Posted on 07/06/2012 11:56:56 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Let's not forget he returned to the court for a hearing about the supposedly insufficient bail. He demonstrated the bail was sufficient by doing so.
Note that JL prefaces his remarks in his order page 7(j) that this is a "matter of interpretation". He says that nowhere else in the order.
He says that GZ violated that statute "by providing such false statements".
I ask you as I ask him: What "false statements" did GZ "provide"??? Name the "false statements". List them. Point to them. Underline them. Where are they in the court record???
He didn't say that he violated the statute by "omissions of this or that" but by "providing such false statements". If he meant "omissionss', then why didn't he say "omissions".
I watched the hearing and didn't hear him provide any statements on money, finances, or assets.
So then what is he talking about here. My best guess is that he is saying that he is responsible for his wife's testimony, that he provided his wife to testify. Is she the "such false statements" that JL is referring to. If so why doesn't he come right out and say it -- because it is all a "matter of interpretation" and not law. How can you hold a defendant responsible for someone else's testimony, especially when you have already charged that other person.
BTW it was MoM who provided SZ's testimony not GZ. JL should be mad at MoM not GZ.
You got it. This judge is basically a gangster.
“How many brutal murders have taken place in this country since this incident that have never been reported?”
How many black on white murders have taken place in this country since this incident that have never been reported? ... there, fixed it.
“How many brutal murders have taken place in this country since this incident that have never been reported?”
How many black on white murders have taken place in this country since this incident that have never been reported? ... there, fixed it.
“...more than 5,000 people have been killed by gun fire in Chicago during that time...”
How can that be? Guns are banned in Chicago...Gun Control doesn’t work? /s
Here is a link to SZ’s capias.
http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/shelliecapias.pdf
Note that she is not being charged under 903.035(1), but under 837.02(1). Very curious. If 903.035 is what JL said GZ violated by providing SZ’s false testimony, then why is she not charged under the same statute.???
It’s all smoke and mirrors. But as Lester said, it’s a matter of interpretation, and of course, who is doing the interpreting.
OH LET’S NOT FORGET THIS ONE:
IF “OMISSION” IS A CRIME AGAINST THE STATE, THEN THE STATE HAS COMMITTED A CRIME:
Legal Insurrection, a blog by Cornell Law Prof William Jacobson, has an extensive post concluding the state’s attorney is overreaching. He points out:
So it is fair to ask, having charged perjury, what is the specific false statement made by Shellie Zimmerman? The Criminal Information (embedded at the bottom of this post) does not say. Instead, the accompanying Affidavit recites testimony, phone call transcripts, and evidence of money received and transferred. Again, that all is relevant to whether George deceived the Court at the bond hearing.
But nowhere in the criminal Information or Affidavit of Probable Cause is a specific sentence or set of words identified as false with an explanation of why it was false.
Prof. Jacobson cites a Florida case on perjury, Cohen v. State, 985 So.2d 1207 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2008):
This Court has held that statements alleged to be perjurious must be of “empirical fact” and not of opinion, belief or perception…. One of the essential elements of perjury in official proceedings is that the person making the statement does not believe it to be true… The questions posed to elicit perjured testimony must be asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact.
He also points out, as does a commenter on his site, that the state’s attorney truncated the transcript of Shellie Z’s testimony in the affidavit for her charge omitting that she said her brother-in-law would know and he was available. I brought this up in the context of the hearing to revoke George Zimmerman’s bond:
The judge based his June 1 ruling on the state’s motion, which didn’t even accurately describe the wife’s testimony. It left out the part about her brother-in-law knowing how much money was in the account. The exhibit to its motion was three pages of the transcript, pages 15, 26 and 27. One page did have the language omitted from the motion, but who knows if the judge even bothered to read the exhibit — he probably wouldn’t think he needed to fact-check the state’s attorney. The judge hadn’t reviewed all the tapes, there were over 150 of them, and the state evidently didn’t provide transcripts except as to the portions it cherry-picked.
In his closing argument on April 20, O’Mara said he (O-Mara) didn’t know how much money was in the website account. The Judge didn’t say “Well, find out and get back to me”, he said O’Mara’s motion for bond “was well taken.” The Judge knew there was a fund on April 20 because the Prosecutor had cross-examined Shellie on it. The judge heard her say her brother-in-law was available by phone and could answer the question. If it was so important to the Judge, why didn’t he say, “let’s get him on the phone, I need to know that.”
My new word for the day: ellipsis. I wish I knew that was what it was when writing about the NBC mis-edits, I could have been so much more succinct.
Note that in the Affidavit of Probable Cause the prosecution did not use an ellipsis or any other indication to show that words were omitted.
As Prof. Jacobsen’s commenter notes, the misleading truncation in Shellie’s affidavit is reminiscent of what the state did in George’s affidavit, when it left out that George sustained injuries and claimed Trayvon attacked him. It’s presenting the judge with half-truths. If this is how the state tells the truth when sworn under oath, it may have more credibility problems than George or Shellie. Maybe we’ll hear more from Dershowitz on this soon.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/12/193621/590
Because they're different crimes.
Then by charging her under that statute, they now cannot charge GZ under the other one. If she committed perjury under that statute, then the state cannot claim that he provided her testimony under the other statute. They cannot have it both ways -- except in Florida in Lester's courtroom where orders are matters of interpretation.
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.