• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who says that quote? (I can't watch the video right now.)

It sounds like they say that Z needs to testify, not that Z necessarily would be forced to...
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
I really don't know how you can read all that data, and that be your response...

Do you believe it is possible for a judge to make a mistake?

It's not like it really even matters.

AFAIK the judge accepting one of the motions to revoke bond is having the exact same effect as him accepting both motions.

BTW: JK has asked you repeatedly to point out exactly where the judge denied motion #1.
Click to expand...
I have no clue who JK is, or what you are talking about. Did you even bother to watch the hearing when the link to it live was posted?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8334797#post8334797

Prosecutors also said Zimmerman had failed to surrender a second passport, but Lester dismissed that concern as the equivalent of someone who has lost a driver's license, applies for a new one and then finds the old driver's license.
Click to expand...


Oh wait a minute, that's right, we have your word that I'm a liar about everything.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Who says that quote? (I can't watch the video right now.)

It sounds like they say that Z needs to testify, not that Z necessarily would be forced to...
Click to expand...

That's the judge. He's using that "we don't need you to do that" vernacular for "yes, you'll need to explain yourself on this."


Something like (my transcription will be suspect, but this is the gist):

"We can reset the bond hearing [...] to give him an opportunity to explain himself. And at this time, it would be important for him to testify about what transpired".
 
quadraginta said:
His wife wasn't on trial. How could he testify against her for anything? If he had said something he would merely have been correcting her.

Remaining silent is what got him in trouble. The right to remain silent is to protect a defendant against self-incrimination. If he had spoken up he wouldn't have been incriminating himself. Just the opposite. It was clamming up that was the problem.
Click to expand...

You don't think they asked Z if he had money for bail before asking his wife? I think that is likely, but I don't really know anything about posting bail.

ETA: I do know that Z interrupting the proceedings to tell the judge his wife is lying under oath is no small thing, and I am gobsmacked that a judge would expect anyone to do that.
 
Last edited:
GWCarver said:
You don't think they asked Z if he had money for bail before asking his wife? I think that is likely, but I don't really know anything about posting bail.

ETA: I do know that Z interrupting the proceedings to tell the judge his wife is lying under oath is no small thing, and I am gobsmacked that a judge would expect anyone to do that.
Click to expand...

I think he expects people to not lie to the court in the first place. It sounds like at the very least, Shellie is in legal jeopardy for perjury. The judge openly wonders why the state hasn't already indicated what action they want to take on this, then opines that the Zimmermans clearly lied. She's in a bad way right now.
 
Unabogie said:
I think he expects people to not lie to the court in the first place. It sounds like at the very least, Shellie is in legal jeopardy for perjury. The judge openly wonders why the state hasn't already indicated what action they want to take on this, then opines that the Zimmermans clearly lied. She's in a bad way right now.
Click to expand...

I, too, am surprised they didn't bring charges. That leads me to believe there is something the prosecutors know that kept them from bringing charges. We'll just have to find out what it is that held them back.
 
GWCarver said:
I, too, am surprised they didn't bring charges. That leads me to believe there is something the prosecutors know that kept them from bringing charges. We'll just have to find out what it is that held them back.
Click to expand...

No, I think they're just preparing their case. It's pretty cut and dried. She committed perjury and the judge is expecting that to be the outcome of this fraud.

There's no secret evidence to save them. They lied and got caught.
 
Unabogie said:
No, I think they're just preparing their case. It's pretty cut and dried. She committed perjury and the judge is expecting that to be the outcome of this fraud.

There's no secret evidence to save them. They lied and got caught.
Click to expand...

I see. She committed perjury, but they just didn't charge her.
 
GWCarver said:
I see. She committed perjury, but they just didn't charge her.
Click to expand...

They haven't charged her yet, no. But it's clear to all of us that she lied to the court. They busted her dead to rights. And George sat there like a potted palm while his lawyer led the judge down the primrose path.

When they do charge her, don't act surprised.
 
LTC8K6 said:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/3/14539/85018

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/2/142039/6821

Jeralyn comments.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for the link. Jeralyn also says if Z loses at an SYG hearing in front of a judge, he can still get SYG immunity at trial if he is found not guilty.

" If, at a pretrial hearing, a defendant meets his burden and establishes his claim of immunity by a preponderance of the evidence, any charge as to which the immunity applies would of course be dismissed. If, however, the court finds that the defendant has not met his burden, the court's ruling has no preclusive effect....

Such a defendant would still be free at trial to plead his claim of immunity to the jury. At trial the burden of proof is exclusively on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.

To earn an acquittal, the defendant need do no more than show reasonable doubt - a quantum of evidence considerably less than a preponderance. And any attempt to bar a defendant from asserting a lawful defense based on the trial court's ruling that the defendant had not sufficientlv established that defense at a pretrial hearing would no doubt run afoul of the defendant's constitutional entitlement to a fair jury trial, see U.S. Const. amend VI; Art. I Sec16, Fla. Const."
 
Thanks to John Gault at the Treehouse for putting up the law that is bringing Z back to jail. It is 1(a). My apologies if this has been posted previously.

903.035 Applications for bail; information provided; hearing on application for modification; penalty for providing false or misleading information or omitting material information.

(1)(a) All information provided by a defendant, in connection with any application for or attempt to secure bail, to any court, court personnel, or individual soliciting or recording such information for the purpose of evaluating eligibility for, or securing, bail for the defendant, under circumstances such that the defendant knew or should have known that the information was to be used in connection with an application for bail, shall be accurate, truthful, and complete without omissions to the best knowledge of the defendant.

(b) The failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) may result in the revocation or modification of bail.

(2) An application for modification of bail on any felony charge must be heard by a court in person, at a hearing with the defendant present, and with at least 3 hours' notice to the state attorney.

(3) Any person who intentionally provides false or misleading material information or intentionally omits material information in connection with an application for bail or for modification of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor or felony which is one degree less than that of the crime charged for which bail is sought, but which in no event is greater than a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/criminal-procedure-and-corrections/903.035.html
 
GWCarver said:
Thanks to John Gault at the Treehouse for putting up the law that is bringing Z back to jail. It is 1(a). My apologies if this has been posted previously.
Click to expand...


Your friends in the treehouse are a little slow it seems. Maybe they should be reading JREF.
(posted on 28th April 2012, 04:58 AM):
Rare Truth said:
Looks like it's a "misdemeanor or felony one degree less then the charge for which the bond is sought but no higher than felony 3" for failure to provide full and accurate information in a bail proceeding.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/903.035
Click to expand...

​
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Your friends in the treehouse are a little slow it seems. Maybe they should be reading JREF.
(posted on 28th April 2012, 04:58 AM):

​
Click to expand...

OK, next time I think maybe I've seen something, somewhere, some time ago, I just won't put it up, regardless of the current relevance. It works for me.
 
crimresearch said:
Oh wait a minute, that's right, we have your word that I'm a liar about everything.
Click to expand...

I never said that at all.

Johny Karate has repeatedly asked you to back up your claim that motion #1 was denied.

GWCarver said:
ETA: I do know that Z interrupting the proceedings to tell the judge his wife is lying under oath is no small thing, and I am gobsmacked that a judge would expect anyone to do that.
Click to expand...

As I said several posts ago, it is something Z should have whispered to his lawyer. And then the lawyer would bring it up formally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom