O’Mara (Friend maybe?) Says O’Mara had Nothing to do With Crump Settlement

[Update: April 9, 2013 10:30am EST]

Statement from O’Mara

“We don’t know the details surrounding any settlement between the homeowner’s association and the Martin family,” O’Mara says. “[W]e haven’t yet received the documents that Mr. Crump filed with the court, and we would have no other way to verify that there was, in fact, a settlement.”


[End Update]

dfgsdfgbn - Copy

Thanks to RiseFromBelow:

Nettles would also like you to be aware of some other things as well, you can find that discussion on my post about blogging and Sundance or perhaps she can post it here, lol.


50 thoughts on “O’Mara (Friend maybe?) Says O’Mara had Nothing to do With Crump Settlement

        • Nettles — if only!!! I actually asked John_Galt over at Rumpole’s place if he thought there was any possibility the DCA tapped O’Mara or West on the shoulder and encouraged them to file their writ. JG replied it was unlikely and would be improper.

          In any event, I don’t care (and I know you don’t, either) how it happened, only THAT it happened!

          • I hate to rain on the parade, but doesn’t this mean only that the writ MIGHT be heard? Seems to me that the DCA is indicating that the writ MAY have merit and inviting the Scheme Team to demonstrate why it shouldn’t be granted. Seeking a response from the opposing party before making a judgement would appear to be the proper protocol IMO (but IANAL). And it’s the DCA’s decision after they read the Scheme Team’s response that will be REALLY major news.

            I’d call this good news, but qualified good news. But since it appears that it’s unusual for such a writ even to be considered, it’s heartening to think that the GZ team is in with a chance. Seems as though at some level, there may still be judges who care about justice, not politics.

            • No, this is HUGE news. Most writs don’t make it past this first hurdle. Just for the DCA to accept the writ is very unusual for a pre-trial appeal. The vast majority of the time they’ll say, “Sorry, your appeal may have a lot of merit, but it’s just too early. After a trial, if you still need it, get back to us and maybe we can help you out.” Of course they don’t actually use those words, but it’s what it amounts to. Just by agreeing to hear this, the DCA is saying the timing IS right. An even better way to think of it is how it applies to the judge directly. Think of MOM & West as saying to the DCA, “We don’t trust this judge to do the right thing. If we go forward without you, DCA, at least looking at what’s going on, we have reason to believe this judge will be unfair to us. And if we wait till after a trial, it’ll be too late.” And the DCA saying in reply, “We agree. It looks like we need to check this out right now before things go any further.”

              No, this doesn’t guarantee they’ll rule in the Defense’s favor… but it’s a big, big hint.

              • I agree Jello, even if the Writ is denied, there are other issues which the DCA might want to address, though they do not deal with Crump’s deposition per se.

              • There are DCA decisions that conclude there is no right to appeal (this sort of issue) before trial. These aren’t “summary” decisions made without argument from both sides. Your position is that the DCA has now formally made the decision that this appeal may be heard on the merits, before trial. I think that position is incorrect. The DCA will have to make that decision (or the opposite) before issuing an order, but it hasn’t concluded that argument on the propriety of taking up the issue NOW is settled.

                  • That was exactly my thought when I read the document. They are asking for a response as to why Crump shouldn’t be deposed. If there is no strong and compelling argument why he shouldn’t be deposed, that they would rule for the defense. Of course IANAL so you have that.

                    • My legal knowledge is non-existent but I think that order flipped the burden on where it should have been all along. The State must answer why these questions surrounding the interview should go unanswered by Mr. Crump.

                    • It is hard to try to read anything where appeals are concerned, as they could be using your case to demonstrate, that this is the wrong time to file for a Cert. appeal.

                      Considering that they could have refused, or denied without a response by the State, the fact that they are considering and are asking for counter-arguments does means, imo that there might be merit to the Writ or that at the very least there is an issue that they want to address.

                  • No. The order for the state to show cause is just the way the legal process works (and is phrased) in every single petition to an appellate court for a writ of cert. It gives no hint of what the court thinks about the petition being providently brought (that is, whether or not the appeal is properly brought/decided before trial), and it likewise gives no hint of the appellate court’s thoughts on the merits.

    • Of course I’m teasing you, lol, but it’s meant to try to lighten up what has been a rather dreary discussion in hopes to ease tensions a bit. I don’t know what the solution is at this point for this particular aspect. I know you have grown accustom to posting the up to date new info stuff and I appreciate that and your thoughts but at the same time I hate how it disrupts the conversation. I can not host daily threads for many reasons but mainly because I simply don’t have the time and I don’t want every topic I write about to become a GZ Open Thread. I’m just not sure what to do.

      But regardless of all that, GREAT NEWS!

      • D-Man: On Rumpole’s forum (and others I’ve visited), he has “No Discussion” threads where folks are only allowed to post links to new news, tweets, and various other info about a particular case. Perhaps you could set up one of those here for the GZ case, and Nettles and others who seem to be on top of every breaking news item could post the links. But … as I think about it, there would no place here to discuss the latest news until you make a post about it, if you even want to. So … I dunno. Was thinking I had a possible solution, now I’m thinking I don’t. Rats. Carry on.

      • “I don’t want every topic I write about to become a GZ Open Thread.”

        Mike McDaniel has expressed the same sentiment. It’s a sign of the times as the trial draws near

        • Wow!!! That is great. Thank you and thanks to janc1955 for the suggestion. I’m sure we can all make that work.

          I need to bust out of the walls that confine me and get outside. back on track so to speak. 😉

          Seriously, how do you find a video that said all that and was pleasant to listen to at the same time? I bow to your brilliance.

        • I see NOW you were teasing me with the other things I wanted them to know about (Crump and the HOA settlement) and could be found on another topic thread but when I originally asked the question are you teasing me I thought you were leading me to the news the writ would be heard.

          You posted this thread with a link to another site where they discussed D. Tennis’ tweet. Right below that was the link confirming the Writ would be heard. I got so excited. I come back to thread, and checked the topic of the thread and it’s the HOA settlement. Now I’m sitting on breaking news with no topic to post it in. Hence my question “are you teasing me?”

          Anyway, you made it awesome with the breaking news menu. I just wanted to explain I wasn’t intentionally being difficult. Thank you.

      • “…we cannot exercise certiorari jurisdiction unless Petitioner has shown that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying his motion to compel discovery, and that this ruling causes him irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal.”

        That case looks off course to me. Would not the same reason to deny the deposition also deny Crump’s testimony ….catch 22?

  1. D-Man: Diana Tennis could be an FOM (Friend of Mark) … she was the Fla defense attorney who said Bernie’s screed looked like he’d written it at 2:00 A.M. while drunk, lol. She doesn’t typically mince words. She’s usually professional in her delivery, but direct.

    • Yes that’s why I put “(Friend maybe?)” in the title. I glanced at some of her tweets and somewhat got that impression:

      You can see in her tweets talking about the case, O’Mara and even O’Mara tweeting her from his account not the GZ one he has.

    • janc1955 – you gotta love Diane Tennis, I love her direct approach. I have not always liked some of her comments, but I surely like this one.

      An attorney friend once told me “ALL attorneys are usually friends regardless of how they act towards each other in court, they are just representing their client’s best interest. It certainly doesn’t matter if Tennis is friends w/Mom since they are both criminal defense attorney’s, Mark NeJame is friends with all of them including the Judges. Crump is friends w/Pam Bondi, imo, I hope this quells some of the accusations.

      • So anytime any of us needs a defense attorney, we enter the lion’s den or pit of vipers. How cool is that?

    • I love this statement by O’Mara: “We will be looking carefully at statements made by the Martin family before and after they began legal action against the Home Owner’s Association.”

      I wonder why Crump claimed that he provided the settlement docs to O’Mara when in fact he hadn’t.

      • I assume, if they were sent, they were mailed. We don’t know the date(s) when O’Mara remarked he didn’t have what is represented as a Crump sending.

        Councel certifies service. I don’t know what the court does when it is apprised of a false certification.

      • According to Rene’s article, Crump put that statement on the cover letter of what he submitted to the court.

        “Crump provided a copy of the settlement to O’Mara’s office, that of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey and the judge Thursday, according to a cover page attached to the settlement that was placed in Zimmerman’s criminal-case file. It was not immediately clear whether in those versions the settlement amount was blacked out as well.”


        • The court system’s presentation of Rule 2.420 includes a “form” cover letter titled “Notice of Confidential Filing Within a Court Filing,” which is exactly what appears on the docket. That form cover letter includes a certification, by the filer, that the filing has been served on the parties in the case.

          Just saying that the Orlando Sentinel report, that the cover letter says Crump sent a copy to O’Mara, implies (in conjunction with the rule) that Crump certified to the court that he sent a copy to O’Mara. IOW, Crump didn’t just make a simple “Cc: O’Mara” footnote, he made a formal representation to the court.

  2. WHY would Crump be so stupid? WHAT does Crump gain by misrepresenting he sent MOM a copy and then further misrepresent it was actually sent? I wonder IF Crump waited to settle UNTIL AFTER the depositions of Tracy/Sybrina?

    What’s more interesting to me is MOM’S statement:

    “What is important to the defense, in terms of the HOA settlement to the Martin family, is whether the threat of litigation or the promise of monetary settlement affects their testimony,” he says. “We will be looking carefully at statements made by the Martin family before and after they began legal action against the Home Owner’s Association.”

  3. This page setup is absolutely beautiful. It is neat, orderly, easy to read and everything lines up perfectly. IMO it is A+.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s