Replies

This is unbeleivable- The judhe himself asked her if there wwere any assets, she said no,

Yeah she lied in court, under oath, that's technically perjury.

Forget the BiL, the Paypal account, and whatever restrictions you imagine were on it. In the 4 days before the hearing, she moved well over 100K out of George's credit union account, including more than 90K into her direct control. Even if she believes "George's account is family money, my account is personal", it's still against the law.

She's not being charged with illegal money transfers but with perjury. The problem for the prosecution is that her answers to their questions were evasive enough that it will have trouble making the charge stick. After all it was a former President and his wife that taught everybody that the words "I don't know" as answers to questions under oath are perfectly legal and acceptable.

Clearly they were in over their heads with the Paypal account and in need of legal guidance regarding it. That guidance should have come before the bond hearing, and MOM should have been the one to provide it. That is what a lawyer is for. He dropped the ball bigtime and his client is paying the price.

But you are right about one thing. Things would have been so much better had they just left that money in the Paypal account. No one but GZ could have touched it. When they moved the money -- that's where they got in trouble here, because the prosecution is using those transfers as evidence to bring this charge of perjury.

[[Yeah she lied in court, under oath, that’s technically perjury.]]

She is on tape tellign hte judge that she didn’t know how much was in the account and askedd the judge if he wanted her to call the brotherinlaw and find out- to which hte judge replied ‘no- that’s not necessary’ and apaprently the judge is also on tape declaring that even he wasn’t sure of the legality of the paypal account and whether it could be concidered assets

Where are you gettign your facts? I’ve heard that she did not infact move it to her accouitn and that the brotherinlaw was incharge of the accouint-

You are statign htings that are not consistant with hte facts- http://www.cnn.com/video/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_freevideo+%28RSS%3A+Video%29#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/27/bts-zimmerman-paypal-money.cnn

This shows that the judge was nopt even sure whether that money could be concidered family assets- if you have proof zim’s wife knew them oney could be concidered amily assets, please post it- because even the judge wasn’t sure whether the paypal donations could have been called family assets- if a judge didn’t know- then how could someoen not aquainted with hte law know? She most likely answered how her lawyer told her to answer abotu hte account- their lawtyer isn’t stupid- and would have known the money would be an issue