View Full Version : Mark O'Mara's/Defense's Media And Social Network Presence
elementary
04-30-2012, 01:38 PM
I thought I'd bring this over from the main thread since MOM is planning on a huge presence on social network and in the media.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_online.gif
honest to goodness!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: wherever they send me
Posts: 9,812
Remember when everyone hated Mark NeJame and swore up and down about how unethical he was?
I do. LOL.
They were wrong then too. :D O'Mara's peer-reviewed ethical rating is AV.
http://www.martindale.com/Results.as...rlando%2C%20fl (http://www.martindale.com/Results.aspx?ft=1&frm=freesearch&afs=mark%20o%27mara%20orlando%2C%20fl)
Quote:
Name: Mark M. O'Mara
Peer Review Rated
Client Review Rated
Documents
Job Title: Member
Organization: Mark M. O'Mara, P.A.
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense; White Collar Crime; Driving While Intoxicated; Family Law; Divorce; Traffic Violations; Misdemeanors; Child Custody; Support
Office: Orlando, Florida (Orange Co.)
Peer Review Rating: AV® Preeminent™ 5.0 out of 5
Client Review Rating: Preeminent 5.0 out of 5
http://www.martindale.com/Results.as...rlando%2C%20fl (http://www.martindale.com/Results.aspx?ft=1&frm=freesearch&afs=mark%20o%27mara%20orlando%2C%20fl)
Quote:
Name: Mark E. NeJame
Peer Review Rated
Client Review Rated
Documents
Job Title: Member
Organization: Nejame, Lafay, Jancha, Barker, Joshi, & Moreno, P.A.
Practice Areas: Criminal Law; Personal Injury; Commercial Litigation; Civil Litigation; Immigration Law
Office: Orlando, Florida (Orange Co.)
Peer Review Rating: AV® Preeminent™ 5.0 out of 5
Client Review Rating: Preeminent 5.0 out of 5
:cow:
**************************
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r-vi...22/detail.html (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r-video/30966922/detail.html)
I haven't seen MOM's legal site referenced here yet. This site is not a FB site. This site will not be the donation site - planned to be kept separately at gzdefensefund.
http://www.gzlegalcase.com/
Quote:
Why Social Media for George Zimmerman?
on 28 April 2012.
We understand that it is unusual for a legal defense to maintain a social media presence on behalf of a defendant, but we also acknowledge that this is a very unusual case. Here are our justifications for our online efforts, and some guidelines we have put in place to help you understand what you can expect. We do understand and acknowledge the criticism that this is an opportunistic move using the event of a tragedy for personal or firm gain. Rest assured, that if the controversy surrounding this matter subsided tomorrow, so would our efforts to address the perceived problems the way we feel is necessary.
First, we contend that social media in this day and age cannot be ignored. It is now a critical part of presidential politics, it has been part of revolutions in the Middle East, and it is going to be an unavoidable part of high-profile legal cases, just as traditional media has been and continues to be. We feel it would be irresponsible to ignore the robust online conversation, and we feel equally as strong about establishing a professional, responsible, and ethical approach to new media.
FWIW, At first I thought that MOM's offices had not yet found the GZ presence on WS's site. Now I'm wondering. ;)
To the mods:
Does it make sense to start a thread for discussing MOM's posts at gzlegalcase.com ??
KateNY
05-02-2012, 01:12 AM
re Facebook Page Set up by MO'M
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234_p2/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html
O’Mara hired Shawn Vincent of Orlando’s Digital Marketing Revolution to manage a Facebook page as well.
< >
Jayne Navarre, a South Florida consultant who devises social media strategies for lawyers, said O’Mara’s use of social media will “almost certainly” taint a jury pool and compromise Zimmerman’s shot at a fair trial. She said O’Mara also may be violating American Bar Association rules that prohibit a lawyer from helping third parties make prohibited extrajudicial comments.
While use of social media has risen exponentially in the legal field, “what we have not seen is a criminal-defense attorney host social media channels on behalf of their client,” Navarre said. “I would not be surprised to learn that members of the Bar are shocked and even disgusted.”
Under American Bar Association rules, a lawyer can speak publicly on a case as long as it does not prejudice a potential jury. The association is revamping its rules to address social media, she said.
Lawyers usually use social media to advertise, educate, network or recruit employees, she said. Some lawyers and judges have been sanctioned for inappropriate use of social media.
Not sure how I feel about that Facebook page, and if it would taint a jury pool. DO want to ensure the man gets a fair trial.
Could wind up as an appeal issue? ( if found guilty)
:crystalball:
katydid23
05-02-2012, 01:53 AM
I think O/Mara is in a very unique situation. THis trial would not be happening the way it is now unfolding if it were not for the massive media campaign rolled out by the Martin family and their high profile civil rights attorney and his PR team.
So there was already a huge wave of national media AGAINST his client when O'Mara took over. And now there are the 7 yr old MYspaces of GZ hitting the internet.
So imo, O'Mara wouldn't be doing his job if her didn't try to put some things to try and balance it somewhat that he has control over.
Baez used the social networks to fashion himself a defense to set Casey free. And he has been going to legal conventions and 'lecturing' about the new wave of social media and it's effect upon jury trials. Looks like O'Mara has his ear to the ground.
imamaze
05-02-2012, 08:15 AM
http://cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/5/1/zimmerman_website_ra.html
George Zimmerman website crossing the line?
Legal experts say the website set up for the case against George Zimmerman is in a gray legal area, and close to crossing ethical lines set by the Florida Bar.
Attorney Joy Ragan from the Ragan Law Firm said there will likely be kickback from legal community in response to the Mark O’Mara operated gzlegalcase.com.
“There will be some complaints to the bar by somebody,” Ragan said.
More...
tehcloser
05-02-2012, 10:42 AM
http://cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/5/1/zimmerman_website_ra.html
George Zimmerman website crossing the line?
Legal experts say the website set up for the case against George Zimmerman is in a gray legal area, and close to crossing ethical lines set by the Florida Bar.
Attorney Joy Ragan from the Ragan Law Firm said there will likely be kickback from legal community in response to the Mark O’Mara operated gzlegalcase.com.
“There will be some complaints to the bar by somebody,” Ragan said.
More...
See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?
imamaze
05-02-2012, 11:22 AM
See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?
I'm not sure how I feel about it. I mean its something so new imo. So far what he has on the website I don't see anything wrong or crossing any ethical lines. I'm not quite sure what they are going to use it for though.
Ima
stilettos
05-02-2012, 11:50 AM
See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?
He is going to get caught up in this...mark my words.
belle3
05-02-2012, 12:02 PM
http://cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/5/1/zimmerman_website_ra.html
However, he also states that one of the “seven” objectives of the website are to prevent miseducation and false facts to the public.
“Well the problem is you can’t do both, you can’t not talk about the facts of the case and prevent the miseducation of the public on the facts of the case, so I think inherently there is a problem with the website,” said Ragan.
I am not so sure about this website. Would this fall under the need for a gag order???
lauriej
05-02-2012, 01:56 PM
http://www.gzlegalcase.com/
Contents of George Zimmerman's Abandoned Myspace Page Scrutinized (http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/11-contents-of-george-zimmerman-s-abandoned-myspace-page-scrutinized)
on 02 May 2012
A Myspace page that belonged to George Zimmerman in 2005 has been brought to light, and some of the contents of his page have been scrutinized in a Miami Herald article entitled “George Zimmerman’s crude Myspace page from 2005 uncovered.” (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html) The O’Mara Law Group has confirmed this this page did belong to Mr. Zimmerman, though it was hacked into, and George abandoned it. The identified posts were his.
We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved While these social media accounts may be public, we will not comment on them publicly, as they may be part of the evidence produced at trial.
lauriej
05-02-2012, 02:12 PM
See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?
--also from the article posted..
http://cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/5/1/zimmerman_website_ra.html
The issue of raising money for Zimmerman through the website raised red flags for Ragan as well.
The Bar rules state an attorney cannot make money off a criminal enterprise.
The website makes it clear money donated will pay for “more” than just attorney fees.
“So I think it’s a real problem for Mr. O’Mara to also use these funds to pay for the living expense of Mr. Zimmerman,” said Ragan.
KateNY
05-02-2012, 02:20 PM
http://www.gzlegalcase.com/
Contents of George Zimmerman's Abandoned Myspace Page Scrutinized (http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/11-contents-of-george-zimmerman-s-abandoned-myspace-page-scrutinized)
on 02 May 2012
We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved
BBM..
Battle of The Twitter Tweets coming to a trial near you
:what:
Emma Peel
05-02-2012, 02:35 PM
BBM..
Battle of The Twitter Tweets coming to a trial near you
:what:
BINGO.
LOL.
"Hmmmmm... Why didn't MOM clean up those old websites of GZ's sooner?"
Oops, there goes that fox again. :runaway:
belle3
05-02-2012, 02:46 PM
BINGO.
LOL.
"Hmmmmm... Why didn't MOM clean up those old websites of GZ's sooner?"
Oops, there goes that fox again. :runaway:
Quote:
We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved
hmmmm???? bbm
lauriej
05-02-2012, 02:57 PM
Quote:
We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved
hmmmm???? bbm
--so, what omara would think is fair, is for people to "scrutinize" the social media accounts of the victim also...
--complete w/ verifiable *links*, quotes ( while a staffer prints them off and compiles them all neatly in a folder labelled defense #X...)
elementary
05-02-2012, 03:19 PM
Quote:
We believe that inviting public scrutiny of the contents of this social media account invites scrutiny of the social media accounts of all parties involved
hmmmm???? bbm
....And therefore justifies the presence of this site as well as encourages the scrutiny of the victim and witnesses. What's good for the goose, etc... Crazy like a fox, as Emma Peel has pointed out.
I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't have an Amy Singer clone, or even AS consulting in order to manipulate public opinion.
elementary
05-02-2012, 03:29 PM
re Facebook Page Set up by MO'M
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/01/2778234_p2/myspace-page-is-latest-salvo-in.html
Not sure how I feel about that Facebook page, and if it would taint a jury pool. DO want to ensure the man gets a fair trial.
Could wind up as an appeal issue? ( if found guilty)
:crystalball:
If the criteria for being on a jury is being deaf, dumb and blind to the news, then MOM's site is making it that much harder to find someone untainted. So, IMO he's ensuring that not only could GZ not get a fair trial, but that they would have to move it out of the country. For him to be disseminating "information" and correcting information is to manipulate this medium and the media at large, IMO. He's making things worse and guaranteed, he will polarise the public even further. It's beyond unethical, IMO. Rather than defend his client, he's proclaimed an all out war on truth and justice. This is bigger than GZ now and I think GZ is now merely a pawn in something I just don't understand. Perhaps MOM is not greedy for money, but it seems that his ego is monumental. And that's my two cents.
Meanwhile, the prosecution can't say a word.
It seems that 'ethics' in lawyering is relative.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. I mean its something so new imo. So far what he has on the website I don't see anything wrong or crossing any ethical lines. I'm not quite sure what they are going to use it for though.
Ima
I think it's a good thing if the Florida Bar has plans to discuss the ethical use of social media.
But at first glance, why is using FB different from appearing on television?
See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?
How is it "clearly" crossing a line except that social media is a new area?
One might well argue that an ethical defense attorney has an obligation to keep up with the times. As Websleuths demonstrates, it's not as if the case isn't already being discussed on the internet.
elementary
05-02-2012, 05:42 PM
I think it's a good thing if the Florida Bar has plans to discuss the ethical use of social media.
But at first glance, why is using FB different from appearing on television?
It is very different. FB is far reaching compared to TV and engages the reader in a dialogue; it is interactive. Far reaching in that 'likes' further propel the dissemination of the site, as do the 'friends' connections; it's meant to go viral. And it's also a convenient spot to test the waters, experiment, and keep one's finger on the pulse of opinion, and then steer it in any direction necessary. One can also manipulate the numbers and delete the voices of the dissenters. It lulls people into believing they have a voice and influence. In this case it is also meant to be fodder for social engineering, the gathering of information; a site purportedly about law, and justice and truth, is not intended to serve the country or the people or serve justice. It is self-serving.
It could also be dangerous, because what if someone comes across your opinions and doesn't like what you've written? This is a volatile subject. Many people have a lot of their info on FB. They could in effect track you down and do real harm. Not to mention that FB has sold info to third parties in the past.
Perhaps you can flesh out why it is not any different from TV?
elementary
05-02-2012, 05:43 PM
How is it "clearly" crossing a line except that social media is a new area?
One might well argue that an ethical defense attorney has an obligation to keep up with the times. As Websleuths demonstrates, it's not as if the case isn't already being discussed on the internet.
How does "keeping up with the times" have anything to do with ethics?
Donjeta
05-02-2012, 05:44 PM
I think it's a good thing if the Florida Bar has plans to discuss the ethical use of social media.
But at first glance, why is using FB different from appearing on television?
Too much TV exposure may be a bad thing too sometimes.
The comments may be a problematic aspect on FB. If you set up a page where people can comment without moderation the people may post something that is not true or is otherwise offensive or beyond the pale and since it's your page it might be interpreted that you endorse the comments. Too much moderation could be bad for the fairness if it skews the discussion in a particular direction and bad for the client if it tips your hand prematurely.
tehcloser
05-02-2012, 05:44 PM
How is it "clearly" crossing a line except that social media is a new area?
One might well argue that an ethical defense attorney has an obligation to keep up with the times. As Websleuths demonstrates, it's not as if the case isn't already being discussed on the internet.
Oh heck because the article that was posted said so........but then again, you know I have some deep, dark, hinky reason for my blind hatred of defense attorneys....so, just ignore me. :floorlaugh:
highflyer
05-02-2012, 07:31 PM
Always follow the money. Somebody has to have some deep pockets to be funding this media relations campaign. It will be interesting to find out where this leads to.
It is very different. FB is far reaching compared to TV and engages the reader in a dialogue; it is interactive. Far reaching in that 'likes' further propel the dissemination of the site, as do the 'friends' connections; it's meant to go viral. And it's also a convenient spot to test the waters, experiment, and keep one's finger on the pulse of opinion, and then steer it in any direction necessary. One can also manipulate the numbers and delete the voices of the dissenters. It lulls people into believing they have a voice and influence. In this case it is also meant to be fodder for social engineering, the gathering of information; a site purportedly about law, and justice and truth, is not intended to serve the country or the people or serve justice. It is self-serving.
It could also be dangerous, because what if someone comes across your opinions and doesn't like what you've written? This is a volatile subject. Many people have a lot of their info on FB. They could in effect track you down and do real harm. Not to mention that FB has sold info to third parties in the past.
Perhaps you can flesh out why it is not any different from TV?
BBM: You must live in England. In the United States we have hundreds of channels. NOTHING is more far-reaching than TV.
But I do use Facebook and didn't really need the lecture on how it works. Yes, every new technology has its own features, but long before FB "likes" were broadcast, people called their neighbors on the phone to say, "Turn on, Nancy Grace! She's talking about the Zimmerman case." If you look around here, you'll find posters spreading the word whenever their favorite case is discussed on TV.
Yes, FB is more conveniently interactive than much TV, but that's not to say TV viewers haven't always had ways (phone calls, mail) of interacting with their favorite programs. Some programs (see, again, Nancy Grace) quite encourage viewers to call in and express opinions.
Yes, FB and Twitter may provide prosecutors AND defense counsels with ways to know what potential jurors are thinking. So this is a new facet in the life of a jury consultant. But researching the jury pool has never been against the law or against the canon of judicial ethics. So I don't believe this issue will even be discussed by the Bar.
I said above that I'm glad the Florida Bar is taking up the issue of legal ethics and social media; obviously, the canon of ethics should be revisited as technology changes.
But I was responding to posts that insisted it was OBVIOUS O'Mara has "crossed the line" by using Facebook and Twitter. And so I ask: obvious to whom and in what way? To my eye, he's simply using the resources made available by the modern world.
And let's remember that both sides will be able to ask potential jurors about their use of social media regarding the case during voir dire.
vlpate
05-02-2012, 08:52 PM
See it's stuf like this I don't understand. MOM is clearly about to cross a line. How can one be so ethical yet, be close to crossing "ethical lines set by the Florida Bar"?
Defense attorneys go on television all the time talking about their cases - Tacopina and Jose Baez come quickly to mind. The only difference, IMO, is feedback.
How does "keeping up with the times" have anything to do with ethics?
A lawyer who pays no attention to television, radio and, yes, even internet coverage of his client's case is guilty of serious malpractice, imo.
Too much TV exposure may be a bad thing too sometimes.
The comments may be a problematic aspect on FB. If you set up a page where people can comment without moderation the people may post something that is not true or is otherwise offensive or beyond the pale and since it's your page it might be interpreted that you endorse the comments. Too much moderation could be bad for the fairness if it skews the discussion in a particular direction and bad for the client if it tips your hand prematurely.
These are all great points, Donjeta, and something to be considered by the attorney. But s/he should also consider the effect of appearing on Nancy Grace and the phone calls the appearance may inspire.
vlpate
05-02-2012, 09:27 PM
Always follow the money. Somebody has to have some deep pockets to be funding this media relations campaign. It will be interesting to find out where this leads to.
FB & Twitter cost nothing.
AngelWings444
05-02-2012, 09:50 PM
FB & Twitter cost nothing.
But, it takes money to have someone monitor these Facebook/Twitter pages. Someone must be getting paid to do that job. After they launched the new Facebook page for GZ, it got really ugly. Tons of posts..someone is getting paid or is working for free. :waitasec:
You couldn't pay me enough $$ to read all that "stuff" :floorlaugh:
elementary
05-02-2012, 10:41 PM
A lawyer who pays no attention to television, radio and, yes, even internet coverage of his client's case is guilty of serious malpractice, imo.
What has that to do with ethics though?
elementary
05-02-2012, 10:57 PM
BBM: You must live in England. In the United States we have hundreds of channels. NOTHING is more far-reaching than TV.
But I do use Facebook and didn't really need the lecture on how it works. Yes, every new technology has its own features, but long before FB "likes" were broadcast, people called their neighbors on the phone to say, "Turn on, Nancy Grace! She's talking about the Zimmerman case." If you look around here, you'll find posters spreading the word whenever their favorite case is discussed on TV.
Yes, FB is more conveniently interactive than much TV, but that's not to say TV viewers haven't always had ways (phone calls, mail) of interacting with their favorite programs. Some programs (see, again, Nancy Grace) quite encourage viewers to call in and express opinions.
Yes, FB and Twitter may provide prosecutors AND defense counsels with ways to know what potential jurors are thinking. So this is a new facet in the life of a jury consultant. But researching the jury pool has never been against the law or against the canon of judicial ethics. So I don't believe this issue will even be discussed by the Bar.
I said above that I'm glad the Florida Bar is taking up the issue of legal ethics and social media; obviously, the canon of ethics should be revisited as technology changes.
But I was responding to posts that insisted it was OBVIOUS O'Mara has "crossed the line" by using Facebook and Twitter. And so I ask: obvious to whom and in what way? To my eye, he's simply using the resources made available by the modern world.
And let's remember that both sides will be able to ask potential jurors about their use of social media regarding the case during voir dire.
I have offended you! I was pointing out the effect of how FB works. I guess I failed. Fact is, I stay away from FB and twitter and know only rudimentary stuff about them. The point I was making is that FB has the potential that TV does not have- to go viral. The viral stuff then ends up on TV, I have seen it.
There's a line between pragmatism and ethics and the concepts are not interchangeable.
"Researching the jury pool"? How about influencing the jury pool?
FB is immediately interactive unlike TV. Most people are too lazy to do snail mail, even email, if they can voice their opinions in real time.
As for asking potential jurors during voir dire regarding the case and their use of social media, that is the point I'm making- an exclusive FB site from the defence encourages people to interact, thereby reducing the jury pool. It goes viral, something TV cannot do. It is far reaching in a way that TV can never be.
You seem to accept the jury consultant as a fact of life. Who says?
I live in Canada, no slouch in the gazillion channel department. The internet is way more far reaching than TV could ever be, in multi-faceted ways and so is FB. People don't even need to watch TV when there is YouTube, and online video streaming. We will have to agree to disagree on that point.
And finally, no it's not against the law to research the jury pool. But it may contravene judicial ethics if the site is used to manipulate and taint the jury pool.
elementary
05-02-2012, 11:11 PM
But, it takes money to have someone monitor these Facebook/Twitter pages. Someone must be getting paid to do that job. After they launched the new Facebook page for GZ, it got really ugly. Tons of posts..someone is getting paid or is working for free. :waitasec:
You couldn't pay me enough $$ to read all that "stuff" :floorlaugh:
You make a really good point. MOM has already stated on the FB page that they have hired a nameless ex IRS agent to monitor donations. Of course they have hired a social media consultant who is working for big bucks! IMO. Who could believe otherwise?
elementary
05-02-2012, 11:13 PM
Oh heck because the article that was posted said so........but then again, you know I have some deep, dark, hinky reason for my blind hatred of defense attorneys....so, just ignore me. :floorlaugh:
You make me smile, a lot! Thanks!
highflyer
05-02-2012, 11:16 PM
I'll give it up for them being groundbreaking. Not sure that this is a good thing, but it is interesting.
elementary
05-02-2012, 11:19 PM
I'll give it up for them being groundbreaking. Not sure that this is a good thing, but it is interesting.
I certainly don't disagree that it needs to be addressed. Very canny, too, that challenge. Still self-serving, IMO, and that's why it needs to be addressed.
highflyer
05-02-2012, 11:24 PM
I certainly don't disagree that it needs to be addressed. Very canny, too, that challenge. Still self-serving, IMO, and that's why it needs to be addressed.
Kind of like having an 800 pound baby to contend with.
Emma Peel
05-02-2012, 11:53 PM
Just about anyone who runs a business and doesn't hire or consult smarty-pants social media folks to help them negotiate their social media presence risks being out of touch and off trend with the most important marketing trends of this new century.
That goes for attorneys and nursing homes and all inbetween.
Sad but true, IMO.
elementary
05-03-2012, 12:03 AM
Just about anyone who runs a business and doesn't hire or consult smarty-pants social media folks to help them negotiate their social media presence risks being out of touch and off trend with the most important marketing trends of this new century.
That goes for attorneys and nursing homes and all inbetween.
Sad but true, IMO.
You know what would work well for the halls of justice? "No comment".
lauriej
05-03-2012, 02:11 PM
-- 'case discussion'----Question to their followers today:
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase (https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase)
The official page on Facebook for information about the George Zimmerman Legal Case, administered by the Mark O'Mara Law Group.
George Zimmerman Legal Case
about an hour ago.
"We would like to know what other forums regarding this case you are contributing to. Please provide links."
--how does that fall under the category of case discussion/case information?
highflyer
05-03-2012, 05:13 PM
-- 'case discussion'----Question to their followers today:
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase (https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase)
The official page on Facebook for information about the George Zimmerman Legal Case, administered by the Mark O'Mara Law Group.
George Zimmerman Legal Case
about an hour ago.
"We would like to know what other forums regarding this case you are contributing to. Please provide links."
--how does that fall under the category of case discussion/case information?
What an unsettling question the page asks.
Donjeta
05-03-2012, 05:31 PM
It's worded in a weird manner which suggests a desire to sleuth the posters (what do they write elsewhere and are their off-site opinions worthy of a ban). Just asking people to share other sites with interesting discussion of the case without including the where-else-do-you-write part would have sounded more normal.
chefmom
05-03-2012, 05:32 PM
A lawyer who pays no attention to television, radio and, yes, even internet coverage of his client's case is guilty of serious malpractice, imo.
ITA! IMO, we all have to face the fact that we live in an entirely different world than we did just ten years ago. Technology has become almost Jetsonian and we have only begun to see the changes it is going to have on our legal system.
highflyer
05-03-2012, 05:41 PM
It's worded in a weird manner which suggests a desire to sleuth the posters (what do they write elsewhere and are their off-site opinions worthy of a ban). Just asking people to share other sites with interesting discussion of the case without including the where-else-do-you-write part would have sounded more normal.
It is an emotionally cold question. Is it a computer program?
i.b.nora
05-04-2012, 11:25 AM
George Zimmerman's new defense fund up and running
(http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-04/news/os-george-zimmerman-defense-fund-20120504_1_paypal-defense-team-new-defense-fund)
By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel
10:08 a.m. EST, May 4, 2012
"George Zimmerman's new defense fund is up and running, collecting donations online through the blog-style website set up recently by his attorney, Mark O'Mara.
According to the latest post on the site, GZLegalCase dot com, Zimmerman's defense team received registration certification from the Florida Division of Consumer Services on Thursday."
i.b.nora
05-04-2012, 11:30 AM
What an unsettling question the page asks.
Not only is the question unsettling, but one absolutely has to be a registered Facebook user to even see the 'site' which means further tracking of 'who you are'. I am not a registered Facebook user, so my only knowledge of it is from what I am reading on this thread. All the more reason not to register, imo.
elementary
05-04-2012, 05:48 PM
A lawyer who pays no attention to television, radio and, yes, even internet coverage of his client's case is guilty of serious malpractice, imo.
Oh, please. As if there's no middle ground. And that's got nothing to do with ethics. That's sheer incompetence.
saguaro
05-04-2012, 09:07 PM
<modsnip>
I think we're looking at 2 very different Facebook pages. The page is heavily moderated and anything rude or off topic is almost immediately removed.
:what:
Gayler99
05-04-2012, 10:19 PM
I don't know if this is been discussed yet. The link below was issued by the judge on May 1. It cautions the lawyers against facilitating third-party extra judicial comments.
I wonder if any of the Zimmerman sites are in violation.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/order%20on%20media%20requests.pdf
I hope the link works.
Just K
05-04-2012, 11:54 PM
Wowza! Thanks, lauriej for all the info you bring to us. There are those of us, like myself, who do not do FB or Twitter, so this is so important for us to see.
Wowza! Data mining. Just as I predicted. I guess it's okay if people don't mind their info being used, and they don't mind being used. Imagine if someone posts something on the FB page that gets back to an employer or prospective employer or a boss or someone else that has power over you.
RE the bolded: Yep, what has that to do with the case discussion/information? Pretty shady, IMO. Why? Because they dissembled about the purpose of the site. And now we get to do the job for their social engineers as well. When did justice become all about marketing, anyway?
Yep, just as we suspect is the reason for leaving the MS open (PUBLIC.)
They are probably trying to gauge the public perception of GZ so that they can attempt to tweak his image and his story/excuses. I figured they'd be less obvious since they could probably use a trackback at least on the legal defense fund page. Facebook does their own tracking but they don't let the users do it. Which is probably why they are asking. I think, if I went there which I won't, I would just say, "Maybe you and your client might want to revisit the constitution...individual rights to privacy...and then consider that each individual's possesses the right to his or her own beliefs and opinions."
They've read what the arguments against their client and they probably don't delete the opposition probably until they get the info they are looking for....so they know what they need to put in the spin cycle and where to best promote their "story." The perspective that they will try their best to shove down the collective throats of the public
I hope they know that just because something is repeated over & over that it does not make it fact or true. In this case the public, outside of Florida, generally isn't buying it.
Just K
05-05-2012, 12:29 AM
Who wants to guess at who "hacked" GZ's abandoned MS page and what their definition of "hacked" really is. My guess, on advice of legal counsel, GZ allowed a third party to go to his old page and open a few pages...BUT, that does not explain why anyone might have deleted or changed his photo and music files (as late as December 2010) long before GZ killed Trayvon.
IMO, they wanted the MS page to come to the surface so that they could have a good excuse to use TM's online history to smear his reputation. But, the OL activity of a 16 and 17 year old is mostly kids quoting or emulating their favorite musicians, poets, writers, and actors...quoting their favorites or doing it because they and their friends all have an inside joke about something. Anything posted could simply be a joke.
Now, about those gold teeth, the grille, for all we know Trayvon fashioned one out of little gold star stickers and did it as yet another parody.
vlpate
05-05-2012, 12:31 AM
Yep, just as we suspect is the reason for leaving the MS open (PUBLIC.)
They are probably trying to gauge the public perception of GZ so that they can attempt to tweak his image and his story/excuses. I figured they'd be less obvious since they could probably use a trackback at least on the legal defense fund page. Facebook does their own tracking but they don't let the users do it. Which is probably why they are asking. I think, if I went there which I won't, I would just say, "Maybe you and your client might want to revisit the constitution...individual rights to privacy...and then consider that each individual's possesses the right to his or her own beliefs and opinions."
They've read what the arguments against their client and they probably don't delete the opposition probably until they get the info they are looking for....so they know what they need to put in the spin cycle and where to best promote their "story." The perspective that they will try their best to shove down the collective throats of the public
I hope they know that just because something is repeated over & over that it does not make it fact or true. In this case the public, outside of Florida, generally isn't buying it.
JMO, but judging from the marketing and media blitz by BC and AC, the public absolutely buys a story that is repeated over and over. From the 14 yr. old and the monster, the hoodie, the honor roll student, the vigilante racist, the skittles, etc., etc., they've proved repetition makes it true - heck, they even swayed members of Congress, some movie stars, and the President of the United States.
JMO
vlpate
05-05-2012, 12:40 AM
Who wants to guess at who "hacked" GZ's abandoned MS page and what their definition of "hacked" really is. My guess, on advice of legal counsel, GZ allowed a third party to go to his old page and open a few pages...BUT, that does not explain why anyone might have deleted or changed his photo and music files (as late as December 2010) long before GZ killed Trayvon.
IMO, they wanted the MS page to come to the surface so that they could have a good excuse to use TM's online history to smear his reputation. But, the OL activity of a 16 and 17 year old is mostly kids quoting or emulating their favorite musicians, poets, writers, and actors...quoting their favorites or doing it because they and their friends all have an inside joke about something. Anything posted could simply be a joke.
Now, about those gold teeth, the grille, for all we know Trayvon fashioned one out of little gold star stickers and did it as yet another parody.
I think MO'M just wanted to make social media fair game, period. TM was a full 17 years old - that's how many years he'd lived, not 16 years and five or six days, so he was on his way to being 18. When GZ created that page he was 21.
As or the music files, I changed mine on the actual program I used for a few years after abandoning my commercial myspace page, it automatically changes the music on the page.
I'm sorry, but I think it's funny to imagine a 17 year old using gold stars to fashion a grill - a kid in 1st grade maybe, but not in high school, his friends would never let him live it down. I don't see anything wrong with him having a grill.
JMO
vlpate
05-05-2012, 12:43 AM
I don't know if this is been discussed yet. The link below was issued by the judge on May 1. It cautions the lawyers against facilitating third-party extra judicial comments.
I wonder if any of the Zimmerman sites are in violation.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/order%20on%20media%20requests.pdf
I hope the link works.
I think this addresses third parties associated with the case. JMO
Just K
05-05-2012, 12:46 AM
Well, in my case I decided not to read a single thing on this case because I had a good feeling that it would cause me many sleepless nights and great sadness. But then, I came to the Trayvon Forum to get the facts..as we know them. But, all I had to hear were the Zimmerman call to LE and the seven 911 calls to know that GZ's story just didn't add up. I might add that today was the first time that I have watched a video with Crump, AL Sharpton, or TM's parents. I really tried not to pay close attention to any commentary on this case. But alas I came here with a wide open mind and now all of that has changed. So even for me, neither the defense nor TM's family Attorney has influenced my opinions.
I must say, if anyone influenced me it was GZ and his legal, employment, education, familial, & social history. But, I will say, most people probably watched the interviews on cable. I didn't because I don't have cable and to date have only seen that Geraldo video that was posted today.
Just K
05-05-2012, 12:52 AM
I think this addresses third parties associated with the case. JMO
Would that be someone that O'Mara and his legal team discusses the case with like a media consultant or would that be witnesses? Who are the third parties that this rule of law applies to?
vlpate
05-05-2012, 12:57 AM
Would that be someone that O'Mara and his legal team discusses the case with like a media consultant or would that be witnesses? Who are the third parties that this rule of law applies to?
See 2 (b) There are examples.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/order%20on%20media%20requests.pdf
highflyer
05-05-2012, 12:58 AM
JMO, but judging from the marketing and media blitz by BC and AC, the public absolutely buys a story that is repeated over and over. From the 14 yr. old and the monster, the hoodie, the honor roll student, the vigilante racist, the skittles, etc., etc., they've proved repetition makes it true - heck, they even swayed members of Congress, some movie stars, and the President of the United States.
JMO
It isn't repetition that makes anything true. It is what it is. The Zimmerman story is not credible, it has never been credible. There are two minutes missing from the front of Zimmerman call. There are too many different stories. The Zimmerman marketing and media blitz failed because there was nothing solid behind it. Zimmerman stalked a kid and killed him. It doesn't matter whether young Martin was a C student or an over achiever, it doesn't matter if he wore a hoodie or ate candy, it matters what Zimmerman did. Period.
Just K
05-05-2012, 01:00 AM
V, that's my point, maybe Trayvon was doing it for a laugh...just to be silly....what would be sillier than fashioning a 24k gold grille out of little kid stickers? Heck, even at my ancient age I still do stuff like that to get a rise out of my friends and family :)
ETA: Parody videos like "Short Bus Shorty" are all the rage with young people and even TI mentions these type of videos in his song, "No Matter What."
vlpate
05-05-2012, 01:22 AM
-- 'case discussion'----Question to their followers today:
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase (https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase)
The official page on Facebook for information about the George Zimmerman Legal Case, administered by the Mark O'Mara Law Group.
George Zimmerman Legal Case
about an hour ago.
"We would like to know what other forums regarding this case you are contributing to. Please provide links."
--how does that fall under the category of case discussion/case information?
I think they want to know where their readers are coming from?
ETA: Actually, I don't see this question at all.
vlpate
05-05-2012, 01:34 AM
It isn't repetition that makes anything true. It is what it is. The Zimmerman story is not credible, it has never been credible. There are two minutes missing from the front of Zimmerman call. There are too many different stories. The Zimmerman marketing and media blitz failed because there was nothing solid behind it. Zimmerman stalked a kid and killed him. It doesn't matter whether young Martin was a C student or an over achiever, it doesn't matter if he wore a hoodie or ate candy, it matters what Zimmerman did. Period.
BEM: I don't understand. From the front of the call?
vlpate
05-05-2012, 01:35 AM
V, that's my point, maybe Trayvon was doing it for a laugh...just to be silly....what would be sillier than fashioning a 24k gold grille out of little kid stickers? Heck, even at my ancient age I still do stuff like that to get a rise out of my friends and family :)
ETA: Parody videos like "Short Bus Shorty" are all the rage with young people and even TI mentions these type of videos in his song, "No Matter What."
You could be right, didn't think of it that way :)
Gayler99
05-05-2012, 02:19 AM
I think this addresses third parties associated with the case. JMO
IMO, no. It specifically states, all attorneys connected with this case and their employees, Contractors or associates.
IMO, any responses made by Mark O'Mara, his employees or contractors to the posted comments may violate section 2b of the judges ruling.
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/order%20on%20media%20requests.pdf
beach
05-05-2012, 02:25 AM
-- 'case discussion'----Question to their followers today:
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase (https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase)
The official page on Facebook for information about the George Zimmerman Legal Case, administered by the Mark O'Mara Law Group.
George Zimmerman Legal Case
about an hour ago.
"We would like to know what other forums regarding this case you are contributing to. Please provide links."
--how does that fall under the category of case discussion/case information?
I think they want to know where their readers are coming from?
ETA: Actually, I don't see this question at all.
BBM
I can't find this question either. Can someone break out their FB GPS and connect-the-dots for me? Please put them close togther. lol
I just removed a bunch of posts referencing comments made on the FB page. I realize that they are assumed to be from MOM's team but this is the problem - I can't find them now. Granted, my eyes are glazed over here. I'm not saying they don't exist but I can't find them and I'm done looking for the night. lol Since WS has been permitting social media discussions there has been only one hard & fast rule - no discussion of the comments.
Since this is a unique situation (for me, anyway), I am going to get clarification from Tricia & Sue and make sure there this is not an exception. Until then, please don't discuss ANYTHING left in the comment sections. Thanks much
highflyer
05-05-2012, 02:46 AM
BEM: I don't understand. From the front of the call?
The call connected two minutes before the recording that has been given out. I hope the dispatcher will be called to testify on those two minutes.
*If Snoffke put Zimmerman on hold for two minutes what occurred for Zimmerman to call in when he did? If Zimmerman wasn't put on hold where is the recording of the first two minutes? What happened in those two minutes or earlier? Missing puzzles pieces.
elementary
05-05-2012, 11:55 AM
BBM
I can't find this question either. Can someone break out their FB GPS and connect-the-dots for me? Please put them close togther. lol
I just removed a bunch of posts referencing comments made on the FB page. I realize that they are assumed to be from MOM's team but this is the problem - I can't find them now. Granted, my eyes are glazed over here. I'm not saying they don't exist but I can't find them and I'm done looking for the night. lol Since WS has been permitting social media discussions there has been only one hard & fast rule - no discussion of the comments.
Since this is a unique situation (for me, anyway), I am going to get clarification from Tricia & Sue and make sure there this is not an exception. Until then, please don't discuss ANYTHING left in the comment sections. Thanks much
I wonder if it was deleted.
There is no doubt in my mind that the original contributor found it there. There is also no doubt in my mind that it is likely that the <Mod Snip> over at the site followed the dots and decided that maybe it looked bad.
<modsnip>
vlpate
05-05-2012, 12:32 PM
The call connected two minutes before the recording that has been given out. I hope the dispatcher will be called to testify on those two minutes.
*If Snoffke put Zimmerman on hold for two minutes what occurred for Zimmerman to call in when he did? If Zimmerman wasn't put on hold where is the recording of the first two minutes? What happened in those two minutes or earlier? Missing puzzles pieces.
Connection: 7:09:34
Log creation: 7:11:12
The call begins with "Sanford Police Dept."
Thanks for clarifying your statement, I see what you're saying - and there's always been confusion with the connection and creation times, JMO.
AJ Noiter
05-05-2012, 12:46 PM
The call connected two minutes before the recording that has been given out. I hope the dispatcher will be called to testify on those two minutes.
*If Snoffke put Zimmerman on hold for two minutes what occurred for Zimmerman to call in when he did? If Zimmerman wasn't put on hold where is the recording of the first two minutes? What happened in those two minutes or earlier? Missing puzzles pieces.
I can't speak specifically for that area. I was a dispatcher here where I live and when you call in (911 or non-emergency line) you are actually asked if you need police/fire/ambulance and then you're patched through to the appropriate dispatcher(s). This could explain that 2 minute difference but that would mean most of the 2 minutes was taken up either by holding for a dispatcher or Zimmerman trying to specify what exactly he needed. I'd assume the former because here the person is placed in the regular 911 queue when they call the non-emergency line, just with a lower priority than the calls coming in for 911.
vlpate
05-05-2012, 12:51 PM
I wonder if it was deleted.
There is no doubt in my mind that the original contributor found it there. There is also no doubt in my mind that it is likely that the <Mod Snip> over at the site followed the dots and decided that maybe it looked bad.
It seems that screenshots are a necessity from here on in.
I read there daily and I've never seen rude or disparaging remarks toward anyone. I'm thinking you may be looking at another site. The admins are always quite professional, IMO.
AJ Noiter
05-05-2012, 01:24 PM
I think they want to know where their readers are coming from?
ETA: Actually, I don't see this question at all.
They removed it and didn't state why. I post there often and I would have to say they probably did it because a lot of the posts were Zimmerman supporters complaining that <insert Trayvon site> was banning Zimmerman supporters, and just plain spam. Truth be told I found out about this place via someone posting there informing others of civil debate being had - that comment was removed as 'spam' but I'm glad I got to see it none the less.
Elley Mae
05-05-2012, 01:34 PM
They removed it and didn't state why. I post there often and I would have to say they probably did it because a lot of the posts were Zimmerman supporters complaining that <insert Trayvon site> was banning Zimmerman supporters, and just plain spam.
I must say I do appreciate your post, Thanks and Welcome!
AJ Noiter
05-05-2012, 01:45 PM
I must say I do appreciate your post, Thanks and Welcome!
Thanks! Glad to be here!
LambChop
05-05-2012, 03:18 PM
Well this is good news to anyone who wanted to donate but were put off by the notion that their names would become public - MO'M states on the GZ website that personal information collected as part of the donation process will be kept strictly confidential.
Let's hope so and not end up like the TES volunteers. jmo :what:
LynnM
05-05-2012, 03:52 PM
They removed it and didn't state why. I post there often and I would have to say they probably did it because a lot of the posts were Zimmerman supporters complaining that <insert Trayvon site> was banning Zimmerman supporters, and just plain spam. Truth be told I found out about this place via someone posting there informing others of civil debate being had - that comment was removed as 'spam' but I'm glad I got to see it none the less.
Welcome! I'm new here too and I came for the same reason, for civil debate about the case.
highflyer
05-05-2012, 04:25 PM
I can't speak specifically for that area. I was a dispatcher here where I live and when you call in (911 or non-emergency line) you are actually asked if you need police/fire/ambulance and then you're patched through to the appropriate dispatcher(s). This could explain that 2 minute difference but that would mean most of the 2 minutes was taken up either by holding for a dispatcher or Zimmerman trying to specify what exactly he needed. I'd assume the former because here the person is placed in the regular 911 queue when they call the non-emergency line, just with a lower priority than the calls coming in for 911.
Thank you. I wondered about that and that could be what the case. Still something had been going on before the call and what was that?
vlpate
05-06-2012, 03:24 AM
They removed it and didn't state why. I post there often and I would have to say they probably did it because a lot of the posts were Zimmerman supporters complaining that <insert Trayvon site> was banning Zimmerman supporters, and just plain spam. Truth be told I found out about this place via someone posting there informing others of civil debate being had - that comment was removed as 'spam' but I'm glad I got to see it none the less.
Ha! That was me. Welcome!!
Well, in my case I decided not to read a single thing on this case because I had a good feeling that it would cause me many sleepless nights and great sadness. But then, I came to the Trayvon Forum to get the facts..as we know them. But, all I had to hear were the Zimmerman call to LE and the seven 911 calls to know that GZ's story just didn't add up. I might add that today was the first time that I have watched a video with Crump, AL Sharpton, or TM's parents. I really tried not to pay close attention to any commentary on this case. But alas I came here with a wide open mind and now all of that has changed. So even for me, neither the defense nor TM's family Attorney has influenced my opinions.
I must say, if anyone influenced me it was GZ and his legal, employment, education, familial, & social history. But, I will say, most people probably watched the interviews on cable. I didn't because I don't have cable and to date have only seen that Geraldo video that was posted today.
I agree 100%. I have no objection to the protests, but I haven't watched any.
Reader
05-07-2012, 07:27 PM
It's worded in a weird manner which suggests a desire to sleuth the posters (what do they write elsewhere and are their off-site opinions worthy of a ban). Just asking people to share other sites with interesting discussion of the case without including the where-else-do-you-write part would have sounded more normal.
It sounds to me they might want to provide a few 'talking points' to GZ supporters to use on the other sites...this is done all the time at political sites....IMO
lauriej
05-09-2012, 10:34 AM
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/arraignment-set-george-zimmerman-case-tuesday/nNymm/
O'Mara's office is using social media to gauge public opinion. It posed the following question to more than 2,000 people who have "liked" their Facebook page: "For those of you who have shown support for George Zimmerman (http://www.wftv.com/s/georgezimmerman/), could you tell us briefly, why?"
Several users pointed to the bloody picture, and Tyler Maher wrote: "And I support his right to stand his ground and carry a firearm."
"The defense can take all of that data and come up with a strong defense, what's strongest for the defense and develop a strong juror profile," said Sheaffer.
The Facebook post was removed, but not before more than 100 people chimed in.
LambChop
05-09-2012, 10:56 AM
Isn't one of the considerations for bail that the judge looks for is remorse in the defendant? Could this be why the Martin's refused to take GZ's "apology" seriously because MOM did say GZ wanted to address the court and then went on to give his condolences and in effect tell the court he was sorry for what happened? That it was all just one big mistake. Essentially it was for the purpose of getting his bail lowered not that he had any concerns for the suffering he caused the Martin family. jmo
AJ Noiter
05-09-2012, 11:43 AM
Isn't one of the considerations for bail that the judge looks for is remorse in the defendant? Could this be why the Martin's refused to take GZ's "apology" seriously because MOM did say GZ wanted to address the court and then went on to give his condolences and in effect tell the court he was sorry for what happened? That it was all just one big mistake. Essentially it was for the purpose of getting his bail lowered not that he had any concerns for the suffering he caused the Martin family. jmo
To the best of my memory, he didn't apologize for the events that happened, only the loss of life.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0