Posted on 07/06/2012 11:56:56 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
SANFORD -- George Zimmerman walked out of jail once again Friday.
Judge Kenneth Lester set Zimmerman’s bond at $1 million Thursday, and Zimmerman was able to post it.
Zimmerman had to go through a bail bondsman, and pay 10 percent of the bond amount, which is $100,000.
O’Mara said the online legal defense fund set up for Zimmerman currently has $211,000.
However, in order for Zimmerman to be released, he has to have $1 million in collateral, which O’Mara said the Zimmerman family does not have.
"We paid $15,000 initially for the first bail fee, so an additional fee of $85,000 would have to be paid to post this new bond, assuming we can work out the collateral issue," O'Mara said.
(Excerpt) Read more at baynews9.com ...
This statement is not supported by facts in evidence. Recant, or let your lie stand and be known for a lie.
“Zimmerman was an idiot - he lied under oath about his financial situation.”
Then why hasn’t he been charged with perjury, instead of his wife?
bump to post 25
Nice try. Your argument about omissions requiring submissions is nonsensical. An omission is simply having the knowledge of a material fact and failing to mention it.
George knew he wasn’t a pauper. The recorded conversations indicate he was directly involved in the transfer of significant amounts of money (which, by the way, were transferred in a manner calculated to avoid federal reporting laws). He knew there were assets that hadn’t been accurately reported to the court (his counsel even acknowledged that in the most recent bail hearing) and he failed to disclose them. Failure to disclose a material fact of which you’re aware is an omission.
If you’ll read the court’s opinion regarding the new bail amount, you’ll discover that the judge found probable cause for a violation of the code section I cited. Based on the evidence, and George’s admissions, I’d have to conclude the judge got that part right.
She was asked if the brother was in a location where he could give sworn deposition. No, but he has an honest voice.
Effectively saying FU to the court is not a good idea,
And what exactly is that supposed to mean??? That clearly was not said.
This judge is fixing the case in favor of Sharpton and all the Black Racists
Judge Lester has a major conflict on interest. His wife, Dorothy Sedgwick, was the prosecutor in Zimmerman’s alleged assault with his ex. Sedwick is an Asst State Atty in Orange County (Orlando)
Lester knew he had a conflict of interest, and took the case anyway....this is criminal judicial misconduct. Two previous judges recused themselves because of lesser conflicts of interest
This judge doesn’t realize that he can be easily overturned if there is a conviction of GZ? This would be an appelate lawyer’s dream case
Google is your friend.
Pick your story ... unless everyone in the world who tells a story you don’t like is automatically a liar.
Match the lists to your personal preference.
A voice on the phone is not sworn testimony.
Congrats on completely dodging the issue. You claimed that George Zimmerman deceived the court. We want evidence of it, not Google.
Try again.
The point is that at any time the persecutors could have called in George’s brother to testify. But they didn’t. Why not?
No it is not. No one is under any obligation to testify at his bond hearing. But if he does testify he can't omit anything.
An omission is simply having the knowledge of a material fact and failing to mention it.
And if he doesn't take the witness stand, how it that supposed to happen. No defendant is obligated to take the witness stand for any reason.
George knew he wasn’t a pauper.
Really??? No job, no house, under medical care, facing a year of legal bills, having to depend upon the contributions of others in order to pay his bills, having to borrow from his mother, having to rely on his parents and grandmother to put their houses up for collateral. You're right -- he was Bill Gates in disguise.
The recorded conversations indicate he was directly involved in the transfer of significant amounts of money
All of which has now gone to the bailbondsman contrary to the wishes of those who gave the money.
(which, by the way, were transferred in a manner calculated to avoid federal reporting laws)
No -- it was done per Paypal rules. Didn't you hear the expert testimony???
He knew there were assets that hadn’t been accurately reported to the court
Nobody in that courtroom knew how to handle the Paypal money. Lester and MoM had a conversation regarding that account and Lester said that how that money is handled may be out of his jurisdiction. Go back and read the April 20th hearing minutes.
(his counsel even acknowledged that in the most recent bail hearing)
MoM would have GZ apologize for breathing the air in Lester's courtroom if it would make Lester happy.
and he failed to disclose them.
He never was questioned about finances or money or Paypal at the hearing. There is no omisssion without there being first a submission.
Failure to disclose a material fact of which you’re aware is an omission.
Only if you are questioned about money under oath in a bailbond hearing in Florida and you are the defendant. SZ was not the defendant. And GZ was not questioned about finances.
If you’ll read the court’s opinion regarding the new bail amount, you’ll discover that the judge found probable cause for a violation of the code section I cited.
You'll notice how carefully he parsed his words: presented false testimony. The false testimony he is referring to is SZ's testimony, because GZ never testified. He's saying that GZ presented her testimony. But he forgets that it was MoM who called SZ to testify. So he should be mad at MoM not GZ.
Based on the evidence, and George’s admissions
GZ has testified to nothing under oath about bail and admitted to nothing under oath. And remember Lester says that MoM can't speak for GZ -- he must speak for himself.
I’d have to conclude the judge got that part right.
He got it right if you ignore the fact that MoM called SZ to the witness stand, not GZ, and SZ offed her brother in law for answers to specific balance amounts, and they ignored her offer, and she has only been charged with perjury which will never stick especially when they subpoenae Lester and BDLR for their depositions, which will be followed by the dropping of all charges.
Don’t try to prefabricate your way out of this. Those articles say nothing. Post the questions asked and the answers given under oath at that hearing and the link to them. It can’t be that hard for someone as enlightened as you. Please enlighten us, oh wise one.
George is not going to be acquited.
SZ gave her testimony by phone. She was sworn in by a notary who did so at her house and the questioning and answering was all done by phone.
This is more an attack on the 2nd amendment and the right of self defense as on George Zimmerman, George just got picked as the sacrificial lamb.It’s disgusting that this case has received the publicity it has. How many brutal murders have taken place in this country since this incident that have never been reported?Why wait ’til he’s acquitted? He should be suing the journalism establishment right now- he’s been libeled, big time. And that fact does not even depend on his innocence on the murder charge. So why wait?. . . When George is aquitted, he needs to go after every one of these self serving race baiters and political bottom feeders and sue them for every dime he can. 4 posted on July 6, 2012 3:02:55 PM EDT by Widows Son
Actually, he “won”He was just a convenient scapegoat. His case is simply entertainment. As Widows Son said - this killing was just one of hundreds which receive next to no notice. But in this one the trigger was pulled by someone who wasn’t black.
- The Lottery
- Shirley Jackson
It gives journalism the chance to pretend that they are on the side of the underdog, even if the “underdog” is such because he “looks like the son the POTUS never had."
You appear to be confusing the elements of perjury with the elements of the crime of omitting material information in a bail application. You’ll find that crime at 903.035 in the Florida statutes. All I can suggest is that you read the plain text of the law. If you don’t find that acceptable, I don’t know what more I can tell you. If you have a case that invalidates that statute, I’d appreciate a citation.
The requirement to disclose all material facts begins when you apply for bail and continues until it’s granted. Whether you give testimony or not has nothing to do with it. Note also that subsection (3) applies to “any person” without distinction to whether that person is defendant or a witness. There is no requirement that the false information come from testimony by the defendant or be provided under oath.
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.