Posted on 06/12/2012 1:39:11 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Your reasoning is impeccable. Way better than mine on another thread.
Can I have your thoughts on GZ’s 2nd Degree Murder charge? Just rummaging around this ‘yard’ right now, and I’m thinking it’s not worth giving SoF the credit:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2894533/posts?page=34#34
Your teeth are rotten.
I asserted that he wasn't guilty of anything, other than being to naive a person and cooperating with a political hack prosecutor.
Q ... how much money is in that website right now?
A Currently, I do not know
Shellie may have transferred funds from the account the day before but could not possibly know "how much money" was "in that website right now". Donations were rolling in as they spoke.
Shellie did not "willfully subscribe(s) as true any material matter which (s)he (did) not believe to be true" and, therefore, did not commit perjury. The prosecutor knows that, but that didn't stop her from arresting Shellie.
Referring, when not under oath to $100 as shorthand for $100,000, etc., does not infer that the court testimony was perjurious, nor does it affect credibility. I have had business conversations where I refer to amounts like "a hundred", as shorthand for $100,00.
You're playing the Race Card on FReepers? Really?
Being married to a monster racist she deserves to be sent to prison for life! To help Obama win the White House she will be tossed under the bus along with her Husband. Next they will target his father and mother and friends. They will demand blood!
Minor point of clarity, Corey brought the charges not the judge.
Excuse me, when did this judge comment about the evidence being “strong” (your term) against Zimmerman?
You’re probably right. The timing looks bad. His bond was revoked. He’s back in jail. What’s the point of arresting the wife except politics or blackmail?
Does Zimmerman have a better attorney now?
In his written decision revoking Zimmerman’s bail.
I have no idea, I didn’t recall that information being released, although I did some googling and found this...
Brook Park man shot in road rage incident
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/04/brook_park_man_shot_in_road_ra.html
This is a gross abuse of prosecutorial power.
I am a former elected prosecutor; if one of my assistants had pulled a stunt like this (both cases, but particularly this one), I'd have fired him or her on the spot.
And they all bloody well knew it...
he hired Don West who has a pretty good reputation near as I can tell but he has not fired O’Mara. From what I know, and granted it’s not much, O’Mara sucks. He’s basically throw George and his wife under the bus as if he had no culpability himself.
Ugh.
I maintain my objection to the court nosing in their finances. Bail should not be based on how much money the prisoner has to flee with or can afford to pay.
Four days before she testified to having no knowledge of the funds, the affidavit says, Shellie Zimmerman began a series of transfers into her account — totaling $74,000 from April 16 to April 19. The affidavit says about $47,000 more was transferred from George Zimmerman's account to his sister's. Shellie Zimmerman withdrew about $18,000 more in cash, prosecutors say. Prosecutors say the Zimmermans used a rudimentary "code" to discuss the money in recorded jailhouse phone calls — referring to $100,000, for example, as "$100." At least two of the calls, the state alleges, were made while Shellie Zimmerman and her husband's sister were at a local credit union making the transactions.
Right sure that’s perjury.
But I don’t think the court should have had a right to ask those questions or know or consider how much money they had, I feel it should not be relevant. What do I know, I ain’t no fancy big city lawyer. ;-p
It was a bail hearing.
Did you ever have the pleasure of sending your kid to college, especially an expensive one? They demand to know EVERY detail of the parents finances to set the real tuition. They demand the parents sign an IRS privacy waiver. I can only guess the masses tolerate this huge invasion of privacy because they see free $$$ in it for them.
My point, the poor shouldn’t get a break on bail, this encourages people to lie. The bail should be based on the crime and criminal history of the defendant not whether or not they can afford the bail or afford to flee to Brazil. If they can’t afford it well then too bad for them. If you think they’re a flight risk, ankle monitor their a$$. Trials shouldn’t take years either, if you have a case you should be ready to present it promptly. Not ready? Then there shouldn’t be an arrest yet.
“Did you ever have the pleasure of sending your kid to college?”
I’m 28. ;-D
I ever have a kid they’re on their own for college, colored pencils for kindygarden are expensive enough. ;-O
I’ve been thinking Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter but at this point I want him to get off just to spite these bastards. However long he has to spend in jail before the trial will be punishment enough.
” I’ve been thinking Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter but at this point I want him to get off just to spite these bastards.”
If the evidence we have been privy to is accurate, I believe it was self defense. Also it appears to me that O’Mara didn’t properly advise the Zimms on conduct.
And as I remember it, we were telling all who would listen what a big deal perjury was. Now we condone perjury. A bit self serving and hypocritical. We do not have much credibility do we? If it serves our purpose, lying under oath is “no big deal”...Yet, it is a crime. Always has been. For good reason.
She said they were indigent. She said they had no money, knowing full well that was a lie and that she was under oath.
I do not think anyone here has ever said Scooter is innocent of all charges. I could be wrong. I would hope not.
And I remember us saying what a big deal it was. Funny how that works when it serves our purpose, isn’t it? Now..”so help me God” means absolutely nothing. Because it serves the purpose of some. Kind of hypocritical isn’t it?
Because they have not committed perjury? Pretty good reason, eh?
You are so right.
Yes, the left IS hypocritical.
SZ seems to have told the truth when she referred the court to the brother in law, but that still isn’t good enough for the kooks who want to punish George for standing up to his attacker, Saint Skittles of Sanford.
The left and right are both being hypocritical. I am sorry we have chosen to join the ranks of the left in this.
The only purpose it served for me was that there is indeed "Unequal Justice Under The Law".
Some Americans are more equal than others. You need to read up on our out-of-control "justice" system, and selective prosecution.
I know all about our justice system. This is not unequal at all. Justice will proceed. I do not know what option you think there is to letting the court system do its job. The justice department is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. I do understand you are sincere in saying you feel it is an unequal justice under the law. But I ask you to review the options. I do not question your sincerity at all.
No. No one owns me. Perjury is perjury under the law. The court is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. To tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God...means exactly that. Our justice system depends on people being honest and keeping their word to tell the truth. When you lie to the judge and the court, there are consequences. Justice will not stand without it.
You know, the one run by Eric Holder.
You're like Charlie Brown with Lucy Van Pelt. "Yep, this time we're going to get justice. I can feel it deep in my heart. I'm going run down there, and Lucy is going to hold the ol' Justice Ball steady as a rock for me to kick through the goalposts..."
Oh, BTW - screw your "law". It's only for the little people, as has been proven over and over and over and over, these last 15 years, at the least.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.