HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Mark O'Mara is new Zimmer...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:06 PM

 

Mark O'Mara is new Zimmerman Defense Lawyer

Source: Channel 6 Orlando

ORLANDO, Fla. -

Attorney Mark O'Mara, who was a legal expert for Local 6 in the Casey Anthony murder trial and the ongoing Trayvon Martin death investigation, is now representing George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman who shot and killed the teen in Sanford.

Zimmerman was charged Wednesday with second-degree murder in Martin's death.

O'Mara said Zimmerman will plead not guilty and asked that people not jump to conclusions about his client's guilt. O'Mara said he's "hoping that the community will calm down" now that charges have been filed and the case is moving forward.

"I'm expecting a lot of work and hopefully justice in the end," said O'Mara, who added that Zimmerman is OK but concerned about his future. "He's frightened."

Read more: http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Local-6-legal-expert-Mark-O-Mara-now-representing-George-Zimmerman/-/1637132/10562698/-/kwc0rpz/-/index.html



An attorney has been found lickety-split. He is Channel 6's LEGAL expert, fer crying out loud!

EVERYONE write to Channel 6 and DEMAND they get rid of O'Mara as their "legal expert" and boycott the show until a VERY VOCAL AND PUBLIC APOLOGY is forthcoming!!

I'm not complaining about Zimmerman's right to defense. BUT...we HAVE a right to make sure that nobody PROFITS off this, and Channel 6 should feel the pain until the do the right thing.

And you DAMN RIGHT Zimmerman should be frightened!! Serves him right.

93 replies, 12758 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 93 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mark O'Mara is new Zimmerman Defense Lawyer (Original post)
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 OP
MidwestTransplant Apr 2012 #1
Bo Apr 2012 #75
leftynyc Apr 2012 #77
jberryhill Apr 2012 #2
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #12
sanph Apr 2012 #21
greiner3 Apr 2012 #29
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #37
leftynyc Apr 2012 #78
JDPriestly Apr 2012 #23
JDPriestly Apr 2012 #74
jberryhill Apr 2012 #28
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #38
leftynyc Apr 2012 #79
yardwork Apr 2012 #3
Ian David Apr 2012 #4
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #9
sanph Apr 2012 #22
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #47
madville Apr 2012 #61
Bo Apr 2012 #76
melm00se Apr 2012 #81
Igel Apr 2012 #93
Ian David Apr 2012 #87
JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2012 #84
mike_c Apr 2012 #5
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #6
Hepburn Apr 2012 #10
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #14
sanph Apr 2012 #26
greiner3 Apr 2012 #30
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #35
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #34
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #39
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #40
leftynyc Apr 2012 #80
jberryhill Apr 2012 #54
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #57
jberryhill Apr 2012 #63
SlimJimmy Apr 2012 #11
HooptieWagon Apr 2012 #17
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #18
jberryhill Apr 2012 #49
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #53
jberryhill Apr 2012 #56
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #58
jberryhill Apr 2012 #60
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #64
jberryhill Apr 2012 #66
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #69
jberryhill Apr 2012 #70
JDPriestly Apr 2012 #27
greiner3 Apr 2012 #31
jberryhill Apr 2012 #59
SlimJimmy Apr 2012 #89
CombatUSMC Apr 2012 #42
snooper2 Apr 2012 #86
nineteen50 Apr 2012 #7
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #13
Typical NYC Lib Apr 2012 #8
amandabeech Apr 2012 #15
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #19
HooptieWagon Apr 2012 #24
amandabeech Apr 2012 #33
MADem Apr 2012 #16
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #20
MADem Apr 2012 #25
RZM Apr 2012 #36
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #48
Seeking Serenity Apr 2012 #32
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #41
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #43
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #44
Seeking Serenity Apr 2012 #51
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #55
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #65
jberryhill Apr 2012 #67
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #68
Seeking Serenity Apr 2012 #71
jberryhill Apr 2012 #52
JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2012 #85
PA Democrat Apr 2012 #82
BanTheGOP Apr 2012 #90
PA Democrat Apr 2012 #92
K Gardner Apr 2012 #45
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #46
K Gardner Apr 2012 #50
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #62
cthulu2016 Apr 2012 #72
Ruby the Liberal Apr 2012 #73
PA Democrat Apr 2012 #83
Roland99 Apr 2012 #88
Lil Missy Apr 2012 #91

Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:09 PM

1. Everybody is entitled to a great defense (though few get one).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MidwestTransplant (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:15 AM

75. I can't believe he's still in the country.....

fair trial what a Joke, he should have asked for asylum in Peru his Mom's country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bo (Reply #75)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:27 AM

77. If Mr. Zimmerman is so worried

about a fair trial I'm pretty sure he has the right to waive a jury trial and ask a judge to decide the case. He certainly has more choices than the dead Mr. Martin had.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:20 PM

2. Apology for what?


WTF does either Channel 6 or O'Mara have to apologize for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:43 PM

12. By hiring a "Legal Expert" who is obviously going to cause ruffles

 

There is no way Channel 6 can ever be considered unbiased with regard to legal opinions. If he's retained as a commentator following the trial, then depending on the outcome, two choices:

1. If the jury goes racist and votes not guilty: O'Mara will be the man who got a murderer let out scot free. That would be ratings disaster to any organization who had him represent or comment for them.

2. If the jury votes guilty as they should, then O'Mara will then be seen as ineffective, and will ALSO still be viewed with distrust in the African American community.

Either way, Channel 6 is very stupid to continue keeping him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:07 PM

21. LOL

"If the jury goes racist and votes not guilty"

"If the jury votes guilty as they should"

Well, aren't you just the absolute apex of reason and rationality.

The determination Zimmerman's guilt isn't up to people like you, thankfully.

Also, you clearly don't understand the job of defense attorneys if you think this "taints" O'Mara OR the news agency he does commentary for. The only thing tainted here is your understanding of the legal system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sanph (Reply #21)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:30 PM

29. Enjoy your stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Reply #29)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:18 PM

37. How so?

What is the problem with that post, given the responsibilities of a defense attorney?

Compare with the post being responded to, and tell me why this one is the "unreasonable" one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Reply #29)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:31 AM

78. Sorry, but he's right

All anyone was asking was for a jury to be able to look at the evidence and decide the case and that's what we have here. I think he's guilty also but that SYG law is very vague. I'm also sure that since the Special Prosecutor went for 2nd degree instead of manslaughter, there is much evidence we know nothing about. It's the difference between depraved indifference and culpable negligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:12 PM

23. Ban the GOP, please.

We haven't seen the evidence yet. We don't know the facts. We cannot be so sure about what the outcome should be.

It would be very sad if people make up their minds now regarding what the outcome of a trial should be because until all the evidence is admitted and before the judge and/or jury, no one can really say.

Think of all the people who were convinced that OJ should/would be convicted. The jury thought otherwise. The outcome of a case like this cannot yet be predicted. Don't set yourself up for a possible disappointment. Justice doesn't always work like we think it should. That does not necessarily mean that it is unjust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #23)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 12:14 AM

74. Here is what it has to do with:

"If the jury votes guilty as they should."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:25 PM

28. That is simply silly

The one thing he's not going to be talking about on Channel 6 is this trial.

It's up to the state to win a conviction or not.

First of all, you don't even know if there is going to be a trial. Zimmerman could plead guilty for all you know.

I think anyone with a functional brain knows what O'Mara's job is here. If a jury believes the state has not made its case, wtf does that have to do with whether Channel 6 is "trustworthy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:19 PM

38. This was a kind response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #28)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:34 AM

79. A judge can also toss the case

using SYG as a reason. I don't think he/she will or should but they have that option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:24 PM

3. Jump to conclusions? I think it's a bit late for that.

I concluded that Zimmerman is guilty as hell some weeks ago. I didn't jump to that conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:25 PM

4. Everyone is entitled to legal counsel. Didn't you read To Kill A Mockingbird?

Or watch it over the weekend?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:40 PM

9. Yes. But unlike Zimmerman, the defendent was COMPLETELY innocent n/t

 

He ain't no Tom Robinson. And this is NOT about race, but about real justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:11 PM

22. LOL

You say it's not about race but earlier you said "If the jury goes racist and votes not guilty"

I think you are confused and need help using the internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sanph (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:41 PM

47. You ought to reread YOUR statement

 

Obviously this case is about "race," but the facts of the crime are NOT racial. He shot Trayvon and killed the child. End of story.

But I do admit that part of MY statement understated the importance race played in this matter. The Sanford PD was extremely racist in it's Keystone Kop handling of the investigation, and thank goodness for the networks ensuring that the listeners got the TRUE gist of Zimmerman's racist intent with their judicious editing of the 911 tape. In addition, ABC helped by ensuring that questions arose over his claim he was beaten and bruised and nose was broken, when pictures obviously show he was not.

Therefore, the ONLY way a jury would find for not guilty, despite the overwhelming evidence, would by definition be racist. I have openly advocated that no whites be put on the jury. Yes, that's "racist" but in this case, is the ONLY JUSTIFIABLE solution to guarantee a fair forum for the 12 people to weigh all facts. Racism is embedded in the White psyche in the South still, and we must make adjustments to uphold the tenets of the Constitution, especially in regard to creative interpretation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #47)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:15 PM

61. Racism is not limited to the south

I have lived and worked all over the country. I have encountered just as much if not more racism in western mountain states and the northeast as I have in the south.

When you say "no whites" do you mean no Hispanics as well? Since Zimmerman is half hispanic should that group be barred as well? President Obama is just as much white as he is black, should he be barred from the jury due to his white DNA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #47)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:18 AM

76. you forgot the sarcasm lil thingy

....Zimmerman should have left the country and asked for asylum in Cuba.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #47)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:45 AM

81. Reading your post

makes me wonder if you have already decided Mr. Zimmerman's guilt or innocence of the crime and question your definitions of a "fair" trial.

Specifically I point to:

He shot Trayvon and killed the child. End of story.


Therefore, the ONLY way a jury would find for not guilty, despite the overwhelming evidence, would by definition be racist. I have openly advocated that no whites be put on the jury. Yes, that's "racist" but in this case, is the ONLY JUSTIFIABLE solution to guarantee a fair forum for the 12 people to weigh all facts.


As I read this, you would deny Mr. Zimmerman's ability to mount a defense and that only rumor, speculation and the limited amount of "evidence" already in the public domain should be considered in adjudicating the case. Nice of you to toss out the 5th and 6th Amendments to the US Constitution as well as Article I, sections 9, 21 and 22 of the Florida

The role of the state here is to ensure that justice is done, not to seek or obtain a conviction if the evidence does not support such a conclusion.

I find it highly distressing that there are folks here have adjudged Mr. Zimmerman guilty without all the legally admissible facts or Mr. Zimmerman's defense and would completely trample his rights in the process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #47)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 06:55 PM

93. "Jury of his peers."

I suppose that must mean "of the victim's peers."

Or perhaps the "commentator's peers."

Or perhaps not.

I'm sure that lots of prosecutors would just love the ability to include and exclude people entirely because of their race. Fortunately, this was banned a while back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:35 AM

87. It doesn't matter if someone is innocent or not. Everyone gets counsel. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ian David (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:07 AM

84. Bob Ewell didn't get legal counsel, he just got killed

And "Boo" was released, not arrested for the killing. Maybe the sheriff didn't do his job.

Anyway, it was a good story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:27 PM

5. are you seriously advocating denying people the best legal defense they can afford/obtain?

Or at least their choice of defense? I'm sorry, but I won't go there. No crime is so heinous that it should preclude the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the right to due process. Period. That's why Guantanamo is such a travesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:37 PM

6. But defense attorneys ALSO have an ethical duty to promote JUSTICE not just their client's innocence

 

That is the key here. For a defense attorney to defend Zimmerman, I have no problem if he's appointed as he would not have a CHOICE but to defend Zimmerman. I realize I'm grating a few hairs here, but I cannot EVER accept an attorney knowingly taking a case like this without knowing that, if he wins the case, he will become the biggest enemy this side of George Zimmerman. And I CERTAINLY wouldn't take a case to LOSE.

I'm sorry, but in some cases Constitutional authority must go to the people, and this is one of those few instances where it is much better to cede public opinion as to court appointments and officers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:41 PM

10. The duty is to the client.

While one cannot allow false testimony, the lawyer's first duty is to his/her client. PERIOD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hepburn (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:50 PM

14. He will HAVE to give false testimony which is the POINT.

 

You are correct, the lawyer's first duty is to his client. But NOT PERIOD. His MAIN function is to ensure that justice prevails and does best for his client that way.

That's why I'm saying that if the prosecution puts together solid, irrefutable evidence that is not doctored by Zimmerman, Sanford PD, or Fox News photoshoppers, then there is no WAY that Zimmerman will be found for anything but guilty. A "vigorous, rigorous" defense cannot get past that blatant fact.

Therefore, any lawyer taking this case has to understand the ramifications beyond the case to his own reputation and to his own standing in the community. PERIOD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:15 PM

26. LOL

You say a defense lawyer's main function is to ensure justice prevails.

Well, guess what? Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr. lied about leather gloves in order to get OJ off the hook. That wasn't "upholding justice", that was exploiting the prosecution's mistakes, making a lie of ommission (failing to clarify that leather shrinks over time if unworn and exposed to the elements), and first and foremost, upholding his client's interests over that of justice.

Since then we have come to know just what kind of character OJ has. He truly WAS guilty of first degree pre-meditated murder. Johnnie knew that and didn't care. His job was to get OJ OFF the hook, just like it will be O'Mara's job to get Zimmerman off the hook, or if he can't, to get his sentence reduced to minimum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sanph (Reply #26)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:32 PM

30. Actually;

No one knows if OJ was in fact guilty of the crime. I see you appointed yourself jury in this case.

You fail!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Reply #30)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:03 PM

35. Or it was an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:02 PM

34. The Justice System is pretty complex

and can be confusing. Been there myself.

Just tone it down a notch and don't try to be the authority on the topic and you might learn something in order to hone your debate skills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #34)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:20 PM

39. Are you an authority?

 

I have no preconceptions of being an "authority." But I DO know fairness and judicial activism when I see it.

Listening to O'Mara's press conference, he is LAME LAME LAME. I do NOT see this going well for Zimmerman, thank Gaia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #39)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:28 PM

40. You speak very subjectively.

"fairness", "lame", etc...

Calm down a smidge and listen to/read the people talking with you about the role of the defense attorney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #39)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:38 AM

80. You DON'T know all the evidence

The only people that do are the Special Prosecutor and her staff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:05 PM

54. No he won't


You don't have to give false testimony to point out whether the state has or has not proven its case.

I believe OJ killed his ex wife.

However, if I were on that jury, I would not have voted to convict because just about every piece of evidence in that case passed through the hands of a witness who lied on the stand. What witness perjured him or herself on behalf of the defense in that case (aside from Kato, who wasn't connected enough to reality to know much of anything reliably)?

If you can convince a jury that a witness is not credible, or show that a piece of evidence can be interpreted in an exculpatory way, then you can get to reasonable doubt. You can do that without calling a single witness of your own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #54)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:09 PM

57. To add, I believe prosecution overreached on Casey Anthony's

charges and they are still smarting from that in the circuit.

JMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #57)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:16 PM

63. Yup

The amazing thing is that only after her acquittal was the business about "umpteen searches for making chloroform" gone over by some real computer experts who demonstrated that the state's expert had his head up his ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:43 PM

11. The *key* here is that Zimmerman has the right to *any* defense he can obtain. End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:52 PM

17. You are completely incorrect.

A defense attorney is not representing justice, they are representing their client. They will look over the evidence the state has against the accused, advise their client to take a plea bargain or go to trial, and to make sure that the state proves their case should it go to trial. Yes, it appears GZ is guilty as hell, but I dont want to see "justice" by a lynch mob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:02 PM

18. Representing their client WITHIN the constraints of justice... But Justice is more important

 

Too many people watch Matlock or Perry Mason or shit like that where the attorney do all these shenanigans that get their client off on occasion. Justice is rarely followed in many cases, and people get these jaded views of the law which shouldn't happen at all.

The fact is that there is NO WAY that Zimmerman can in ANY WAY be innocent of murder. So your advice is right alongside what I would say. If his lawyer had ANY decency and desire of the law, he would HIGHLY RECOMMEND that Zimmerman cop a plea and hope for 20-25 years. If he has to go to trial, then voir dire would be extremely important, and he would have to be DAMN sure that he gets some white people on that jury during voir dire. That may be insensitive to say, but it's the truth. I wish it weren't like that, but the republicanist bastards have made it so our justice system is all screwed up to Gaia, and we need to ensure justice as much as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:47 PM

49. I have no illusions about how courts and lawyers function


I am a lawyer.

You seem to believe that a defense attorney cannot in good faith represent a client he knows to be guilty.

That is simply not true.

I do not do criminal defense work, but if I had a client who came to me charged with a crime and told me he did it, then the question for me is "Can the state prove it?"

There is NO requirement that the defense provide any alternative explanation of what happened. The burden is on the state to prove its case at all time.

If I can raise doubts about the credibility or trustworthiness of the state's evidence or the state's witnesses, then the jury has to acquit.

And we do it this way in our system because we value something greater than whether any particular guilty person is convicted or not - and that precisely is JUSTICE - the only thing that stands between us and a totalitarian state. It's not subject to passion, outrage or results. It is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, without which guarantees our Constitution would not have been ratified; these rights were that important.

EVERY person - EVERY GODDAMNED PERSON CHARGED WITH A CRIME - is ENTITLED to be informed of the charge of against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining evidence and witnesses, to confront his or her accuser, to have assistance of counsel, not to be compelled to testify against him or herself and a whole raft of things and their consequences which are FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHETHER GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS CONVICTED. It is what defines the greatness of our system of government as conceived, give or take implementation problems and social circumstances that keep us from accomplishing that ideal. But, over the long run, we get better at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #49)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:03 PM

53. Perfect timing, Counselor.

Want to take the RICO case to ban the Republican Party?

Could be a career maker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #53)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:08 PM

56. Naw, I spend too much time reading birther droppings for fun


Orly's got a potboiler coming up in a Mississippi ballot challenge in a few days, and she may be sailing for her third crack at sanctions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #56)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:10 PM

58. Did that nut ever pay Georgia the $20k

for wasting their time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #58)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:13 PM

60. Oh, yeah, she paid it

She's got loyal paypal button clickers. She recently claimed she takes in about 40-50k annually on that hobby, but apart from that she's not exactly, shall we say, living in poverty. Her husband may be in the process of restructuring his substantial assets, but they live in California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #60)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:17 PM

64. For the love of Mike.

I really could have gone the rest of my life not knowing that this freak had enough paypal donations to cover that nonsense. I could have gone the rest of my life not knowing that she had enough paypal to pay for a parking ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #64)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:21 PM

66. Oh, then brace yourself

Her record of moving violations is almost on par with her record of failed birther proceedings. No joke.

However, she did WIN against one of her recent speeding tickets, so she's about 1 for 7 on those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #66)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:28 PM

69. Seriously?

Cripes, that made my night.

All the more power to the local PD and their efforts in keeping the citizens safe, as well as milking every dime out of this entitled freak that they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #69)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:39 PM

70. This is partial

10/29/2003 - Case Number: SH312670 - Defendant: Taitz, Orly - Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions - Dismissed - Traffic School - 03/09/2004

03/26/2004 - Case Number: IRM203096, Defendant: Taitz, Orly - Fail to stop at stop sign - Found Guilty by Court - 05/19/2004

08/20/2004 - Case Number: SH355958 - Defendant: Taitz, Orly - Unsafe speed for prevailing conditions - Dismissed - Traffic School - 11/18/2004

03/24/2008 - Case Number: 75467HS - Defendant: Taitz, Orly - Mandatory use of seatbelts required - Bail Forfeiture - 05/08/2008

05/28/2008 - Case Number: SA125837PEA - Defendant: Taitz, Orly - Red or stop, vehicles stop at limit line or X-walk - Dismissed - Traffic School - 08/22/2008

08/07/2008 - Case Number: SH673916 - Defendant: Taitz, Orly - Driving while using a wireless telephone - Bail Forfeiture - 09/15/2008

11/27/2006 - Case Number: 53036CV - Defendant: Taitz, Orly - Evading electronic toll charge - Pled Guilty - 02/23/2007

02/06/2007 - Case Number: 53036CV - Defendant: Taitz, Orly - Failure to appear - Pled Guilty - 02/23/2007

09/17/2008 - Case Number: 23477JM - Defendant: Taitz, Obly (Court Real Name, Taitz, Obly, Real Name, Taitz, Orly) - Exceeding maximum speed of 65 MPH - Bail Forfeiture - 10/20/2008

And the winner:

10/12/2009 Case No. 14852LC Speeding greather than 100 miles per hour - NOT GUILTY

http://www.scribd.com/doc/22386720/Orly-Taitz-Driving-Record

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #6)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:20 PM

27. Every defendant deserves as good a defense as possible.

Usually financial limitations make that difficult if not impossible.

But when a person becomes a lawyer, he or she has to be prepared to defend or represent clients the lawyer does not like. And a criminal defense attorney has to represent clients who may have done reprehensible things. That is the only way that you can have justice.

John Adams represented British soldiers in 1770, setting an example for American lawyers in our nation.

Private Hugh Montgomery was one of the eight soldiers in the main guard commanded by Captain Preston to march to the Custom House in an attempt to save Hugh White. After making their way to White, Montgomery and the other soldiers found themselves being surrounded by the mob. They formed a sort of semi-circle.

Soon, after a confusion of snowballs, ice chunks, and coal rained down on the British soldiers, someone shouted "fire" and five Americans were fatally wounded. Trial testimony never definitively answered the question of who shouted "fire" and who fired the fatal shots. In 1949, however, with the long-delayed publication of notes of Thomas Hutchinson, it was revealed that Montgomery admitted to his lawyers that it was he who started the Boston Massacre. Hit in the chest and knocked to the ground by a club wielded by one of the rioters, Montgomery responded, he said, by shouting "Damn you, fire!" Montgomery fired first, then the other soldiers followed.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/bostonmassacre/keyfigures.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:33 PM

31. Sorry;

But what in the hail does this have to do with the OP???????????????????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:10 PM

59. It has everything to do with the OP


O'Mara is certainly entitled to represent this client in this matter, and to have any other employment he would like outside of that engagement.

The imputation of opinions or beliefs to an attorney, on the basis of that attorney's representation of a particular client in a given matter, is childish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #59)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 01:05 PM

89. I love the "Boston Massacre" case because it illustrated perfectly our model of justice.

So much in fact, that I use one of Adam's closing argument quotes in my sig line,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #6)


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:33 AM

86. What do you do for a living?

Because I really hope it has nothing to do with our legal system....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:38 PM

7. "Zimmerman is OK but concerned about his future. "He's frightened."

beats being dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nineteen50 (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:45 PM

13. To him, yes. N/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:39 PM

8. So he's given up golf?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:51 PM

15. I doubt that O'Mara will show up on Channel 6 for some time.

If he did, it would be an ethics violation.

For the record, any defendant has the right to any defense that he or she can find or pay, and that includes the most despicable defendants out there.

If our system did not allow defendants to choose any counsel that he or she could bring in, the system would not work.

I clerked for a federal district judge for a year after I finished law school. He counseled my co-clerk and I repeatedly that every defendant deserves representation, and that one ethically could represent them and their civil counterparts without guilt.

This is from the judge that brought Texas kicking and screaming into the latter part of the 20th century.

He's in a better place now, but Texas has moved backward, from what I can see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #15)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:03 PM

19. I'm not talking during the trial; of course that would be unethical

 

But I'm talking about AFTER the trial. O'Mara will be damaged goods no matter what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:13 PM

24. If he competently represents his client,

I dont see how he is "damaged goods". If anything, it would strengthen his reputation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:57 PM

33. He won't be damaged goods in the eyes of other attorneys and their staffs.

If he does a good job, particularly if Zimmerman walks or convicted only of a lesser included defense, a lot of people won't think he's damaged goods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 08:52 PM

16. What do they mean by "legal expert" --is he just some clown they call in when there's a big case,

and they pay him an appearance fee? Or is he on their staff, getting a regular salary?

If the former, the station doesn't have to do a damn thing. They'd be wise to not use him again until the trial is over or the case goes to a plea bargain.

He's a lawyer, he has the right to practice his profession. The station also has the right to pay him if he's good on camera to give his opinion on prominent cases. However, it wouldn't be cool if they were paying him to opine on a case that he is retained to argue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #16)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:05 PM

20. It doesn't matter... it's all $$$$ to everyone concerned

 

This case is much too volatile for anyone who is defending Zimmerman to even show his face in public, much less work for big bucks at the expense of a poor African American child. I myself would be sickened to see him on TV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:14 PM

25. Well, it wouldn't be ethical for him to appear, anyway, to discuss the case,

for the benefit of one network over another. If he holds a news conference, that's a horse of a very different color.

However, he is entitled to earn a living. Joe Tacopina (not my favorite lawyer, but a member of the bar in his state) does both. So do other attorneys. They just need to be ethical when they do their TV thing, if they're appearing on TV or radio. For him to tout his case over one TV network and get paid for doing that isn't terribly cool. I don't think he'll be appearing on the TV until this business is resolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:06 PM

36. You must really hate those Legal Zoom commericals with Robert Shapiro then

 

Or was that case not not so 'volatile' that it's ok for the defense team to 'show their faces' and make 'big bucks.'

In fact, many of them went on to become much more famous after the trial. Hell, I would even argue that the OJ trial set the stage for the emergence of the Kardashians as reality TV stars over a decade later.

Who cares who defends George Zimmerman? It's gotta be somebody. Might as well be this guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #36)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:42 PM

48. Apparently, you are wrong on that one, RZM.

Defense isn't a right and should be banned (as should the GOP under RICO).

Clarification in post #43 below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:54 PM

32. Are you serious?

Are you serious that attorney O'Mara should somehow be sanctioned, either via some job action or simply by public denouncement, because he is going to represent Zimmermann and try to give Zimmermann the most robust advocacy that he can (as he ethically required to do as Zimmermann's counsel)? Really?

Are you serious that there are some cases that should just be decided via public opinion polls?

And, "ban" (as in make illegal) the GOP? Are you truly serious?

Shudder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Seeking Serenity (Reply #32)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:31 PM

41. You don't know the half of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Seeking Serenity (Reply #32)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:33 PM

43. Yes to both

 

I have to say because of the evidence at hand, which is the most clearcut case of murder I've seen in a long time, an attorney would be hard-pressed to take this to trial (though I don't believe a plea should occur). Having said that, it is logically assumed that the ONLY way a real defense could be effected would be through dirty republican-esque tricks and ethically-challenged remonstrances. "Robust" does NOT mean "Deliberate Falsehoods," and the public will EASILY be able to discern such backhanded tactics.

And yes, I believe that the GOP's financial apparatus must be scrutinized and adjudicated as illegal, effectively shutting down the organization to operate, under existing RICO statutes. I'll cover that in detail this spring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #43)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:36 PM

44. Priceless.

People aren't entitled to a defense here in the justice system of the US of A

AND!!!

You want to ban the GOP as a political party under RICO.

About done wiping your ass with the Constitution so that we can hose it off and put it back in its frame?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:52 PM

51. +1

x 1,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Seeking Serenity (Reply #51)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:08 PM

55. Here are some more happy fun ball opinions

"BanIsrael" http://www.democraticunderground.com/11347692#post2

And "jew" = "N" word (perjorative): http://www.democraticunderground.com/11347692#post22

This one is like one of those Russian dolls or an onion, or pick your metaphor. At the end of the day, we will all be living in a utopian state after everything has been BANNED.

Or, it is a mole who is trying a *smidge* too hard to fit in.

I will leave that up to the gentle readers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #55)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:18 PM

65. Man up

 

I've been here for years. I don't post every little nit-picky thread like some here do, but try to remains substantive. A mole lasts like what, 2 hours to 2 weeks and just posts shit without substance. By that definition, you could say half of DU is a mole. Sheesh...

(Yes, that was sarcastic...but making a damn POINT, people!)

At least I've been consistent. EVERY attribute to society's ills comes because of the effect and presence of the American republican Party. That is why it needs to be banned.

So put out your own opinions, and MAN UP to them, as I do everytime I'm here. Or is that a "smudge" too much for you to take?

No worries, I still likes ya magnitudes more than any republi-turd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #65)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:22 PM

67. Could you explain your use of the word "man" in "man up"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #65)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:26 PM

68. I didn't question your consistency.

It is your consistency that amuses me so and has my attention, among other things.

But yes, you are correct, I am happy to "MAN UP" and therefore I think you are completely off the pier with this BAN EVERYTHING shit. I think that you are trying too hard to fit in, and I think that it is completely unnecessary. Just bring it down a notch or 12.

I don't agree with a single plank in the GOP platform, but do defend their right to catalog, display, promote and campaign their lunatic ideas/ideals. People indicted of a crime have a right to a defense in this country. Attorneys have a right to share their thoughts with a news outlet, noting that they know better than to discuss current cases. Israel has a right to exist and "jew" is not a perjorative.

Any other thoughts I can share with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #65)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:43 PM

71. But back to the topic at hand

why don't we just dispense with the formality of a trial and just "deem" Zimmermann guilty and have him locked away? We could just say that we as a society just deem it necessary to sacrifice GZ and our criminal justice system in this one instance "for the greater good."

Would that be ok with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #44)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:55 PM

52. Yowza

When you are on a roll, you are on a roll.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #44)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:11 AM

85. Nooo, we NEED the GOP!

If there was no GOP, all those right-wing crazies would flock to the only game in town - The Democratic Party! Yikes! The tent is big, sure, but nooooo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #43)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 07:59 AM

82. Fortunately, our founding fathers thought otherwise.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

- Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.


Any other parts of the constitution you would like overturned?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PA Democrat (Reply #82)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 03:33 PM

90. Would you want to describe for me how I'm overturning the Constitution?

 

Zimmerman HAS a right to any attorney he wants.

And WE have a right to find out who the attorney is, and to determine OUR valuation (or lack thereof) for said attorney.

I have always been consistent: I can NOT FATHOM why ANY attorney worth his Constitutional salt would take this case, UNLESS it is to help Zimmerman render a guilty verdict. Now, if this is all O'Mara is going to do, AND he doesn't plea down from Murder 2, then I can withstand and even accept the association. But if O'Mara takes this to trial, despite the overwhelming and impossible-to-contradict evidence supporting Zimmerman's action of murdering a young child, then you can bet that the attorney is target for my scorched earth policy that should be applied to all republican-minded individuals.

AGAIN, I REPEAT: The most rigorous defense, as long as no laws are broken or courtroom ethics violated, is acceptable...TO A POINT. And while the defendent has every right to go through a trial, there is no way a verdict of Guilty can NOT be decided by a FAIR JURY.

To that end, the attorney is fair game for public and professional condemnation. That is my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #90)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 05:07 PM

92. The fact that you cannot fathom why any attorney "worth his constitutional salt"

would take this case tells me all I need to know. Perhaps attorneys take cases, even ones that are unpopular, because every accused person is entitled to legal counsel and a trial by jury as guaranteed by the 6th amendment of the constitution?

Additionally, the defense attorney is ethically bound to provide a vigorous defense. To do otherwise would give a defendant grounds for appeal of a guilty verdict based upon ineffective counsel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:38 PM

45. The only thing more EMBARASSING than this OP is the fact that 6 people rec'd it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to K Gardner (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:40 PM

46. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #46)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 10:48 PM

50. Oh lord.. people have tweeted it. Are people actually reading it or just looking at the title

and sending it off? I'm going to go hide my head for awhile.

We now officially look like wingnuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to K Gardner (Reply #50)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:16 PM

62. Lovely.

And yea, we do look like wingnuts. Promoting that someone does not deserve a defense based on information leaked to the media?

I will go a step further and say wingnuts is too kind, but by design.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to K Gardner (Reply #45)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 11:51 PM

72. Amen. Isn't there a limit on editorializing in LBN?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #72)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 12:03 AM

73. Yes and no. OpEd/Feature pieces are not SOP,

but as long as the thread is initiated with a breaking MSM story, members are free to add any comments they deem relevant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to K Gardner (Reply #45)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 08:01 AM

83. Sad and ironic.

The entire Zimmerman case revolves around the acts of a man who appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. Now we have people here who want the same powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 09:52 AM

88. heard the phone call this morning on 105.1 from the mother of the main witness

the mother of the woman who heard the gunshot and went out and saw Zimmerman forcing Trayvon's body down on the ground after having shot him and not seeing blood on Zimmerman (shooting down his story that he was beaten first by Trayvon)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 03:37 PM

91. That would be stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread