Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[This is The End]

by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 07:42:22 PM EST
there is no perjury applicable here. There is an offense of making a false representation during an application for bail.

Are you sure that isn't just for lying on the actual application, and not for lying on the stand?

 

[GWCarver]

I never said that at all.

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



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.

I believe Karate was just playing games. There was one motion with two line items.

I think you are correct, that the judge expected Z to notify the judge through his attorney if anyone provided false information about the money he had available for bail, even if it had to be dynamically. But, maybe Z didn't hear anything he thought was false, maybe he didn't think that included his wife, or maybe he thought gifts he received for other purposes weren't part of the equation. We'll find out soon.

I think Jeralyn is right, it isn't fair that the judge gave Z a waiver for the media hearing, then turned it into a bond revocation hearing without him even being there to defend himself, and refused to give O'Mara a delay to prepare a response. That is dirty pool, IMO.

 

[tsig]

Ahh.. I believe you are correct. I'm usually better at detecting sarcasm. Good catch, Katie. And my apologies to tsig if I misinterpreted that post.

That's OK.

 

[tsig]

Okay, but he did get caught red-handed trying to deceive a court of law. He benefited from "material falsehoods" his wife and attorney presented on his behalf. That's why he is sitting in a jail cell right now.

As follows:





Those are awfully damn strange interpretations for a hearing that was nothing short of a complete victory for the prosecution.

He walks into court a free man and goes out in custody and that's a win? A few more victories and he'll be on death row.

 

[crimresearch]

repeatedly asked you to back up your claim that motion #1 was denied

Nobody by that name has asked me anything... as both you and they are well aware.

To answer your question yet again, the reality (pointed out by multiple people) that it was part of the hearing, spoken out loud by the judge on the live feed, reported by the media, linked here repeatedly, and so on is all the proof a rational person needs.

Now what proof do you have to back up your bizarre denier's counter assertion that the judge upheld the passport motion?

 

[This is The End]

The motion with regard to his passport was denied.

What motion was that? Please provide a cite.

Apologies to crimresearch, it was GWCarver that said the word denied. I'm not sure what words crim used exactly.

Either way it doesn't matter.

It wouldn't have made the motion to revoke bail any more revoked.

There was one motion with two line items.

Exactly. And it was granted. The judge merely said that one of the 2 motions had less merit than the other. Which I think I at least made questionable in post #12010:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8340285&postcount=12010

 

[sgtbaker]

I know I have missed a lot and now I am asking people to fill me in. I get that the judge revoked the bond but I don't fully understand the deception. IIRC they didn't deny the fund existed, it was made abundantly clear to the court that there was a fund and there was money in the fund. They testified that the brother was handling the fund so he was the one to ask about how much was in there. How does failure to follow up questioning the brother equate to lying on the part of GZ?

 

[This is The End]

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

Nobody by that name has asked me anything... as both you and they are well aware.

Sorry, wrong again. Apparently it's just you that wasn't aware of JK asking you to back it up repeatedly.

If you need to believe that O'Mara went to the trouble of deliberately falsifying his computer, and committing perjury in order to get one part of a bond motion dismissed...

You keep saying that. What part of the bond motion was dismissed? What motion did the prosecution lose?

And the prosecution lost that motion because the judge didn't buy their claims, and he accepted the defense's reasonable explanation.

Not unless there was some other, second motion not being mentioned in any of the media reports.

The prosecution filed a motion to have Zimmerman's bail revoked.

Zimmerman's bail was revoked.

The prosecution won the motion.

Though I do admit, and already apologized for, having you confused with GWCarver who used the specific word denied. JK asked him to back it up as well. You used the word "dismissed" which is just as wrong.

 

[GWCarver]

Apologies to crimresearch, it was GWCarver that said the word denied. I'm not sure what words crim used exactly.

Either way it doesn't matter.

It wouldn't have made the motion to revoke bail any more revoked.




Exactly. And it was granted. The judge merely said that one of the 2 motions had less merit than the other. Which I think I at least made questionable in post #12010:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8340285&postcount=12010

You just said there were two motions after all that.

 

[This is The End]

You just said there were two motions after all that.

That's not in dispute.

What is in dispute was if one of the motions was officially dismissed or denied.


See here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95593851/State-v-Zimmerman-Motion-to-revoke-bond

There is 1 motion to dismiss bond.

It contains 2 sections, or sub-motions.

I apologize again, I should have been saying sections, or sub-motions, when referring to those parts.

It has been claimed that the judge "dismissed" or "denied" one of those 2 sections.

JK kept asking for specific cites for those claims.

As far as I can tell that is wrong. The judge merely said that one of the sections had less merit than the other one. And then he granted the motion to revoke bond. Nothing was "dismissed". Nothing was "denied". Nothing was "lost".

The motion with regard to his passport was denied.

And the prosecution lost that motion

<snip>

<snip>

to get one part of a bond motion dismissed

<snip>

 

[crimresearch]

I know I have missed a lot and now I am asking people to fill me in. I get that the judge revoked the bond but I don't fully understand the deception. IIRC they didn't deny the fund existed, it was made abundantly clear to the court that there was a fund and there was money in the fund. They testified that the brother was handling the fund so he was the one to ask about how much was in there. How does failure to follow up questioning the brother equate to lying on the part of GZ?

Material misrepresentation means something specific in the law. Saying your car is red instead of saying it is burgundy is neither material or a misrepresentation.

Saying you have 2,000 dollars when you have 200,000 dollars is a material misrepresentation, as it affected the level at which bond was set.

In order for it to be perjury, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the usual elements of the crime... mens rea, and so on.

And it takes some doing to actually sustain such a charge. Very likely Zimmerman is going to say that he wasn't sure that money counted because there was some sort of PFA status to the account.

The state would have to prove a negative about his thoughts. And how are they going to do that? A mind reading machine? The same kind of shoulda-coulda-woulda- sophistry that goes around on the internet? I don't think the judge was surprised at all that the prosecutors didn't have a perjury charge ready on Friday.

So, he said that he couldn't let Zimmerman stay free based on assertions by other people about what Zimmerman *might* have been thinking. He has to hear it from Zimmerman himself before he rules on bond again.
Might be re-issued in a higher amount, might stay revoked... just have to wait and see.

As far as the notion that this bond stuff destroys Zimmerman's entire murder defense, the short answer is ... no.

 

[This is The End]

I thought people were mostly wondering if the wife will be charge with perjury, not necessarily if Z will...

 

[GWCarver]

I thought people were mostly wondering if the wife will be charge with perjury, not necessarily if Z will...

Jeralyn says:

...there is no "perjury" as it pertains to Zimmerman. His wife could be charged with perjury. He did not testify at the bond hearing about money.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/3/14539/85018#99

 

[This is The End]

Jeralyn says:

...there is no "perjury" as it pertains to Zimmerman. His wife could be charged with perjury. He did not testify at the bond hearing about money.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/3/14539/85018#99

Thanks GWC, you've been on the ball the past couple days, and you've been trying to be very fair as far as I can tell. (Yes there was an implied "compared to how I remember you 100 of your posts ago" in that sentence. ).

And more polite than I have been recently I believe. Keep it up.

I must say the same about Johnny Karate as well. JK had a couple great posts yesterday. It seems as if you two have gravitated towards the center from opposite sides.

Sorry if I have personalized anything in this post, it's all meant to be a compliment!

ETA: Wow I totally use that smiley too often.

Also, I don't mean to imply that I am in the center or always fair. It's very hard to do. I can only try the best I can.

I think I should restate something some of us said hundreds of pages and a few months ago:

If Z is telling the truth about the all important 1 or 2 minutes, and everything went down just like he said, it would be absolutely horrific for him to be convicted.

I believe the saying goes something like "it's better to set 100 guilty people free than to send 1 innocent person to jail".

 

[GWCarver]

Thanks GWC, you've been on the ball the past couple days, and you've been trying to be very fair as far as I can tell. (Yes there was an implied "compared to how I remember you 100 of your posts ago" in that sentence. ).

And more polite than I have been recently I believe. Keep it up.

I must say the same about Johnny Karate as well. JK had a couple great posts yesterday. It seems as if you two have gravitated towards the center from opposite sides.

Sorry if I have personalized anything in this post, it's all meant to be a compliment!

ETA: Wow I totally use that smiley too often.

Also, I don't mean to imply that I am in the center or always fair. It's very hard to do. I can only try the best I can.

I think I should restate something some of us said hundreds of pages and a few months ago:

If Z is telling the truth about the all important 1 or 2 minutes, and everything went down just like he said, it would be absolutely horrific for him to be convicted.

I believe the saying goes something like "it's better to set 100 guilty people free than to send 1 innocent person to jail".

Thanks for bringing up the spirit of cooperation and the importance of staying centered. My main interest is in getting to the truth, and this should be a common goal. I have taken the constructive criticism I've received here to heart and tried to adjust my contributions accordingly.

Much like a recent case overseas, we are going to have an abundance of information (although it is arriving in this case much more quickly) and the key to understanding will be getting it all sorted out and filling in the gaps. If we all work together, that can be accomplished much more easily than if we waste time presenting or dismissing the same bad information over and over again.

I'll confess that one of the things that has me frustrated is of my own doing. I save relevant documents and web pages, but they are scattered around on 5 different computers. I'll consolidate it all soon.

JK did make a great post today. I'm still trying to figure out how to rebut part of it. (Don't tell him I said that. ) I actually enjoy the challenge of responding to posts that buckle my knees the first time I read them. It means I am about to advance my knowledge of the case, although the possibility exists it may not be a pleasant experience.

 

[LTC8K6]

Bmazz, good point (none / 0) (#66)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:26:30 PM EST
The judge didn't find Zimmerman personally made misstatements. What he found to be a material misrepresentation was his wife's statements, and that GZ stood by (like a potted plant, he said) allowing his wife to testify falsely and his attorney to make representations to the court he knew weren't ocmplete and accurate.

...

I suspect the judge will rethink saying GZ must testify. Clearly, he invited the state's attorney to file an additional criminal charge against GZ's wife. GZ has potential criminal exposure and clearly would not have to testify. The judge can't make him forego one constitutional right (right to remain silent) to exercise another (right to bail.)

http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/6/3/14539/85018/66#66

 

[Dancing David]

Maybe you can find something better to do than be the thread nanny and chastise people, especially since I took the time to clarify and answer for you, to which the normal response if any might have been " thanks for clarifying".

So you saying stuff that is a stretch at best and somehow pretending that one segment of the population as portrayed in the media is the common understanding of the people is a reason for me to thank you? On this forum? Where I am sure I can find quotes of you doing exactly the same thing in this very thread.

Where exactly did I chastise you? Or does that have clarification already?

Maybe you should be clear in the beginning, and not stretch the truth.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I believe that GZ has demonstrated yet again how bright he is. Which is to say, not very. While this does bite him in the ass with regards to having his bond revoked, I think it actually overall helps him. As I have previously stated, I think if GZ tried to lie about events the night of the shooting, he would have been easily caught. Too many details , witnesses , and physical evidence all give ample opportunity to catch a lie. Especially from someone who is clearly not an accomplished liar. Really, is anyone going to dispute that and argue on behalf of GZ, evil genius ?

While I think GZ and his wife were dishonest (via omission, they purposely omitted the paypal information) , I think the state was playing games, too. The state clearly knew about the paypal account, and had a good idea how much money was in there. They also knew about the second passport, yet they stood by and let the Judge allow bond, and watched GZ walk free ? If it is so egregious that GZ be out on bond, why did they stand by and allow it ? The state was not interested in making sure the court knew all the facts, they were interested in playing gotcha. I'm not arguing that it's the SA job to fill out GZ bond application for him, but I am sure they had a copy, noted there was no mention of the paypal account, and yet didn't bring the evidence they had to the Judges attention at the bond hearing. I wonder why ?

Also - for all this Shelly Zimmerman perjury talk ... how come I don't hear any perjury talk about detective gilbreath ? Clearly, as lead detective, it is his job to have reviewed the contents of the Zimmerman file. And we found out that GZ medical records from his visit to the doctor the day after the shooting were already in that file. I assume MOM knew that, since it must have been GZ who gave them a copy, and that's why he went down that road when questioning Gilbreath, who denied knowing about it. How is that possible ? To be clear, I don't expect anyone to be filing any perjury charges, on SZ, GZ, or Det. Gilbreath. The point is, it's not one sides job to make it easier for the other side. If the question is "do you know how much is in the account" you say "no" - becuase technically you don't know the exact amount. The same type of 'evasive' answering Gilbreath did on the stand. I can imagine SZ thought she was being 'technically honest', but I don't really know.

I don't blame GZ or his wife for thier 'dishonesty' though, I blame MOM for not stopping them. MOM has the experience and expertise to guide GZ and his family through the bond process. He knew about the paypal accounts, it was his responsibility to make sure everything was filled out by/for his client appropriately, and to anticpate what the SA would do. If anything, the reason they ddin't talk about the Paypal I would think would be guidance from MOM. If MOM insuated - don't speak of it, don't use, and that should be ok... To me, that helps explain why they went to all the trouble they did to secure a mortgage on the parents home, etc, to pay the bond. I have not seen anyone else willing to try to explain why they didn't just use all their paypal money to pay the bond. I think perhaps that also explains the addition to the GZ legal team, MOM is getting in over his head ?

It's been an interesting distraction. I think at the end of the day, that's all it will be, though. We may get another look at GZ on the stand if he speaks for himself at a bond hearing. I don't think the state gets free reign to ask him about anything they want, I think it will be narrowly directed at financial issues pertaining to his bond, but it might give us more insight into exactly how poorly GZ will do on the stand. (yes, I don't think he has a chance of ever doing well, just not too poorly).

Also, what happened to round 2 of discovery from last thursday ? Wasn't there already more information OK'ed to be released ? And didn't Judje Lester have some comment that the majority of material has already been released ?

 

[sgtbaker]

I thought people were mostly wondering if the wife will be charge with perjury, not necessarily if Z will...

Oh, okay. My time is limited and I am usually on my phone so I don't click on all the links. I got the impression that this was about Zimmerman because of all the references to his destroyed credibility. He, likely, wouldn't know exactly how much was in the account without access to the accounts while he was in jail.

There was one line quoted from the jailhouse conversation but I would be interested to know his response to, "that's what the fund is for." If he suggested they keep the amount secret or if she said how much was in there, we would know their state of mind, at the trial.

 

[bookworm]

Your statements are often over broad and hyperbolic.

"the common understanding" is what you said.

Sorry, I'll try to take more care with the words I choose.