Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Mouton
Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Trayvon Martin’s parents, declined to comment Friday. He told The Associated Press that the filing was confidential.

Then why is he filing it in a public case???

7 posted on 04/06/2013 9:08:18 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


The Sentinel reported on Friday that the settlement amount was crossed out of paperwork filed at the Seminole County Courthouse. Later in the day, the document appeared to have been withdrawn from public view.

Although a cover page indicated copies of the settlement were given to Zimmerman’s lawyer and the judge presiding over the criminal trial, Vincent told Reuters that the defense team did not receive its copy.

http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martins-family-settles-wrongful-death-claim-report-232428707.html

He pulled another DeeDee and the media fell for it. He filed a document for the publicity. Then before anybody could examine it, he withdrew it claiming confidentiality. How juvenile.

Crump giveth and Crump taketh away.


10 posted on 04/06/2013 9:17:41 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Chip

The reason he filed it is very simple. The shiite hit the fan this week when Zimmerman’s attorney submitted his appeal to the 5th District Court of Appeal seeking to force Judge Nelson to allow him to depose Crump, despite her two rulings against him on that issue (after she was the one who labeled Crump a “witness” and suggested that O’Mara depose him in the first place).

In O’Mara’s appeal, he made it clear that he does not believe that Crump is entitled to any attorney/client privilege as “opposing counsel” in the matter of Witness 8, the girl who was supposedly on the phone with Trayvon at the time of the incident. Judge Nelson decided in her first ruling on this issue (on the very day that Crump was to be deposed) that Crump was indeed opposing counsel and ordered that Crump could not be deposed, but that was before the affadavit he provided in lieu of deposition was proven to be false and inaccurate. Once it was found that the affadavit was not accurate, O’Mara made another request to depose him, which was denied by the judge without explanation.

So, the filing of the paperwork for this lawsuit (and the leak of that information by someone attached to Crump) was strategic - he is seeking to show that he is in fact entitled to “opposing counsel” status in that he has engaged in an actual lawsuit stemming from the incident at the Retreat at Twin Lakes. Of course, O’Mara’s motion goes way beyond that - in that he argues that EVEN IF Crump is entitled to protection as opposing counsel, that would not apply to his interactions with Witness 8, since he affirmatively waived his work product privilege (if it existed) for his interactions with her.

This is a kangaroo court, and the DCA had better clean this up.


17 posted on 04/06/2013 10:20:06 AM PDT by RightFighter (It was all for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: Uncle Chip

If the details of a sealed civil settlement become public then the Plaintiff’s ability to receive his damage award can be impacted. (or so I’ve been told) This is not to say that the award won’t ‘leak’. It will. But it will happen in a time & place that won’t be definitively traceable to the Martin family or their legal representatives.


31 posted on 04/06/2013 12:42:15 PM PDT by Tallguy (Hunkered down in Pennsylvania.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson