It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Martin Family Attorney caught lying on National Television?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:52 AM

Originally posted by TheLotLizard
reply to post by Libertygal

My question. Is the government hiding?

Why are they putting as it seems all their eggs not into a basket but into a pot of boiling water. What is really going on to dissuade our attention onto this petty war?

Do they actually want a revolt? Or is this dukes of hazzard making everyone watch the race as boss hogg buys all their land from underneath them.

In my opinion, I think there are multiple reasons. Let's take them one at a time.

Janet Napalitano's sudden departure from office - This surprised many. No one is. Stranger to the DHS purchase of ammo, tanks, riot gear, and even guns. They speculate it was to go after " white prepper" types, people thinking the government is about to collapse financially, and those with a general mistrust of government. Why? They all but told us so.

But you see, therein lies the problem. If that were in fact, the case, would they really tell us? It just makes people prep more, become more suspicious.

On the other hand, they have been decidedly on the black and alien immigration side of things. They have been intentionally dividing the people. Especially along lines of race. We must ask ourselves why.

Riot gear? Yet, silently, stealthily, fomenting the very rage they publically opose. What I'll happen if and when riots were to break out? Will there be a " culling of the herd"? That is what I suspect. Far more and above everythin else.

While it may not be today, not this outcome, not this time, it is undeniable this is an underlying plan to divide the country. It will happen eventually, they have been fanning those flames hard and long.

You will have rioters of all races and colors, looters, etc. Then, you will have some gun people doing things perhaps they should not. However, people usually shoot looters on sight.

Depending how bad the worst riot could get, you would have this culling. Pobably less food stamps, less government aid, less population.

If Janet found out about this, all the while thinking it was the white prepper homegrown crowd, she may have grown angry enough to quit.

Regardless of why she quit, however, you still have a government that is trying to distract. I think people have it backwards though. It isn't to distract from the nSA, IRS, etc. I put forth that those were to distract from THIS.

How many knew of CRS? We have some great talent here, yet no one knew.

How many have put together their involvement with the DOJ in Florida past "the investigation"?

The promise is Black Power, the final attempt to give back to " His People".

Who let the NBP escape prosecution?


That publicist? Might want to look into his links with the Pigford Settlement. You know, the restitution to bkack farmers? Billions in the bank on that one.

Go on. Have a peek. Ryan Julison is his name.

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 07:07 AM

Originally posted by xyankee
I agree that this woman is not interested in justice, nope! She just wants revenge! that is all that the entire half who does not see the facts for the case as they are.

I am completely disgusted and exhausted with fighting for what is right, not only in this case, but our entire life and liberty! Every single day I find another example of my ideas and belief in freedom, happiness, and justice pushed further and further out of reach. I don't know what it is going to take before people who share the same feelings about this country as I do, but if I was to speak openly (which I should be able to) I would probably get a visit from the fed's.

I agree. Right now, as I pointed out in the O.P. the real goal is money. With the verdict of not guilty, they will have a hard, hard time in a Wrongful Death suit. The state is limited to 25% on settlements, but I believe private attorneys may not be limited.

I, too, am tired. But, I feel some things just must be said, and must be realized. Not making them known is a bigger injustice.

I posted during the trial, dribs and drabs, but this thread is actually an expose'. It is evolving to a culmination most are not expecting. I was simply unable to posting it when it was most important, however, that does not negate it' s importance.

The players and their background, and prevalence for deception must be exposed.

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Rocker2013

So you think it's acceptable for someone to be making money from this case, and planning for that while on the jury? What if their monetary interests influence the decision making?

If it is proven that she was making deals about writing a book on this case while the trial was ongoing, it's corruption. Plain and simple. The jury process cannot be seen to be corrupted by personal interests. The moment a juror is planning to earn some money from the case they are involved in their credibility is shot to hell.

I don't care what side of this case a person is on, if you cannot see the obvious conflict of interest here, or the possibility for massive corruption of a criminal trial, then you are either being deliberately biased or you simply have no credibility debating this case at all.

yes i do, yes because it's her experience. how can you determine any such influence? even if he was found guilty she would be still writing the book and have already been making the plans that she made.

maybe if said personal interest adversely effected the case or shows influence on her decision in one direction or the other, which it doesn't and you assuming such is merely hearsay. besides that one juror can't determine guilt or innocence all on their own, judgements have to be unanimous before being made final.

the conflict of interest is hearsay that cannot be proven beyond assumptions, and i'm certainly not biased, i could care less about either side, i merely see people being ruled by emotions and grasping at anything to get their way after being given an unsatisfying answer, i find it rather childish. if the prosecution had a problem with a juror they could have had her removed yet they wait till now to complain about the jury? really? i don't buy it.

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 07:27 AM

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Jefferton
Enough. It's over. Let it go.

The Zimmerman trial is over. However, the corruption from Crump and illegal activities from Tracy "juice' Martin during this are still very much in play and need to be investigated. Witness tampering. Withholding evidence. Illegal gun running possible with "Juice" Martin. ... NONE of that needs to be 'let go'.

Thank you. I am glad some understand the underlying importance here.

Right now, our 4th Amendment rights are under stealth attack. No one sees this, though I have pointed it out multiple times. The WH has continually and methodically attacked our rights one at a time. This is just one more instance, and if we do not hold onto our rights, we will lose them.

Each must be defended as furiously as the 2nd, which Obama started back in on on verdict day.

Prepare, because just because you don't hear about it anymore, it doesn't mean he forgot.

Every time I hear the parrotted phrase, "He should not have gotten out of his car", I want to scream.

It was his Constitutional right to do so. He broke no law.

Every time I hear, "He had no right to follow", he certainly did.

He had the right to legally carry.

He had the right to form an opinion. Even if someone disagrees or doesn't like it. Some call it profiling. Fine. I call it first impressions.

He had, above all, the right to defend his life.

These things were found just and true by a jury of his peers.

Now, he has the right to carry a gun, be free, and to travel unhindered. It desn't matter what others THINK.

This is how the law, and Constitution work. For now.

There are people, however, that disagree, and believe in mob rule. This nation was not founded on mob rule. But if we continue to allow this onslaught on our Constitutional rights, it will be.

And soon, there will be no more juries of peers, but public popularity votes. They used to call these lynchings.

Is this to be the final restitution?

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:55 AM
reply to post by Libertygal

I agree with you !00% the problem is that we will not find enough of our own kind who will rise up! I hate to say it but this is the end. This is the final nail in the coffin, we need to find somewhere else to live I think. It is a really sad day when we don't have any balls anymore!!

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:58 PM
I'm still waiting from someone from the black panthers to be arrested for making that dead or alive flyer on GZ.

Maybe I should $no justice no peace$ until it happens too, right?

/not bloody likely

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 07:50 AM

Originally posted by nameheremaybe if said personal interest adversely effected the case or shows influence on her decision in one direction or the other, which it doesn't and you assuming such is merely hearsay

This is the issue!
Where there is blatant possibility of a corrupt outcome, the validity of the case is called into question.

You're missing the point of this. It doesn't matter whether there is evidence that she planned to profit from this from early on or not, it casts doubt on her credibility and questions the trust of the jury and legal process.

Justice has to BE SEEN TO BE DONE. If there is ANY DOUBT about the motivations of a juror or influences on them clouding their judgment, they should not be respected as a juror.

This is why people are selected without preconceived ideas of the case, why drunks are removed, why people who have been contacted by others when they shouldn't have been have then been charged with obstruction of justice.

You seem to be completely ignorant of some very important aspects of your own legal and justice system. If it's even possible that she had a book deal during or before that verdict, her credibility as a juror is destroyed, and with it the entire trial and her influence on other jurors can be called into question.

posted on Jul, 17 2013 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by Libertygal

Wow, the plot thickens! I knew that woman had an agenda.

posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 05:49 AM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I was waiting to see if anyone made it the end if the video, to the part where she says her real job is to be a "social engineer".

If no one is famiar with who Natalie Jackson is, perhaps some digging into her background is of import, as well.

She started out at the NAACP, her mother is also heavily involved, stating she has been fighting white people all her lice. She raised Natalie going to marches and rallies. There are phitos of them both at the Dream Defenders march, organized by the CRS, along with the NBP.

Wherecis Natalie now? She is a member of Crump and Associates.

You see, all of these people are inextricably linked, and have been for years.

To all in general: Has anyone looked into the Ryan Julison connection to the Pigfird Settlement yet? Remember, he is the publicist that actually got the Trayvon story into fhe media with Al Sharpton, et al.

posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 07:25 AM
I am sure that most, if not all of you have seen the RJ appearance on the Piers Morgan show.

In this appearance, RJ all but confesses to the incitement of Trayvon into beating Zimmerman.

Furtermore, I had posted in ths Zimmerman trial thread I believe, the actual rare and hard to find ORIGINAL audio clip of RJ in the Crump interview. The original meaning the unedited, unredacted version. In this original clip, near the end, RJ, or whoever that person is (there is reasonable suspicion the two girls are different people) at the very end, DeDe as she is known then, confesses to guilt. She says several times that she feels veey guilty and depressed.

Now, move ahead to the Piers interview. She said she told Trayvon that George may be a child rapist. She told him to run. She said Trayvon wasn't "that way".

To look at this from a legal standpoint, RJ may have incited a hate crime by making Trayvon fearful of leading a child rapist to his home where his 13 year old relative was alone.

Last night, she interviewed with HuffPo. She states Trayvon threw the first punch. He was just going to whoop ass anx run.

Again, if she, or the real DeDe, from that first Crump interview, incited Trayvon to "gaybash", she, or the real DeDe is guilty of a hate crime, and legally, the REAL one guilty in the death of Trayvon Martin.

That would be a Capitol offense, Murder in the first degree. The chair. Well, Florida doesn't have the chair, but death penalty case, for sure.

If RJ is not the real DeDe, and the state knows this, this is likely why they witheld the evidence from Trayvons' phone until June 4th. long with the witheld texts were photos of underaged girls, possibly the real DeDe. Don't forget, the state was sanctioned for witholding this evidence. The ping logs were never in publically released discovery.

To move now to prosecute RJ or the real DeDe, which would happen in ANY other case where incitement of a hate crime resulted in the death of another, the state would have to admit they railroaded George.

I have given the recording of the original interview, you can find the Piers interview and hear it for yourself. Did Trayvon intend to kill George? Nope. But George didn't know that. Trayvon opened a can of whoop ass. We now who threw the first punch.

Rj all but confessed, her guilty conscience is leaking like a sieve. She is doing all the interviews to ease her conscience.

Someone said in another post, she may need a lawyer.

Listen at 6:10

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in