small comment in respect to other posters comments that was fact based true an accurate. Which by the way was not hate filled.
    You attempted to engage me further and I was the one who attempted to dissuade you from having a Sundance conversation on you own blog after you were questioning me on why I felt that way. Go ahead read the thread!

    This post leads me to believe you were aware of the friction of having CTH posters, banned CTH posters, and those who freely left CTH that bubbled over here.
    I see no mention of certain CTH posters who decided to bring the CTH here, and on a daily basis were egging on MOM supporters on your very blog, without you mentioning a word.
    In fact many were ignoring it even after they were invited back only to be humiliated.
    Did you not understand my comment to you about how a man runs his castle?

    I see no mention that until CTH grabbed my content from your blog and placed it on his blog, after a CTH posters came here and placed a link to a new post about me on CTH. Your loyalty is evident.

    BTW being a lurker does not make one a troll. In fact paying attention to the goings on I believe makes one more aware of all aspects of the conversations occurring.
    I came here and began in dialogue with a poster about the case. I placed in a very small comment that I would not address the gossip about MOM begin apart of the HOA settlement.
    Because there is no proof? Is that inaccurate? Is it inaccurate that I stated Sundance takes off on topics that have nothing to do with the case and what is important to it? Shoot the messenger!

    I have taken your advice and began my own blog. Those of you who would like to discuss the case and your experiences as a GZ and MOM supporter without hyperbole, you are welcome to come on over to dannywarrior.wordpress
    I wish you well Diwataman. Thank You for allowing me to briefly post and discover some very good insights your commentator gave while I lurked.

    • “I have taken your advice and began my own blog. Those of you who would like to discuss the case and your experiences as a GZ and MOM supporter without hyperbole, you are welcome to come on over to dannywarrior.wordpress”

      Well, one thing is clear from all this is that the GZ case has been good for the blogging industry.

      Good wishes for your blog, Danny!

    • “I have taken your advice and began my own blog. Those of you who would like to discuss the case and your experiences as a GZ and MOM supporter without hyperbole…” Dead stop brother. If there’s any example of hyperbole it’s your comment right here and now. I didn’t address your particular issue, I addressed what has simply been going on for some time now and reached a high point a couple of days ago but the issue involves more than just that or you. Perhaps when you start blogging you’ll learn more about what I’m talking about.

  18. Getting the issue about the “strategic leak” off the right margin of my broswer … responding to Dman’s remarks.

    The website posting that there had been a Notice of Filing of Confidential material, that’s according to Hoyle. What isn’t according to Hoyle is the clerk of the court giving the Orlando Sentinel a copy of the first five pages.

    Crump isn’t trying to keep the settlement a secret, he succeeded in making it public by filing a confidential document in Zimmerman’s criminal case. My point is that the court enabled Crump’s desire to “break secrecy” about the settlement. And it appears that the Orland Sentinel has some sort of special pull with the clerk, to be able to obtain confidential material. I smell more than one rat here.

    • I’m thinking the same thing. That posting was not on the court site. I checked that thing repeatedly all last week looking for a notice of an earlier court date.

      • Stutzman reports getting 5 pages from the clerk of the court. That could be a lie, and the clerk has incentive to blow the whistle on Stutzman on that one, because if the clerk gave out confidential material, then the clerk broke a simple and common rule of the court administration.

          • No. He filed something (in a case where it need not be filed) under a cover titled “NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WITHIN COURT FILING” the Court rules (Rules of Judicial Administration, Rule 2.420) even include a sample cover page with this correct title. And that cover page even has a note to the clerk who handles the filing.

            “Note: The clerk of court shall review filings identified as containing confidential information to determine whether the information is facially subject to confidentiality under the identified provision. The clerk shall notify the filer in writing within 5 days if the clerk determines that the information is NOT subject to confidentiality, and the records shall not be held as confidential for more than 10 days, unless a motion is filed pursuant to subdivision (d)(3) of the Rule. Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(d)(2).”

            My understanding is that what Crump provided was already redacted. The amount was not shown, at least.

              • Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think the documents will become public. My sense is that the entire enterprise was geared to create a reason for the Orlando Sentinel to publish the fact of the existence of a settlement agreement, and to speculate on the amount. Crump is going to have enough heat (from the HOA and insurer, probably from the court) for making this superfluous filing, and he gets the same PR benefit whether or not the amount is disclosed to Stutzman – probably better PR with the amount being a matter of speculation.

          • Well, no motive to lie about getting a copy of the partially redacted settlement agreement from the court, because the alternative is that she got a (partially redacted) copy of the settlement agreement from Crump.

            I was just saying that if Stutzman is wrongly fingering the clerk, the clerk would either get paid off, or blow the whistle. Under Stutzman’s story, the clerk breached confidentiality, and that is a problem for people who file confidential material in the court. It’s a serious problem. The clerk is or should be in some hot water for giving confidential material to a person who is not entitled to be privy to it. At least a letter in the permanant file.

            • Is it possible that the first five pages were exhibited on line by accident, the accident was caught, and the adjustment made?

          • I don’t think that was the implication, everything she reported was factual. But, she is a reporter and she came into information that by her own words was to remain confidential, and she used that information. I know I would have a well. The whole deal seems contrived, first the Clerk accepts information that has no bearing on the case by a non-party. That could be easily explain since everyone knows of Crump’s involvement, but then she mistakenly releases some of that information, which was clearly marked Confidential on the cover sheet to Rene, who just happened to be looking for information about the case. The rest of the information is quickly sealed to prevent further disclosures, but not before the cat is out of the bag, and the story is being written about the settlement.

      • Rene implies that the 5 pages were visible on the Seminole County web site.

        Part of the 12-page settlement popped into public view for a few minutes Friday. The day before, Crump had made it part of the official court record in the second-degree murder case against former Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman.

        Crump had instructed the clerk’s office to seal the settlement, but for a few minutes Friday morning, the first five pages were available for public review. The clerk’s office then blacked out all but the first page, which is a cover sheet filed by Crump.

        How did Rene know that the 5 pages were available “for a few minutes Friday”? Does she have an assistant who sits on the Seminole County site 24×7 watching for updates?

  19. Is the Seminole Clerk going to unseal Sybrina’s settlement with the Retreat’s HOA in 10 business days or 10 calendar days? I pray the latter. The settlement amount is blacked out, but the rest will be readable, correct? So we will see all of the party names, exactly when the settlement was reached, the terms of the payout, etc, correct?

    • I have another question. A few days ago an Apr 5 tweet from Shayan Modarres was posted on CTH. Someone had asked Modarres who filed the document, and Modarres replied “We filed”. But it was Crump who filed. Why would Modarres take credit for it?

      • The system appears to be hinky. Maybe Modressa filed it (who knows what sort of justification THEY might offer), and Crump was apprised by the clerk because the secret is Crump’s to keep. Also hinky, why weren’t OTHER parties apprised by letters from the clerk? The HOA and its insurer are also parties who want the agreement to be kept confidential. Isn’t the court going to give THEM a chance to have their voices heard?

      • Tara, Shayan Modarres is a big supporter of TM, TM warriors as he calls them, so I always took the “we” to mean that he meant the TM side filed. IIRC this was a response to Bigboi, so it would make sense.

    • Crump has 10 calendar days to file a motion. The material is diclosed if he failes to file. If he files, the court will take the motion under consideration. There is supposedly a 30 day limit for the court to consider the motion, but the courts don’t adhere to the rules, so who knows.

      I think Crump (and the HOA/Insurer) will argue the material is a trade secret, and the court will maintain confidentiality. We’ll never see the agreement.

      I also think’s Crump’s objective was to get the settlement agreement into the news, without personally breaching confidentiality. He files it under a deal where confidentiality is supposed to be maintained, the clerk makes a small goof (5 pages out of 12, only to Orlando Sentinel type goof), and the settlemt is a matter of national news without Crump airing the laundry.

      • I understand others’ comments about how Crump took a risk filing that settlement agreement. If the parties agreed that the agreement would not be made public and the Seminole Clerk unseals it …. (crossing fingers)

        • I agree with Cbolt, even if Crump does not object, the HOA might not want the details of the settlement to become public knowledge and would probably file to object. The damage is done, a settlement looks as if the HOA and Insurers felt the case was weak and were looking for cover against a greater loss in the future.

          • Let’s say the HOA and/or Insurer didn’t want any of the settlement documents to be released. Can they punish Crump?

              • I’d bet dollars to donuts that the agreement prohibits any party from making public, the fact that a settlement was reached. I say that, because if there was no such prohibition, Crump, or the press, or somebody would have been spouting off on the existence of a settlement agreement, sometime before now. The agreement is months old. Months! And it comes out in the news based on a “confidential” filing that is totally superfluous in a criminal case? I bet some of the pages that Stutzman didn’t get copies of include a recitation of all the prohibitied disclosures by the parties.

            • That’s a legal issue, and they’d sue Crump for breach of contract, where Crump made public, something that he promised to not make public. And now the beauty of this muti-party engineered release gets to do its work. Crump filed a CONFIDENTIAL paper. He didn’t screw up, the clerk of the court did.

              • I would say he did screw up. He filed that settlement not knowing in advance whether or not it would remain confidential. If the Clerk unseals it, it will be public.

                • Sorry I wasn’t clear. His legal argument is that he filed it CONFIDENTIAL, so the fact that Orlando Sentinel took it public is not his fault (and that’s true as of right now).

                  We don’t know the outcome of a motion to keep it confidential, but I’m very confident that the court will accept the HOA and insurer’s argument that the material should be kept confidential. This will be one of the rare instances where they and Crump will be on the same page.

                  The damage to Zimmerman is already done, the benefit to Team Crump has already been set in motion, the HOA and insurer would likely rather contain damage to what it is right now, than sue Crump.

                  • How is it any different for Crump to use (abuse) the Court to announce the settlement rather than simply announcing it himself? I assume that any confidentiality agreement pertains to the details, but not to the mere fact that a settlement occurred.

  20. Interesting article: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2013/04_-_April/Trayvon_Martin_s_family_settles_wrongful_death_claim_-_report/

    Although a cover page indicated copies of the settlement were given to Zimmerman’s lawyer and the judge presiding over the criminal trial, Vincent told Reuters that the defense team did not receive its copy.

    Vincent is Shawn Vincent, a spokesman for Zimmerman’s defense team

    So O’Mara did NOT receive a copy of the settlement?

    • Why in god’s name Shawn is telling Barbara Liston anything is beyond me. Is it really that difficult just to post a statement on the website? Good grief.

  21. Rene and the clerk, working together. Hey, it’s newsworthy (now), but I wonder why the press didn’t report the settlement following the February interview with O’Mara, which the Orlando Sentinel says included a remark from O’Mara that the HOA settled with Team Crump.

    Public knowledge that the HOA settled with Team Crump is a net benefit to Team Crump. Many people associate settlement either as an admission of culpability on Zimmerman’s part, or as fear on Team Zimmerman’s part tha tthe self defense case is weak.

    • I think the big news back on February, was that the Defense had cancelled the Immunity Hearing and the denial of Crump’s deposition, so the news might have gone unnoticed. I am curious of the timing as the Petition for the Court of Appeals and this were both filed on the same day. Was Crump trying to introduce proof of being “opposing counsel” of sorts into the record before the Writ?

      • I don’t know if the continued objection by O’Mara is the real reason, or if it’s a convenient excuse for making a completely unnecessary filing that just happens to get partially leaked to the press.

        I tend to think it’s [the fact of an appeal against Nelson’s ruling that O’Mara is precluded from deposing Crump] a convenient excuse.

    • Public knowledge that the HOA settled with Team Crump is a net benefit to Team Crump.

      It doesn’t help at all that almost all of the media reports are misstating it as a “wrongful death lawsuit” and claiming “excess of $1 million” despite lack of substantiating evidence.

      I wonder if Crump made his way through law school the same way he’s handling his cases.

      • As with the DD story the Media is too happy to regurgitate anything the Scheme Team says. Anytime anything seems to be of benefit to the GZ camp, Crump and team release something to detract from that and the media is too willing to comply. This is a net win for Crump anyway you look at it, the speculation about the amount, the actual settlement all are indicative of wariness of GZ and his story. The timing is fortuitous for Crump, and the prosecution who is not doing to well right now, with the DD discoveries, the Motions for sanctions and the Writ. None of that is in the news right now, all of it replaced by the settlement.

  22. Again getting off the right margin … art tart, this filing, if the clerk had followed the rules, would not have been available to the press until next week; and then only if no party (Crump, HOA, HOA insurer) files a motion to maintain confidentiality for reasons of protecting a trade / business secret.

    It’s not a question of the press getting it before the public does (which is usually because the press camps out at the courthouse), it’s a question of the press getting it AT ALL.

    I think it was a deliberate, planned and engineered screw-up, because there is more than one weird artifact to this affair. Crump had no legal reason to file it, it should have been kept completely confidential by the clerk (it had the right cover page!), and the clerk’s error was caught after only one press outlet got only five pages. I think the clerk is in on the scheme.

    • cboldt – I get it, I guess I had misinterpreted, my next comment says just that, thanks for the clarification, I wrote the comment before I read this comment your comment. I didn’t understand WHY Crump filed this to start with. It does sound shady, the clerk could well be in on the scheme as you point out.

      YEP – Sunshine Laws don’t trump “confidentiality agreements” between plaintiffs and an insurance company it would seem.. Tracy/Sybrina surely didn’t want anything released to anyone, they want to continue passing the trashcan for donations.

    • cboldy- Is the clerk responsible for accepting or rejecting documents filed in criminal cases? Wouldn’t a judge have to make that decision? I thought Nelson was on vacation last week. As Dman had asked above, can anyone just walk into the courthouse and submit documents to be included in a case?

      • The clerk is the first line of rejection, but as a general rule, the clerk will accept and file whatever is put there. There is some gatekeeping, most of I think a matter of self-policing. Lawyers don’t like to file motions in the wrong case, for example (but it does happen).

        In this case, Crump’s association with Zimmerman’s criminal case is likely common knowledge among the clerks, and a filing from Crump wouldn’t attract any special attention. Or shouldn’t – I am saying this filing was handled in a special way, under a deliberate deviation from the CONFIDENTIALITY part of the rules – but as far as simply accepting it, the clerk didn’t do anything weird.

  23. It’s common for plaintiffs to SIGN a “confidentiality agreement” at the request of an insurance company so the information wouldn’t be released to the public & they want their privacy. It’s hard to believe HOA/insurance company would not make that same request of Tracy/Sybrina, they don’t want the next plaintiffs to have this knowledge should they find themselves being sued again in a Civil Suit. So, if Tracy/Sybrina signed a “confidentiality agreement” & I am assuming they did, why would the clerk of court release any information involving the settlement?

    Someone Gloria Alred represented last year that signed the “confidentiality agreement” w/Tiger’s attorneys and she talked, she is having to pay back ALL the monies she received from her settlement.

  24. Again getting off the right margin … Tara, I don’t think the parties to the agreement are allowed to disclose that an agreement was reached. It’s important to Crump (as a function of not breaching the agreement) that the news NOT come out as “Crump disclosed today that he and the Martin’s have reached a settlement agreement with RTL, etc.” And lookie here, it didn’t come out that way!

    I think there is also a PR benefit in the form of “oomph” when the court is invoked as involved in the discloser. Not as disclosing it, per se, but “it was revealed by papers filed in court” has more oomph than “it was revealed by Crump that there was a settlement agreement.”

  25. Really preempting that right margin, one-word-on-a-line special effect … hooson1st, you ask if the first five pages could be online, by accident. In a word, NO. In fact, I don’t think this material EVER appeared online. I think it was an in-person request for a copy.

    I have NEVER, in downloading probably 1,500 legal documents available online, NEVER had occasion to get a partial document. The clerk scans (or the material is in PDF or TIFF to begin with) the entire file or document, maybe separating an appendix from a motion, but not carving a document of 12 pages into two parts for any reason, and only AFTER the entire document is ready for on-line distribution is a link made, making it available to the public.

    Nope, 5 of 12 pages available online, I don’t see it, no way, no how. All 12 available and 7 heavily redacted, sure. I’ve seen files where out of 25 sheets, there were maybe 25 sentences unredacted – but all 25 sheets were there.

  26. Hey, D Man… I don’t envy your position as a host. It has got to frustrating as hell when people don’t read WTF you are saying regarding the reason for this post. I guess some can’t help themselves. I hate tangents!! You’re right. There are some here that need to start there own blogs with totally random entries.

  27. DiwataMan

    ‘That’s how you deal with people on your own side when there’s disagreements.’

    That’s the problem. Many people feel SD isn’t on their ‘side’ anymore, since he’s been trashing O’Mara.

    SD has been what he is since long before that, but some people were fine with it while they thought he was on their ‘side’.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s