George Zimmerman has gone public for the first time with a new website, therealgeorgezimmerman.com, and a paypal link to raise funds for his litigation costs. The website is a smart move, but Zimmerman used the occasion to describe the shooting as a “life altering event.” That is manifestly true except for the fact that he was speaking of himself, not Martin.
Zimmerman states “On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage. As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life. This website’s sole purpose is to ensure my supporters they are receiving my full attention without any intermediaries.” He goes further to warn that he “cannot attest to the validity of these other websites.”
I am a bit surprised that no one looking at this first statement (guaranteed to be picked apart by the media) would pause at the use of the phrase life altering when referring to the shooter rather than the deceased individual. Just for the record, in the next public letter, Zimmerman may want to avoid saying that he hopes to make “a killing in this outreach campaign.”
The motto of the site is the quote from Edmund Burke that “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing.” The site includes pages on “My Race” and an “album” of photos. In a particularly bizarre addition, the photo album shows graffiti saying “Long Live Zimmerman” — not exactly the most inspiring statement of support.
Lawyers often create litigation blogs and web sites to allow their clients to release documents or facts in support of their claims. However, these sites require careful scrutiny and, as here, may backfire with ill-advised language.
Here is the full statement:
I am the real George Zimmerman,
On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage. As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life. This website’s sole purpose is to ensure my supporters they are receiving my full attention without any intermediaries.It has come to my attention that some persons and/or entities have been collecting funds, thinly veiled as my “Defense Fund” or “Legal Fund”. I cannot attest to the validity of these other websites as I have not received any funds collected, intended to support my family and I through this trying, tragic time.
I have created a Paypal account solely linked on this website as I would like to provide an avenue to thank my supporters personally and ensure that any funds provided are used only for living expenses and legal defense, in lieu of my forced inability to maintain employment. I will also personally, maintain accountability of all funds received. I reassure you, every donation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
George Zimmerman
Source: USA Today
Mespo, thanks for your sur-reply! In 1981 when my custody case was really decided in a properly convened court of law with all the proper things in place (petition, evidence, witnesses, judge who unquestionably had jurisdiction, notice, opportunity to be heard, and best interests, with both sides ably represented), I was awarded permanent sole custody, and yes, I know that it was based upon the law and the proper standards etc. My lawyer in that trial, Sandy Ain, widely recognized as among the very best lawyers in the tri-state metro area, had explained all of that to me, and it was all considered. The stuff that happened later had to do with the official inability to deal with a crazed and angry disgruntled litigant who had been taught by a wacko fringe-group of malcontents how to manipulate the system. He sued all my witnesses, some of them over and over, and he sued the judge and he ended up making it impossible for officials to keep minding the shop — they were too busy trying to either satisfy him or avoid being sued themselves. In those pre-9/11 days, the two things scariest to the ordinary run-of-the-mill public official OR other kind of citizen were AIDS and a lawsuit. So naturally, the case went “into orbit” after my ex sued the judge who awarded me custody. I don’t want to speak ill of the dead but frankly, Judge Griffith was also at fault for being an irresponsible jurist, in recusing without even allowing an answer to the motion. He later actually got on the phone with me (I called him at HOME, respectfully, years later, and asked him about his recusal) and told me that he had recused himself to “avoid liability.” That was bull. He had no liability. He should have denied the motion and continued to do his job for the taxpayers of the Commonwealth, but there’s no going back to do over.
Ultimately, I think Bach was seduced by his own belief that he could fix something that looked out of control. Since I was the obedient one and my ex was the unruly disobedient wacko, he figured, OK, I’ll give him something to make him stop throwing his fit. Well, see, that’s neither effective nor legal, under the circumstances. But by the time it happened, the case was already chaos and idiocy. (One other judge doubled my ex’s visitation on a Friday motions day without taking evidence! My ex had said the reason he needed more visitation was that I had “constipated baby.” My “baby” was not constipated and the pediatrician had actually written the ex a letter telling him to PLEASE STOP BOTHERING THE CHILD ABOUT HIS BOWEL MOVEMENTS! The case was nuts. My father-in-law had hung himself to death in the basement of our house in Falls Church, and my ex filed papers in the case alleging that the suicide was MY FAULT because I had failed to tell my father-in-law “good morning.”)
Mespo, the case was nuts, the judge acted wrong, and then when it blew up in his face, he blamed me and punished me. But it didn’t have anything to do with the best interests OR THE LAW. Judge Bach thought then and probably thinks now that I can just be disregarded as a “disgruntled litigant” but I am beginning to think, now, that ultimately, this case and its real facts are going to put a few dents where they might not have otherwise appeared. You see, I can still express myself pretty clearly and I have recently made the decision to do so if it takes the rest of my life, which it probably will.
My apologies to others on the blog for going way off subject. Someone calling me “sweet” just kind of made me remember that damn fool order, and one thing led to another — I am, in the final analysis, just a story teller and this is, in the final analysis, just another one of my stories.
Best regards,
Well said Mespo. Any govenmental employee using religion on the job worries me.
Gene H:
State’s Attorney Corey strikes me as a particularly ethical and conservative prosecutor. Her obvious religiosity concerns me though. She mentioned that when first meeting the Martins her first “official” act was to call a prayer circle. A homage to her deep Episcopalian faith no doubt.
Tough cases like this are won on evidence and persuasive argument not pious entreaties to a deity who couldn’t care less.
George Zimmerman In Custody, Charged With Second-Degree Murder In Trayvon Martin Case
According to the article, he plans to plead not guilty. The murder charge indicates prosecutors plan to prove malice without premeditation. A lesser charge of manslaughter would have required prosecutors to prove only that he acted unlawfully and with criminal negligence in shooting Martin. This could be a case of overcharging to force a plea or the DA may actually have enough evidence to make the greater charge stick. We’ll see in court.
Malisha:
No,no,no .. I wasn’t slighted in any way, just surprised. I can’t call your opinion false since I don’t know the case. I will say that custody cases are the most difficult ones for judges to decide. They have to favor neither parent’s side in deference to the child’s welfare which is presumed to be a relationship with both estranged parents. Personally I don’t agree with that approach but it’s there. A relationship with some parents is not in the child’s interest sometimes.
I meant no aspersions on you either, just wondering about the basis for your opinion.
Mespo, I have great respect for you. Please do not take my last line or my indignant tone to mean otherwise.
There was so much to the case that it would take a lot of your attorney time to make it clear but I will be very glad to prove to you what I have said. Perhaps I AM the first person who has had anything negative to say about Bach, but of course, I am an UNIMPORTANT PERSON whom he felt could NEVER do anything TO HIM and probably the other people you know who also know him are NOT powerless and therefore would NOT have received mistreatment from him. I am not being frivolous with any of my comments and I am not aj person to wrongfully attack someone who has never gone beyond their legal rights.
My son is my greatest supporter and my best friend. He endured quite a lot of negative treatment at his father’s hands as a result of what Bach did. (He also publicly disowned his father.) If you are ever interested in finding out more about this bizarre and almost unbelievable case, I can make the data available.
A prominent forensic psychiatrist with a degree in law evaluated me, investigated this case, and BELIEVES ME. He believes that what happened to me is what he describes as “among the most appalling cases I have ever seen in 30 y ears of forensic work.” He has been helping me pro bono.
Again, you have my respect and if I slighted you, my apology as well.
Sincerely,
Malisha
malisha:
Sorry abut the too quick read of your comment but you’re the first person I’ve met who had anything negative to say about Judge Bach. Sorry for your experience but I tend to believe there was more to the case than what I’ve read so far.
id707,
I misread one of your earlier posts (on the run), and indeed, I was the one who brought the Constitution into it. So, my bad and my apology. However, outraged? Not in the slightest. You’re the one who started with the verbal attacks in response to an innocuous comment. I simply responed in kind. If you don’t like that? Learn to control yourself. As to an attack? Saying you don’t know factually what you’re talking about when it comes to something isn’t an attack. You attributed a meaning to a flim that was the exact opposite of the film’s rather explicit message. If you don’t like having that pointed out? Stop speaking from ignornace. Whether or not you *think* you’d like a movie or not that you’ve never seen is beside the point. Pointing out you’re wrong isn’t an attack though. It’s pointing out you’re wrong. You’re free to say what you like. I have not tried to silence you in any way. You’re not free from having what you say challegned or criticized though. No one is free from factual challenge and criticism. However, opinon is not fact, nor is fact opinion. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Even about the trival. Your approval is not required. You also mistake me for someone who takes evaluation of their character from random annonymous strangers on the Internet. Unless you’re a personal friend of mine, I really and truly don’t care what you think of my character. That’s an opinion one must earn the privledge to have appreciated. There are a few select people posting here who’s opinion on that matter I would consider. Sorry! You aren’t one of them.
As to the rest of what you say?
Yada, yada, yada.
Mespo, I didn’t say Virginia Beach. It was Fairfax and it was Bach. He has made plenty of normal decisions; I have actually seen some of them, AND I have seen him behave normally on the bench too, and I know his full history, and I know that he has been elected one of the 500 best lawyers in America, etc. etc.
Here are a few facts, though:
1. He got a case in 1982 because the father, dissatisfied with the custody order entered by the late Lewis Hall Griffith (Judge, Fairfax County Circuit Court) after a full ore tenus hearing, sued Judge Griffith in the Eastern District for $35,000 for discriminating against men by giving custody to a mother, against the father’s wishes.
2. Griffith recused himself on a pro se motion brought by this irate father, which motion was not brought upon notice, simply marched up to the bench by the pro se father because he was upset that he was before Griffith for contempt, after refusing to pay child support.
3. The contempt then went a few weeks later to Bach, who threatened the father that if he didn’t pay, he could bring his toothbrush to court at the next hearing. Took it under advisement.
4. The father was advised from the bench a total of three times (in front of three judges) to stop disobeying the order and if he thought he should have custody, file a petition alleging changed circumstances. He said he would NOT because the circumstances were not CHANGED; the judge had been WRONG. He admitted that he had not appealed the decision because, he said, he was advised he had little chance of winning and appeal and it was expensive.
5. He then berought a motion to VACATE the order for FRAUD ON THE COURT but he did not allege fraud. Not only did not allege it with specificity, did not even allege extrinsic fraud, PERIOD.
6. Bach GAVE HIM A WHOLE NEW TRIAL without notice — new custody battle, no notice, no petition pending, etc. etc. But did not enter a written order. Just gave him all kinds of benefits and warned him that if he continued to disobey, he would “take everything away.” In the oral decision from the bench he said he might be making “a heck of a mistake” and that he was thinking of Neville Chamberlain!
7. This judge then got very upset that he couldn’t get me charged with either contempt or with a crime for disobeying THAT alleged order (which he had not entered so naturally it could not be appealed, and which he refused to enforce even after it was disobeyed in significant ways by the father who had sued Judge Griffith). We didn’t have the Internet then so I couldn’t set up a web-page talking about what Bach had done. Very clearly, my lawyers pointed out that by this time, it had become a real ego issue for Bach. HE HAD DECIDED HE HAD THE SOLUTION TO THE WHOLE PROBLEM AND HE WANTED TO ENFORCE THAT SOLUTION ON ME AND I DIDN’T GO ALONG WITH IT. HECK WITH THE FACT THAT VIRGINIA LAW DID NOT PROVIDE FOR HIS JURISDICTION TO SOLVE THE WORLD’S PROBLEMS ABSENT A LAW TO HANG IT ON.
8. Ultimately Bach entered an order that was a combined civil/criminal order. Because the father is a vexatious litigant who cares more for his right to try to destroy someone who saw his feet of clay (and other substandard elements — ahem) than for having a good relationship with his only son, this order is still in play and takes up the judicial time and money of judges all over the country AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO AS LONG AS I NEED TO DEFEND MYSELF FROM THIS LUNACY. So although I understand that Bach is still defending HIS honor by saying he never did anything wrong in this case, and although he has used and misused officials in other courts, agencies, and the AG’s office as well to continue to protect HIM by denying my First Amendment Rights to petition my government for redress of wrongs, this case is back in play, and won’t go away.
I was perfectly satisfied to have written some funny poems about Bach and left it at that until his patron vexatious litigant came back in 2007 and arranged to have my money taken out of a Maryland bank without a valid Maryland order, based on the Virginia order that had never resulted in an enforcement in Fairfax. It’s too complex to expain why the order could not be enforced in Fairfax — it was because, basically, any contempt proceeding there would result in my being able to reactivate a habeas corpus that Bach got a federal judge (friend of his) to delay for 17 months and then declare “moot” — but the bottom line was that the order was unenforceable and the agency, to try to enforce it after my son turned 18 by just doing all sorts of unlawful things with the help of agency personnel (etc.) in and out of Virginia.
All this happened because Bach thought he was smarter than anybody, thought he could appease rather than rule, and thought that since domestic relations stuff is all loosy goosey, his making a mess of the law would be good enough to work. He had the power to do what he did; he proved that. But does he have the power to keep it from ever getting beyond his ability to control INFORMATION? Maybe not.
He’s entitled to your good opinion of him. Clearly, he never did anything wrong to you.
I have paperwork proving what I have said about what he did. Oh, and one little other thing. He withdrew my attorney with an order he made on October 1, 1982. Then, six weeks later, he withdrew that same attorney with a second order withdrawing him. Put a post-it-note on the first one, telling the Clerk, “See me about this.” She accidentally left the post-it-note on the order and I saw it and copied it, much after the fact. And guess why he withdrew him a second time? To make it retroactively legal that the attorney was served with papers on October 10, 1982. See? Stuff like that FILLED the file. Even worse and more ridiculous stuff filled the file of the habeas corpus proceeding in the Eastern District, where a petition was left on the desk 17 months so that it could “go moot” and not have to be decided.
Vote for Bach again as the Best Lawyer. Considering the competition, that may not even be untrue.
Zimmerman’s new lawyer is an outbreak of sanity in the matter.
He seems to be a real pro.
His performance in this video shows up the previous pair as amateur drama queens by comparison. It’s chalk and cheese – no comparison.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc.com/47021055/?ocid=twitter#47021055
The entire video is well worth watching.
This is the kind of guy that I’d want if I were in deep trouble.
He was keen to protray Zimmerman’s mental state as good (in the current pressing circumstances). One thing he does not need is for his client to be portrayed as unbalanced. Good luck with that. I think George is a wing-nut.
Malisha:
Don’t know how you ran into Judge Bach in Virginia Beach, because he is a retired judge from the Fairfax (VA) Circuit Court not the Virginia Beach Circuit Court (about 4 hours away). Of course, it’s possible he was sitting for a judge that recused himself but it’s not likely. Judge Bach is an ethical man whom I know. Judge Bach is a former prosecutor and Chief Judge of the Fairfax Circuit. He was also Acting Executive Secretary of the Virginia Supreme Court before going onto perform fine work as a mediator. He also serves as the Chairman of the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. I have no idea what your case was about but I can assure you that Judge Bach is quite well-respected for his intellect and not prone to snap judgments or flip comments.
RE: Constitution
I concentrate on two parts, in general.
1 – A person should not be deprived of life, liberty or property w/o due process of law.
(From those three, LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY, there are also two shadow “interests” that flow. Liberty interest reflects the fact that you can lose your liberty without being jailed. THus, if you are not free to visit your father’s girlfriend in a gated community, although you have not been convicted of any crime preventing you from doing so, you have been deprived of a LIBERTY INTEREST. Property also gives rise to a property interest. Thus, someone doesn’t have to take away your money to deprive you of your property INTEREST. THey can, for instance, fire you from your job for refusing to give your boss sexual favors. Your “interest” in that paycheck was then taken. BUT there is no litigation in this great nation — after more than 200 years of constitutional litigation — about losing your LIFE interest! The life interest is the black hole in American law — and it is a dangerous vacuum sucking into its deadly vortex all our other rights.)
Don’t get me started.
2. A person has a right under the First Amendment to Petition their government for redress of wrongs.
Wow. Just try. Just try. Without a tribe of lawyers (and lawyers, may I say, like TRIBE — from Harvard) you can’t get NEAR this one. And if you do have a tribe of lawyers, they are as likely to TAKE your rights as they are to protect them. HELP! (This is MY VOICE; analyze it.)
Idealist707–
Forgot to mention: I’m not ingenue (giggling again!) but not a judge (now an out and out guffaw!). I have seen 227 judges in action. Lord, Lord, Lord! (Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen.)
I’m a 65-year-old, uneducated, well read, white woman who really appreciates an intellectual conversation and who feels very personally aggrieved about the fact that American Law has utterly omitted cases that can deal with the all-too-common situations in which the CONSTITUTIONAL LIFE INTEREST is denied “under color of state law.”
And I’m a story teller. I think if we tell each other our stories, we may be able to get through this vale of tears —
I thank you for doing your part in that eternal project. Here’s to you:
Haiku Idealist707
Warm breeze, light petals,
glinting as they drifted down–
Try to remember!
You were there with me,
Surely you were there that day,
when I saw all that!
Idealist707–
I hasten to fall all over myself to apologize for expressing myself poorly! WOW! I am one of your fans on this blog and when you called me “sweet” I was smiling ear to ear!
But now, since you said so much more about what you meant (I really had NOT understood it but had not one molecule of indignation in me when I sought clarification, honest!) I have to FIRST thank you and SECOND, tell you another STORY!
On March 25, 1987, a Virginia Circuit Court judge (may his name be erased from the Book of Memory, and I will omit his name to protect the guilty, but his initials are F. BRUCE BACH) wrote an order in which he stated that I (me! Sweet Malisha from the Turley Blog!) had no credibility because I had presented myself to the court as a “nice sweet person” but obviously, he went on, I was NOT. I doubt anybody on this blog has ever seen a court order in either a civil or criminal proceeding (and this was BOTH — although under Virginia law there is no such thing) where the judge rules that a person is not nice and/or sweet!
So I recently got friends of mine to send me letters, which I could show to a journalist if necessary (if one decides to write about this ever) saying: “I know her and she IS NICE AND SWEET!” I have a whole notebook full of such letters! HA HA HA HA HA!!
I LOVED the part about feminine wiles, and was not at all upset about that, just got the giggles, because I wish I could use them — I’m sorely deficient in that category. Also, I think feminine wiles (like other feminine things) are wonderful, are great, and might have been able to save our planet if we women were not subjected to 4,000 years of patriarchy to the point where nothing EVER works because the ship is too big to turn around!
Interesting Update on the ThinkProgess link in my post above
“Zimmerman’s new attorney Mark O’Mara conceded in an interview last month that some people have called Florida’s “stand your ground” law a “license to murder” statute “because it doesn’t require actions to avoid the confrontation.” O’Mara will likely be asserting that defense on behalf of Zimmerman in a court of law. Watch it:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/11/462994/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-with-second-degree-murder-is-now-in-custody
“Under Florida law, second degree murder is defined as “[t]he unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.”
That sounds about right for the circumstances as I understand them.
The severity may hinge on ballistics/forensics to show where Martin was in relation to Zimmerman when the shots were fired.
Fox News commenters are doing what……well, what we might expect of Fox News commenters to do. Blogger Hayate Yagami waded into the cesspool so you won’t have to. Here is just a portion of what Hayate uncovered by turning over the rotten log that is FN’s website:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/11/1082537/-Fox-News-racist-commenters-react-to-Zimmerman-being-charged?detail=hide
George Zimmerman will be charged with second-degree murder in the shooting of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the Associated Press reports. Both the AP and NBC News report that Zimmerman is in police custody.
FILMS, AH, FILMS. THE PASSIONS SHOWN AND ENGENDERED
As for the film to be criticisized based on a short bit. Of course that is too little evidence. It was offered to resonate with those who have seen it in its entirety. I offered , and offer is the right word here, my opinion in much the same way as Swedes often do, which used to irritate me no end.
That is to say, to offer a colder and less inebriated view which the others’ enthusiasm has perhaps obscured.
Shan’t go further. Will just say that Eastwood’s imitations of Mount Rushmore have not excited me since “Dirty Harry”. And the lines I could have written in my sleep. Even as a teenager reading pulp westerns, I could have back then. I would guess the script writer took a beating on his gage just to avoid having his name on the credit lines.
And god knows, the Australian who committed suicide should have played a role in this scene.
Lastly, let me guess that this was a Clint Eastwood production and he was director as well.
Just guessing, of course. And as some believe, that is my right to do here. I will so exercise it.
PS
They say Eastwood was a good mayor. and the town is charming if you got money, which helps anywhere. I bought some excellent rosé there, if served well chilled to increase the sour note lacking.
And highway one is to be recommended. As yet, I hope, still with all its curves unstraightened.
Google Maps shows it well. And there is another view taken from the ocean side by a government agency. Got the link still I believe.
Good night all, Beddy bye. 11:35PM here.
I can guess you are eating and will watch the special prosecutor’s press conference, and will then return to thrash it out. Good luck with American justice.
GeneH,
.
You said:
“As to whatever your problems are with the 2nd Amendment, those appear to be interferring with your ability to understand film” (sic)
I said I don’t know what you are talking about as to the constitution.. That stands. And you deny you mentioned the Constitution. Oh well, you are always right, and besides careful with slurs too.
You said:
“For all of its over violence, Unforgiven is a film with a particularly anti-violence message at its core.”
I replied that I hadn’t seen it and did not need to see it. My stand on violence is far from the internationally perceived American standard. You need such a film as you say yourself. And I’m not criticizing your needs, the country’s needs. nor the films alleged message (unknown to me).
I simply said: it did not resonate as a great film with me.
This apparently outraged you so as to cause an attack.
Again, I question your hypersensitivity and extreme reactivity to criticism of that which you approve of. This is not a jibe, but a point which will likely never occur to you..
As for hyperbole, which? Mine or eventually yours, if I am allowed to guess as to your intent.
I simply took yours and upped the ante, ie the ceremony where the American people, the 99 per cent could witness, as at the so-called “Reign of Terror” in Paris, the death of their traitors to humanity.
No use replying to you, but in respect to myself I will this time.
To listen further to someone who so readily takes to verbal abuse is of no further use. You have previously demonstrated your abilities therewith and if you wish to continue warning others to not EFF with GeneH. Then go right ahead.
And if you want to appreciate your approval of something, then I have the freedom as you pointed out above re Rafflaw’s comment and his freedoms therewith, to do the same. Ie, express my opinion counter to yours.
And if you fly into a rage and vilify me again, then you again demonstrate your character for all here.
And I will not end as you usually do and did above with a “stuff it ” comment.
No, I wish you better health, at least mentally. It is needed.