Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

So, because the post I replied to wasn't addressed to me, I am not allowed to respond to it? Cool.

Did I say that somewhere ?

So, we can conclude that you have either A-No plans to answer, because you're afraid to answer the question or B- You cannot answer it because it will hurt your entire argument WRT: Zimmerman's probable plans to leave the country.

Yes, you could. You would be wrong, but that's not really my concern.

Or, maybe there's a third one that I haven't thought of. Maybe you can explain then.

And yes, IMO, your post was mostly useless drivel. You're welcome to disagree, and that's fine.

I am so glad I have your permission to disagree with your opinion

But, the fact remains: To date, I have YET to see anyone come up with a reasonable reason to hid ~$130,000 and a valid passport from not only MOM, but also the courts.

WRT: The money transfers, there's a reason they are all less than 10,000 dollars. Do you know what that reason is? It's pretty significant, and it ties into the probability that GZ was planning on leaving. Take a guess, it's ok if you're wrong. Most people don't even know that this triggers an event at the bank because most people don't receive >$10,000 deposits at a time.

No, thanks. If you have some claims to make, make them and back them up.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm quoting this just because it's so priceless, and I want to make sure it doesn't disappear.

Do you know the reason? I do.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Do you know the reason? I do.

Didn't your post already tell us?

 

[triforcharity]

Did I say that somewhere ?

Nope, but it surely read that way to me.

Yes, you could. You would be wrong, but that's not really my concern.

So what could POSSIBLY be a good reason to hide $130k, a passport, and move large sums of money in increments of >$10,000

No, thanks. If you have some claims to make, make them and back them up.

I will shortly.

 

[marplots]

I'm quoting this just because it's so priceless, and I want to make sure it doesn't disappear.

I see what you are doing there.

Totally admire it.

 

[WildCat]

First of all Z says he was in fear a minute before that. So Z was probably still scared at the T. You denying that is Wow, just Wow.

You know what is "wow, just wow"? You claiming I denied he said he was scared in his truck.

I see no reason to discuss anything with you since you don't seem to have the slightest bit of intellectual honesty. I have better things to do than correct your strawmen.

 

[WildCat]

You missed my point. He stops the car...****, he's running...he's out of the car..flashlight and gun in hand.

So he has his flashlight in one hand, his gun in the other, and his phone in the other hand?

 

[GWCarver]

So, because the post I replied to wasn't addressed to me, I am not allowed to respond to it? Cool.

So, we can conclude that you have either A-No plans to answer, because you're afraid to answer the question or B- You cannot answer it because it will hurt your entire argument WRT: Zimmerman's probable plans to leave the country.

Or, maybe there's a third one that I haven't thought of. Maybe you can explain then.

And yes, IMO, your post was mostly useless drivel. You're welcome to disagree, and that's fine.

But, the fact remains: To date, I have YET to see anyone come up with a reasonable reason to hide ~$130,000 and a valid passport from not only MOM, but also the courts.

WRT: The money transfers, there's a reason they are all less than 10,000 dollars. Do you know what that reason is? It's pretty significant, and it ties into the probability that GZ was planning on leaving. Take a guess, it's ok if you're wrong. Most people don't even know that this triggers an event at the bank because most people don't receive >$10,000 deposits at a time.

The less than 10K transfers were because of a PayPal rule. They tried several times to transfer more than 10K and eventually figured out it the transfers were failing to be made because of PayPal.

 

[marplots]

The less than 10K transfers were because of a PayPal rule. They tried several times to transfer more than 10K and eventually figured out it the transfers were failing to be made because of PayPal.

PayPal is obviously in on it.

 

[triforcharity]

Didn't your post already tell us?

Nope.

Here it is.

For both Elvis and you.

Ready? It's quite damming to GZ and supports the judges reasonable conclusion that GZ intended on fleeing.

It's reported to not only the IRS, but also the federal government.

A Form 104 CTR must be filed with the IRS.
A SAR must also be filed with the Department of Treasury.

Both of these actions are going to be noted. A person who is currently charged with a 2nd Deg. Murder moving a BUNCH of money around, is going to alert the FBI and DoT, and it's going to get back to the courts PDQ.

Amounts less than $10,000 do not meet this requirement. Hence, you see a bunch of $9,900 and less on the transfer list.

Your turn.

 

[triforcharity]

WRT: PayPal. A premiere account that is verified doesn't have a limit. If you try to withdraw more than $10,000 with a basic account, it won't let you.

 

[This is The End]

True.

Do you have an explicit information about GZ planning to leave the country ? Do you think Judge Lester was privy to secret information we haven't seen ?

Or do you think he just came to conclusion based on circumstantial evidence ?

That reminds me of Dan O.'s idea pages ago that no one commented on.

If Peter Pan stood for PayPal, I don't find it that implausible that Heaven could stand for Havana....

I'm not too familiar with the Florida area but perhaps there is some destination close to Florida that is a place where fugitives go to escape US justice and has a name similar to "Heaven".

Havana, Cuba?

Just ONE of the jailhouse calls where he mentions the Airport:

ZIMMERMAN: Okey dokey. You know what I was thinking?
WOMAN: What?
ZIMMERMAN: If they, if they do decide to give me bail or bond
WOMAN: Uh huh
ZIMMERMAN: um, maybe I can just leave from the Sanford Airport and go up to, uh, um,Heaven

And as opposed to what Cylinder says, I think the context makes that look just as likely, or worse. Z is worrying about himself getting shot; that would be a reason for him to get fed up and then floats the idea that they could just escape. In that context, he might have wanted to escape even if he doesn't think he might be guilty.

OK, so it is still fairly implausible, but so was Peter Pan being used as code for PayPal...

---------------------

Ah, so Zimmerman never said he waited at the T because he was scared like you claimed in this post.

Sometimes you have to tell little white lies to find The Truth^TM, right?

Zimmerman was the one claiming to be in fear that night, not Unabogie....

Unabogie got the word wrong, please forgive him.

Your argument would actually make sense if Z didn't claim to be in fear that night and Unabogie made that up! Unabogie used the wrong synonym.

-------------------------------

In that case judge lester would say: I see GZ was scared and may have even considered fleeing ... but as he turned all the money and passport over to his attorney, it is clear he determined to not to flee because it would be wrong.

At least now you are are admitting that he turned the passport and money over after his supposed escape plans, if there were any, fell through.

Wouldn't it be more likely that Z did that because his plans fell through? I find you suggesting that Z did that because he realized "it would be wrong" to be highly unlikely.

So you are clear on the time line now?

*Z is in jail supposedly planning his escape from the country.
*At the bond hearing Z still has hopes of escape.
*At the bond hearing Z sits there like a potted palm and lets his lawyer lie when the lawyer says Z has no other passports.
*Z get's out of jail after the bond hearing.
*Z's hopes are dashed for whatever reason.
*Then, days later, Z turns in his original passport.​

Do you see why saying: "I don't understand why the Judge thought Z might flee since he turned in his passport to his lawyer!" makes absolutely no sense?

Don't forget the last part of that little time-line.

*Z's lawyer composes and dates the document showing that Z turned in his passport but does not submit it in hopes that the entire thing will go unnoticed.

-------------------

There is something deliciously wonderful about the guy who considers himself so intolerant of racism, and says that by the time he was 22 he would never make statements that could be construed as racist, unintentionally making such a blatantly sexist comment. Why didn't Shelly help him with with the shopping, that thar is woman's work!

That question did not read as sexist to me. And apparently not to others either. I think it is very telling that you read it as such...


----------------------

Good point. Since he had no compunction against committing a felony, maybe he wouldn't have a problem committing another.

Another ? What prior felony is was convicted of ? None that I am aware of.

RT said "committing a felony". I assume RT means the one Z is charged with. You then added the word convicted... I don't see what is wrong with RT operating ont he basis that the State is correct in their charges when wondering if Z was trying to flee. We'll have to wait until after the trial to see if he is convinced.

---------------

Tu quoque ?

Really though, there is just as much or more evidence that Z was planning to flee than there was that M was a burglar.

 

[johnny karate]

Tu quoque ?

Uh... no. Not even close.

I was simply illustrating the ridiculous standard of evidence you are requiring for this incident that you didn't seem to require when it came to believing something negative about Martin.

I admitted, I agree it was possible what he was doing was preparing to be able to flee.

Great. Now all you have to do is list all those all other possibilities that explain Zimmerman's actions.

I think he and his wife were moving monies around so it wouldn't be counted in setting his bail. It doesn't sounds like they intentionally kept the passport as much as they intentionally didn't turn it in right away. That's why i keep saying it sounded like he just decided to keep his options open, rather than he was planning on leaving.

What "options"? Please clarify, and be specific.

He had plenty of money to pay someone to do it. Google suggests it's not rocket science.

So unless Zimmerman's plan to flee was complete and put into action, that means he wasn't planning to flee at all?

Is that the standard you're setting?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

WRT: The money transfers, there's a reason they are all less than 10,000 dollars. Do you know what that reason is? It's pretty significant, and it ties into the probability that GZ was planning on leaving. Take a guess, it's ok if you're wrong. Most people don't even know that this triggers an event at the bank because most people don't receive >$10,000 deposits at a time.

Do you know the reason? I do.

Didn't your post already tell us?

Nope.

Here it is.

For both Elvis and you.

Ready? It's quite damming to GZ and supports the judges reasonable conclusion that GZ intended on fleeing.

It's reported to not only the IRS, but also the federal government.

A Form 104 CTR must be filed with the IRS.
A SAR must also be filed with the Department of Treasury.

Amounts less than $10,000 do not meet this requirement. Hence, you see a bunch of $9,900 and less on the transfer list.

Your turn.

OK, maybe it's just me, but you told us in the first post (I bolded it for you).

What I found particularly humorous in the first post was you telling us all that most people don't know that a $10,000 transaction triggers an event at the bank. I'd think that in fact it's one of the more common urban myths out there. It is not $10,000 transactions that trigger alerts, it's $10,000 cash transactions that trigger alerts. The Zimmerman's did not need to limit their transfers to $10,000 to stop such alerts. Furthermore, they tried to perform a transfer over 10K but it was rejected due to the Paypal limitation.

Both of these actions are going to be noted. A person who is currently charged with a 2nd Deg. Murder moving a BUNCH of money around, is going to alert the FBI and DoT, and it's going to get back to the courts PDQ.

This is also incorrect. We don't have some magic system which suddenly alerts the government when someone that is out on bail is transferring money around. The prosecutor would have to obtain court orders to monitor those accounts.

If you'd like to learn more you can do so here:
http://www.ehow.com/about_4672449_transactions-do-banks-report-irs_.html

 

[This is The End]

First of all Z says he was in fear a minute before that. So Z was probably still scared at the T. You denying that is Wow, just Wow.

You claiming I denied he said he was scared in his truck.

Wow, read (for comprehension) what you quoted! And then read your response. See your mistake?

I did not claim that you denied he said he was scared in his truck!

My claim is that you are denying that Z would still be scared 1 minute after being scared. Which is just wow.

But more importantly:

Zimmerman was the one claiming to be in fear that night, not Unabogie....

Unabogie got the word wrong, please forgive him.

Your argument would actually make sense if Z didn't claim to be in fear that night and Unabogie made that up! Unabogie used the wrong synonym.

Btw, did you read the transcript from the tape yet? It was posted for you 2 pages ago?

 

[This is The End]

Nope.

Here it is.

For both Elvis and you.

Ready? It's quite damming to GZ and supports the judges reasonable conclusion that GZ intended on fleeing.

It's reported to not only the IRS, but also the federal government.

A Form 104 CTR must be filed with the IRS.
A SAR must also be filed with the Department of Treasury.

Both of these actions are going to be noted. A person who is currently charged with a 2nd Deg. Murder moving a BUNCH of money around, is going to alert the FBI and DoT, and it's going to get back to the courts PDQ.

Amounts less than $10,000 do not meet this requirement. Hence, you see a bunch of $9,900 and less on the transfer list.

Your turn.

They're going to claim that it was all because of the PayPal limit. Even though I think we found out a few days after the PayPal limit that some of the transfers did not involve PayPal and yet were still at the $10,000 mark.

 

[This is The End]

WRT: The money transfers, there's a reason they are all less than 10,000 dollars. Do you know what that reason is? It's pretty significant, and it ties into the probability that GZ was planning on leaving. Take a guess, it's ok if you're wrong. Most people don't even know that this triggers an event at the bank because most people don't receive >$10,000 deposits at a time.

I'm quoting this just because it's so priceless, and I want to make sure it doesn't disappear.

I assume you think it is priceless because that is the PayPal withdrawal limit?

But didn't we learn a few days after that that they also made some other "just less than $10,000" transfers between bank accounts; transfers that did not involve PayPal?

ETA: Even if it was all nothing, and triforcharity is wrong, ummm, how would you put it, you're good at this.... I know:

triforcharity was wrong about something, Zimmerman must be innocent!

 

[crimresearch]

OK, maybe it's just me, but you told us in the first post (I bolded it for you).

What I found particularly humorous in the first post was you telling us all that most people don't know that a $10,000 transaction triggers an event at the bank. I'd think that in fact it's one of the more common urban myths out there. It is not $10,000 transactions that trigger alerts, it's $10,000 cash transactions that trigger alerts. The Zimmerman's did not need to limit their transfers to $10,000 to stop such alerts. Furthermore, they tried to perform a transfer over 10K but it was rejected due to the Paypal limitation.


This is also incorrect. We don't have some magic system which suddenly alerts the government when someone that is out on bail is transferring money around. The prosecutor would have to obtain court orders to monitor those accounts.

If you'd like to learn more you can do so here:
http://www.ehow.com/about_4672449_transactions-do-banks-report-irs_.html

The banks send a report of 'unusual' transactions of any amount to their in-house risk management, which looks for patterns. They decide to 'alert the authorities'.

The notion that if you try to do a transaction of $10,000.01, the feds will scramble the black helicopters is the sort of thing that people just loooove to 'not know' the facts about.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148821,00.html

For multiple transactions on the *same day* there is also a routine procedure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act

But of course, we already knew that didn't we?

 

[This is The End]

Well the entire basis to this argument is whether or not those transactions during those few days before the first bond hearing were suspicious activity.

Disputing one piece of evidence is not going to have any bearing on whether or not it was suspicious activity.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Uh... no. Not even close.

I was simply illustrating the ridiculous standard of evidence you are requiring for this incident that you didn't seem to require when it came to believing something negative about Martin.

Ridiculous assertions require ridiculous evidence ?

Let's be clear:
I said I believed martin either committed some type of theft or was holding for a friend. Those are two reasonable conclusions based on the circumstances. If I said I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt, what belief should I hold ?

If GZ had lots of money, but no passport, wouldn't that be evidence he was going to flee ?

If GZ had a passport but no money , wouldn't that be evidence he was going to flee ?

Since GZ paid outstanding debts , would that be evidence he was not going to flee ?

Since there was no discussion of extradition or non-extradition countries, would that be evidence he was not going to flee ?

Since there was no discussion or plans to flee at all, would that be evidence he was not going to flee ?

Is there no room for any different interpretation of these facts ?

Great. Now all you have to do is list all those all other possibilities that explain Zimmerman's actions.

I did. They were hiding the money to appear indigent at the bond hearing. The passport was a mistake, honestly overlooked initially, but then intentionally not turned in, perhaps with the thought it could be used if GZ needed to flee the country.

That is completely different, and reasonable alternative to the way Lester interpreted the evidence.

What "options"? Please clarify, and be specific.

The option to flee ... I thought that was clear ? The possibility that he would be able to leave the country, if he chose, because he still had a passport.

So unless Zimmerman's plan to flee was complete and put into action, that means he wasn't planning to flee at all?

Is that the standard you're setting?

No, that means you can't prove he was going to flee, but was only thwarted by the ankle monitor.

Judge Lesters claim is not just 'he was planning on fleeing'. It's that he would have fled if not for the ankle jewelry.

And my original contention, which I still believe, was simply the conclusion that GZ would have fled if except for the anle bracelet in not giving someone the benefit of the doubt.