It is currently Thu Oct 31, 2024 7:48 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 914 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:22 pm
Posts: 127
JanC1955 wrote:
I see from the witness list that Jahvaris has returned to his Fulton roots. :roll

Martin 'futures' are not as lucrative as they once were. One heck of an anecdote, JanC!

_________________
Getting facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality.
- P. J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:22 pm
Posts: 127
chipbennett wrote:
Yep, Bernie sure was pissed when he realized that he might actually have to present his murder case without George Zimmerman ever taking the stand.

I'm afraid BdlR will have to hike up his trousers and do some actual lawyerin'...

_________________
Getting facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality.
- P. J. O'Rourke


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:44 pm
Posts: 290
Location: Florida
Analyst wrote:
I'm afraid BdlR will have to hike up his trousers and do some actual lawyerin'...

Now, won't that be a hoot?! :Gslap :84


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:56 pm
Posts: 424
auscitizenmom wrote:
:N9 :NN14


:smoke :46 :RTFM :N9 I want to believe that Omara is just trying to keep up appearances until after the ruling on the Depo for Crump. If he treats him like it's anything but business not personal they will rule not to let him talk to him but that picture gave me a sick feeling..... :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:22 pm
Posts: 127
Mimbler wrote:
Finally, a strong and direct pleading by O'Mara. Normally, IMHO, he beats around the bush too much, and his arguably good points get diluted.
Mike

And the State's reply to the Court of Appeals in several places calls a certain attorney 'Mr. Crumb', Priceless.

_________________
Getting facts right is a fundamental requirement of morality.
- P. J. O'Rourke


Last edited by Analyst on Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:00 am
Posts: 287
Location: Las Vegas
Darkman wrote:
I will show you mine, if you will show me yours? :38


:eek Can someone pass the clam fork so I can gouge out my eyes please?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:00 am
Posts: 287
Location: Las Vegas
LandauMurphyFan wrote:
Gee, how many things are wrong with that sentence? "We saw"? That's not what the witnesses say. "A little black boy"? How 'bout a black teenage hoodlum over 6' tall? "At the hands of adults"? I guess he's been hanging around JQ and similar cesspits, if he thinks there was more than one adult who had a hand in TM's death. Unless we want to count the parents whose disinterest led to TM being in that place at that time in those circumstances. And hey Crump, let's not forget the cockatoo! "Who got away"? Um, would that be the man who, after being attacked and beaten for no reason, was then taken into custody, repeatedly questioned, released b/c there were no grounds for his arrest, and then forced to spend the next year in hiding b/c of the likes of scum like Crumb? The man whose life has been ruined by lying trash b/c his skin is the wrong colour?

I think I gotta go lie down till my blood pressure subsides...


LMF: just wanted to tell you I thoroughly enjoy your posts here and elsewhere. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:14 pm
Posts: 1124
Sha wrote:
:N9 :NN14

:smoke :46 :RTFM :N9 I want to believe that Omara is just trying to keep up appearances until after the ruling on the Depo for Crump. If he treats him like it's anything but business not personal they will rule not to let him talk to him but that picture gave me a sick feeling..... :(



One of the reporters asked them to pose together for a picture and was thrilled that they accommodated her. She bragged about it on Twitter.

To me = Much ado about nothing. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:14 am
Posts: 103
JanC1955 wrote:
LMF: just wanted to tell you I thoroughly enjoy your posts here and elsewhere. :)


Why, thank you, Jan. I do like to entertain. However, I thought Crumb was referencing TM when in fact it appears he was referencing Martin Lee Anderson. Oops! Oh well, what's accuracy to a Crump, right? :roll


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 585
Ottawa925 wrote:
I challenge anyone to provide proof that Crump has EVER tried a case in a courtroom. Not attorneys from his firm - HIM. Where you know he has to get up and serve as lead counsel on a case. After watching that "social media" video ... I just said ... no way.

:TF


Crump has an opportunity to display his dazzling courtroom skills to the entire world on April 30 by arguing the motion to keep the settlement agreement sealed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:07 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57073
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
THAT will be worth the price of admission :)

BDLR and Crump... doing a duet...in harmony..... I feel a JibJab coming on :lol

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:14 am
Posts: 103
Rumpole wrote:
BDLR and Crump... doing a duet...in harmony.....


I think what we'd need in the courtroom, in that event, would be for BDLR to semaphore a translation of what Da Crumb is saying. Might as well put those flapping arms to some use, after all. :28


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 7:24 pm
Posts: 87
John_Galt wrote:
Crump has an opportunity to display his dazzling courtroom skills to the entire world on April 30 by arguing the motion to keep the settlement agreement sealed.


I WILL be surprised if Crump argues the law on that one. My thinking the other guy, Jarian Lyons, may be the one that steps up to argue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:47 pm
Posts: 301
Ottawa925 wrote:

I WILL be surprised if Crump argues the law on that one. My thinking the other guy, Jarian Lyons, may be the one that steps up to argue.



Do they all speak ebonics or do just Crump and Parks? :Gslap


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:39 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57073
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Zimmerman: Crump - BDLR "Opposing Cousel" in Harmony


_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:47 pm
Posts: 301
Ottawa925 wrote:
I challenge anyone to provide proof that Crump has EVER tried a case in a courtroom. Not attorneys from his firm - HIM. Where you know he has to get up and serve as lead counsel on a case. After watching that "social media" video ... I just said ... no way.

:TF



This is very interesting and I think you may be right. Most, if not all of Crump's high profile cases were settled before trial - most for over $1 million.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:14 am
Posts: 103
Rumpole wrote:
Zimmerman: Crump - BDLR "Opposing Cousel" in Harmony


Thanks, Rumpole. That brightened up my evening over here on the west coast. :84


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 3:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2013 11:52 pm
Posts: 19
I don't have a problem with the photo of MOM and Crump. Especially knowing that a reporter asked them to pose together and they simply obliged. Further, MOM looks very confident, Crump very uncomfortable.

I see on blogs people blowing a gasket over the photo - but for the most part these seem to be the people who hate MOM and live for reasons to interpret his behavior in a bad light. A photo certainly doesn't mean people are best friends or are in a conspiracy together to railroad George (unbelievably, some are actually asserting this). Being an attorney means being in an adversarial profession. I would imagine that no one would last long as an attorney if they had to feel hate for their professional opponents, and to live every day consumed by that hatred, day after day, case after case. I would think that the healthier way to live their lives would be to compartmentalize a bit and not engage in the negative emotions, to stay as much as they can in the cognitive realm and focus on the actual case before them.

IANAL, but I *am* in a profession in which wearing your feelings and reactions on your sleeve is indisuptably detrimental to the process. I see MOM as behaving as a professional. I think a lot of the armchair would-be attorneys aren't really thinking about what's best for George, but rather what would make *them* feel better in the short term. For instance, MOM acting like a snotty teenager, yelling profanity-laden insults to and about Crump, making a scene about not wanting to be anywhere near him, or otherwise publicly showing that Crump has gotten under his skin. Basically, feeling better if MOM sunk to a level even below that of Crump.

Personally, I would feel little confidence in such an attorney, one who couldn't control their emotions, one who couldn't keep their feelings private and present a professional demeanor with a clear, logical head. I certainly wouldn't want an attorney whose buttons could be pushed so easily, who would act immaturely and unprofessionally every time an opposing attorney got under their skin. I'd want an attorney who was mature enough to brush the crap off her/his shoulders and remain in control of their own emotions, one who would not even let the other person get under their skin.

ArtTart has some good comments over on Nettles' thread on Diwataman's blog. As he says there, it's the *media's* job to present the information in the case (which they aren't doing much of); MOM has provided a lot of info as a courtesy. Yet MOM gets blasted because he hasn't presented as much as they want, as quickly as they want it. Again, I think many of the unhappy people are looking for what will make *them* feel better. In addition, since their bias is to find fault with MOM, they blame him instead of stepping back and realizing the media has failed them. MOM's focus is and should be winning this case, not keeping bloggers satisfied.

But maybe the prevalence of "reality" TV is to blame. People seem to want some macho bravado blustering attorney on steroids and in a bikini wrestling in the mud... I'm starting to think they basically want a "show" fit for the lowest-common denominator. Then they could sit in their armchair, suck down a beer, and yell and scream at the TV what they feel should be done.... like they do with football games, feeling an "identification" with "their" team, even though they're as far from an athlete as they can be lol In this case, they know a small percentage of the evidence that MOM does, they have none of MOM's legal experience, but they have all the answers from the throne of their armchair lol


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:57 pm
Posts: 169
I agree with you. Mr. O'Mara is a professional and I can't imagine that he would act any other way.

The prosecutor has already behaved in a less than professional manner a few times and he has become a laughingstock because of it. That isn't normal behavior and it probably isn't his usual way of behaving. It may be true that he was drunk when he wrote the response because he didn't represent himself or the state well acting like a urban brawler. LOL

I understood what Mr. O'Mara was saying about social media. I do think it is going to be a reality in the future, but it is a shame. It is just another way society is being dumbed down. It is easy to click on a link and the majority of people who did it probably didn't know anything about the case except a slanted view heard on biased sites. I still run into people today who spew the same lies about the gun and clothes from the very beginning of the case. All this is turning into "mob rule" and if you can find enough "useful idiots" you can turn public opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:57 pm
Posts: 169
flgirl543 wrote:


They actually said they send out an alert pointing to the petition as something you might be interested in signing. I said that didn't explain how the petition was signed in my name. I received this reply: We are truly sorry you received an email update on the Trayvon Martin petition when you did not sign it; indeed, this was an error. The message was sent by a tool managed by the internal Change.org team, and one of the filters on the recipient selections failed, which resulted in the email being sent to some non-signers. Please be assured that your email address has not been shared. I called BS and said I closed my account and would advise others to do the same. Their response...sorry...bye...


I find these petition sites to be meaningless and they are not only manipulated by a biased framing of the question, but the numbers probably are exaggerated.

That would be a good investigative piece for someone to do. Frame a completely false story and see how many people just hear a story and click a link.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 914 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 93 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group