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.
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.