mooney1el wrote:
My first post here, but been lurking for a while now.
Assume that Judge Nelson declared Crump "opposing counsel of some sort" because she was aware of O'Mara's involvement with the HOA matter; now that there has been a settlement, doesn't that mean that Crump is no longer "opposing counsel" and thus O'Mara should be free to depose him without conflict.
I was wondering the same thing. I understood the settlement entails that there won't be any liabilities or claims between parties - including claims agaist Martins/Fulton.
Thne, was this supposed to be kept confidential, is there a breach of contract made by going public or something?
But then, Crump announced that he will sue Zimmerman, does this mean that O'Mara and Crump are to be considered opposing counsels in a future case?
It puzzles, that what money is Crump after with Zimmerman. If Zimmerman will be found guilty in criminal court, it would seem he could hardly win his case against media, but be penniless in jail.
But if he is acquitted or the case dismissed, he seems to have strong case against media, but on the other hand Crump was a kind of co-conspirator in these false media accusations and misleading disinformation ... so to go after money the Media owes to Zimmerman because of Crump's machinations ... it seems twisted ...
If the defence get to depose Crump, it's possible that it completely blows the state's absurd murder charge out off the water. It seems totally bizarre that here Crump hides behind his "manufactured evindence as a priveledged work product"