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.
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.