Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Did she believe those were HER assets, or her husbands assets?

The money was in her personal account. That legally makes it her money.

If you want to argue Shellie Zimmerman is too stupid to understand such a basic concept, that's your prerogative.

But what you can't argue is that she told the truth. Because she didn't.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, I think you would have better luck asking an attorney.

Show me an attorney insisting that to meet the threshld of reasonable doubt, one must possess mind-reading abilities, and I will.

But so far, it's you insisting that, so that's who I'm asking.

Not if she didn't believe the money was hers, etc. I already told you the problem was BDLRs poor questioning.

She was asked point blank if she had money. She replied in the negative. Records indicate she actually had money at the time in her personal account.

Like Newtons Bit, you feel free to argue that Shellie Zimmerman is too stupid to understand that money in her possesion belongs to her, but you can't deny she told a material faslehood.

Again, I gave you an example here.

To which I previously responded:

Really? How do you know she didn't forget? How do you she didn't misunderstand the question? How do you know she didn't misunderstand the original discussion?

In short, how do you know in this situation that she didn't believe what she was saying?

Oddly enough, you never replied.

Really it all goes to what a reasonable doubt is .. if the state shows she kept all that money and used it for her own purposes, that would cast a reasonable doubt on her claim (belief) that it is not hers. It seems pretty clear to me that in this particular case we are discussing it's not going to be very easy to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. There are clearly other scenarios where this is not the case, and one does not have to be a mind reader, as you imply.

The state can show Shellie Zimmerman had in excess of $57,000 in her personal credit union account at the time she claimed not to be of any financial means to assist with her husbands legal costs.

You are claiming the state needs to prove what she was thinking at the time in order to get a perjury conviction. I don't see a way to do that which doesn't require mind-reading.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The money was in her personal account. That legally makes it her money.

No it doesn't. If it was, she would have to pay a gift tax on it, and the State would be charging her with tax evasion too.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Show me an attorney insisting that to meet the threshld of reasonable doubt, one must possess mind-reading abilities, and I will.

But so far, it's you insisting that, so that's who I'm asking.

You have issues with wording of the law, not me:

whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true,

She was asked point blank if she had money.

No, wrong. You know better than that.

She was asked if she was of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

You know, a casual turn of the phrase that we all throw around all the time, as in "pardon me, but are you of any financial means to go get a cup of joe with me ?"

She replied in the negative. Records indicate she actually had money at the time in her personal account.

Like Newtons Bit, you feel free to argue that Shellie Zimmerman is too stupid to understand that money in her possession belongs to her,

Because possession is nine-tenths of the law. We all knew that growing up. If you took someone else stuff, once you had possession of it, it was yours to keep. Forever.

but you can't deny she told a material faslehood.

I can and do.

To which I previously responded:

Really? How do you know she didn't forget? How do you she didn't misunderstand the question? How do you know she didn't misunderstand the original discussion?

In short, how do you know in this situation that she didn't believe what she was saying?

Oddly enough, you never replied.

Perhaps because your questions were so absurd I didn't think you really wanted a response, and thought you were just being farcical. It was quite a while ago.

Or perhaps because I already answered it - and gave you examples of you you could reasonably determine she didn't believe what she was saying.
At any rate, your problem is still with the wording of the definition of perjury:
whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true,

The state can show Shellie Zimmerman had in excess of $57,000 in her personal credit union account at the time she claimed not to be of any financial means to assist with her husbands legal costs.

Then it will be a slam dunk and she will be found guilty.

You are claiming the state needs to prove what she was thinking at the time in order to get a perjury conviction. I don't see a way to do that which doesn't require mind-reading.

Which would explain why there are so few successful perjury prosecutions.

 

[Unabogie]

She was asked if she was of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

You know, a casual turn of the phrase that we all throw around all the time, as in "pardon me, but are you of any financial means to go get a cup of joe with me ?"

Really? You're really digging in your heels on this? Just read what you wrote again, only imagine the person lying about this wasn't married to George Zimmerman. Because asking someone if they have "financial means to pay for her husbands defense" after that person talked about what a "nice life they were going to have", after that person deposited tens of thousands of dollars in their personal account (and these are people who didn't have money before they started grifting all you rubes for donations), and then answering NO is just not going to fly in any court room. I don't even think the jury will stay out an hour with that weak tea. This case is just a clinic in cognitive dissonance.

 

[This is The End]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/11/trayvon-martin-profile/1761373/

I note that it is yet another news article that contradicts Cylinder's claim that the trial will be pushed back to 2014 even if the defense loses the "stand your ground" hearing in April.

Just to be fair, and to make sure that I am not representing it incorrectly, here is Cylinder's claim, which is contradictory of several news articles that have been published after the trial date and self defense hearing announcement. Cylinder has made this claim a few times, this is just one example:

I didn't see the "years" quote but you might want to look at the timeline of past immunity hearings and their appeal. The immunity appeal itself would take around a year to be heard - which gets you to April/May 2014. Then you have to get the trial back on the docket which is probably another 6 months which around October 2014. So yea, two years from now is probably a reasonable timeframe. There will not be a trial in June 2013 - or really anytime in 2013 for that matter.

Oops:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-mark-o-mara

Two major court dates loom large over the second-degree-murder case against George Zimmerman: a "stand your ground" hearing in April, and depending on the outcome, a trial June 10.

But last week, defense attorney Mark O'Mara raised an alternative. With his team crunched for time, he suggested the defense may ultimately ask for the hearing and trial to be combined.

"We don't have the finances to pay for experts to come [at all]," he told the Orlando Sentinel. "We certainly don't have the finances to have them come twice."

The "stand your ground" hearing is set for April 22, and Circuit Judge Debra Nelson has made it clear that she opposes any delay. The judge said last week that she wouldn't grant a continuance "unless there are extenuating, extraordinary circumstances."

A jury would be selected, and the state and defense would present their cases.

But once that's done, the jury would be placed in limbo while the defense tries to convince the judge to end the case herself.

"She could even listen to the verdict before she makes her determination," he said, adding confidently: "I'm OK with waiting until the jury acquits."

That last quote of O'Mara's makes little to no sense.

 

[Unabogie]

Oops:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-mark-o-mara
That last quote of O'Mara's makes little to no sense.

Frederick Leatherman thinks that having an immunity hearing - that George loses - so close to the trial would prejudice the jury, which is perhaps why O'Mara doesn't want to have it in April. I'm not sure how he can "combine" the immunity hearing with the trial or "wait until the jury acquits". That last part is cringeworthy, really. I thought O'Mara was supposed to be a good lawyer?

Is O'Mara basically asking for the judge to withhold her judgment on immunity until after the trial so that if George is convicted, they can ask the judge to set aside a jury verdict for murder?

That sure doesn't sound like someone who is confident in his client.

 

[johnny karate]

No it doesn't. If it was, she would have to pay a gift tax on it, and the State would be charging her with tax evasion too.

Yes, because as everyone knows, if you want to get out of paying taxes, just tell the IRS that the money in your bank account isn't really yours. Works every time.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Frederick Leatherman thinks that having an immunity hearing - that George loses - so close to the trial would prejudice the jury, which is perhaps why O'Mara doesn't want to have it in April. I'm not sure how he can "combine" the immunity hearing with the trial or "wait until the jury acquits". That last part is cringeworthy, really. I thought O'Mara was supposed to be a good lawyer?

Is O'Mara basically asking for the judge to withhold her judgment on immunity until after the trial so that if George is convicted, they can ask the judge to set aside a jury verdict for murder?

That sure doesn't sound like someone who is confident in his client.

Remind me where Frederick Leatherman is licensed to practice law, and why we care what he thinks ?

He also thinks GZ might have had an accomplice riding in the truck with him.

He also thinks perhps GZ ran into a tree instead of TMs fist.

He has all kinds of amusing theories if you want to have a good laugh instead of a discussion .

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, because as everyone knows, if you want to get out of paying taxes, just tell the IRS that the money in your bank account isn't really yours. Works every time.

Actually, there's a large number of cases where money in your bank account isn't income.

In this particular case, the money could be from a family member who is trusting you to ask as their agent while they're in jail.

 

[johnny karate]

You have issues with wording of the law, not me:

whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true,

No, what I have issue with is your bizarre interpretation of the law in which you seem to think the state is required to definitively prove Shellie Zimmerman believed she was lying.

No, wrong. You know better than that.

She was asked if she was of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

You know, a casual turn of the phrase that we all throw around all the time, as in "pardon me, but are you of any financial means to go get a cup of joe with me ?"

So is your argument that Shellie Zimmerman is too stupid to have understood O'Mara's fancy lawyer talk?

If anything, "any financial means" is a much broader term than simply "money", so it only impugns her further.

But the bottom line is, at the time when this was being said under oath in a court of law:

O'Mara: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

Shellie Zimmerman: None that I know of.

O'Mara: I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?

Shellie Zimmerman: Yes, you have.

O'Mara: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

Shellie Zimmerman: Not that I'm aware of.

... Shellie Zimmerman had over $57,000 sitting in her personal credit union account. And this money was collected for the purpose of assisting George Zimmerman's legal costs.

Because possession is nine-tenths of the law. We all knew that growing up. If you took someone else stuff, once you had possession of it, it was yours to keep. Forever.

She was in possession of over $57,000 collected for the purpose of assisting in her husband's legal costs at the time she said she was not of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

I can and do.

That's the great thing about reality. It keeps right on existing despite those who wish to deny it.

Perhaps because your questions were so absurd I didn't think you really wanted a response, and thought you were just being farcical. It was quite a while ago.

The questions I asked are logical extensions of your own absurd standard.

Or perhaps because I already answered it - and gave you examples of you you could reasonably determine she didn't believe what she was saying.
At any rate, your problem is still with the wording of the definition of perjury:
whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true,

A person who is aware of possessing over $57,000 collected for the purpose of assisting in her husband's legal costs at the time she claimed to not be of any financial means to assist in her husband's costs clearly knows she is lying.

You seem to disagree.

Trust me, my objection is not with how the law is worded.

Then it will be a slam dunk and she will be found guilty.

Now this part confuses me.

The state can prove Shellie Zimmerman had in excess of $57,000 in her personal credit union account at the time she claimed not to be of any financial means to assist with her husband's legal costs.

Were simply not paying attention before, or have you suddenly changed your mind?

Which would explain why there are so few successful perjury prosecutions.

I would imagine there are so few successful perjury prosecutions because not many people are stupid enough to blatantly lie in open court about something that easily be disproved. Like how much money they had at the time they claimed not to have any, for instance.

 

[johnny karate]

Actually, there's a large number of cases where money in your bank account isn't income.

In this particular case, the money could be from a family member who is trusting you to ask as their agent while they're in jail.

Shellie Zimmerman had some of the money in her personal account. The rest of it was in George's account, to which Shellie also had access.

To bolster that little "agent" theory you've floated, you'll have to explain why it was necessary to have the money in two separate accounts.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, what I have issue with is your bizarre interpretation of the law in which you seem to think the state is required to definitively prove Shellie Zimmerman believed she was lying.

You'll have to remind me where I used the word 'definitively' instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise you are just mis-characterzing my position.

So is your argument that Shellie Zimmerman is too stupid to have understood O'Mara's fancy lawyer talk?

If anything, "any financial means" is a much broader term than simply "money", so it only impugns her further.

But the bottom line is, at the time when this was being said under oath in a court of law:

... Shellie Zimmerman had over $57,000 sitting in her personal credit union account. And this money was collected for the purpose of assisting George Zimmerman's legal costs.

She was in possession of over $57,000 collected for the purpose of assisting in her husband's legal costs at the time she said she was not of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

Why do we need to keep going round and round ? I've already explained that there are multiple reasonable interpretations to that question that don't require her answer to be yes. That's why the state will have difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt she should have said yes.

That's the great thing about reality. It keeps right on existing despite those who wish to deny it.

Having a differing opinion on a legal matter from you is denying reality ? Really ?

The questions I asked are logical extensions of your own absurd standard.

Again, you are being dishonest about what you call 'my standard'

A person who is aware of possessing over $57,000 collected for the purpose of assisting in her husband's legal costs at the time she claimed to not be of any financial means to assist in her husband's costs clearly knows she is lying.

You seem to disagree.

Trust me, my objection is not with how the law is worded.

No, it really is. It is about peoples beliefs. You think those are undeterminable without mind reading.

Now this part confuses me.

The state can prove Shellie Zimmerman had in excess of $57,000 in her personal credit union account at the time she claimed not to be of any financial means to assist with her husband's legal costs.

Were simply not paying attention before, or have you suddenly changed your mind?

Neither, just tired of repeating myself.

I would imagine there are so few successful perjury prosecutions because not many people are stupid enough to blatantly lie in open court about something that easily be disproved. Like how much money they had at the time they claimed not to have any, for instance.

"You know how you can tell someone's lying in court?" Sims said after a brief hearing in Shellie Zimmerman's case Oct. 17.
"Their lips are moving."

But what would he know, he just deals with the courts for a living.

 

[This is The End]

That sure doesn't sound like someone who is confident in his client.

Here's another part that doesn't make sense:

"We don't have the finances to pay for experts to come [at all]," he told the Orlando Sentinel. "We certainly don't have the finances to have them come twice."

I thought Z had raised a ridiculous amount of money. Especially compared to what an average person has to defend themselves at an average murder trial...

What happened to all of it?

 

[Unabogie]

Remind me where Frederick Leatherman is licensed to practice law, and why we care what he thinks ?

He also thinks GZ might have had an accomplice riding in the truck with him.

He also thinks perhps GZ ran into a tree instead of TMs fist.

He has all kinds of amusing theories if you want to have a good laugh instead of a discussion .

I agree that he likes to pursue amusing theories, but are you not aware that he both taught and practiced criminal law?

Still, your well poisoning was expertly played.

 

[Unabogie]

Here's another part that doesn't make sense:




I thought Z had raised a ridiculous amount of money. Especially compared to what an average person has to defend themselves at an average murder trial...

What happened to all of it?

From what I understand they spent it all on some expensive security. O'Mara claims they are almost broke.

 

[This is The End]

Shellie Zimmerman

Why do I have the feeling that you are being tricked into having a 6 month old argument (that didn't even make sense then) in order to throw up a smoke screen and clog the thread from discussing Monday's news?

Anyone who claims Shellie didn't lie on the stand either A) doesn't know all the facts that are available B) is being dishonest and just arguing to distract, obstruct, and filibuster or C) is just not too bright.

Just don't respond to the nonsense.

Let's try to focus on the actual current event:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9015584&postcount=4866

 

[This is The End]

From what I understand they spent it all on some expensive security. O'Mara claims they are almost broke.

So O'Mara is claiming that he failed to appropriate the funds correctly and now:

"We don't have the finances to pay for experts to come [at all]," he told the Orlando Sentinel. "We certainly don't have the finances to have them come twice."

And he thinks he can use that to his advantage??!

 

[johnny karate]

You'll have to remind me where I used the word 'definitively' instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise you are just mis-characterzing my position.

If you don't think they have to definitively prove she believed herself to be lying, then explain how someone who had over $57,000 in her possession collected to assist in her husband's legal costs denying not having any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs does not meet the threshold of reasonable doubt in determining whether or not she was aware of her falsehood?

She had the money.

She knew what the money was for.

What more do you want?

Why do we need to keep going round and round ? I've already explained that there are multiple reasonable interpretations to that question that don't require her answer to be yes. That's why the state will have difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt she should have said yes.

She had over $57,000 in her possession collected for the purpose of assisting in her husband's legal costs.

I don't recall you offering a single reasonable explanation for how she could deny that fact without it being considered perjury.

Having a differing opinion on a legal matter from you is denying reality ? Really ?

No, denying a material falsehood for being a material falsehood is.

Even if you want to make the pathetic argument that maybe Shellie Zimmerman didn't believe herself to be lying, it is undeniable what she said was not true. She did have the financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs. It was sitting in her credit union acount. But apparently a wizard hypnotized her and she forgot.

No, it really is. It is about peoples beliefs. You think those are undeterminable without mind reading.

No, I don't. It's you who seems to think that.

Shellie Zimmerman had over $57,000 in her personal credit union account which had been collected for the purpose of assisting in her legal husband's costs. Then she claimed to not be of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs.

To me, that's a pretty clear case of willful lying.

But according to you, it's a complete mystery as to what Shellie Zimmerman really believed, so we can never truly know if she thought herself to be lying, or was just confused by all the bright lights and big words.

"You know how you can tell someone's lying in court?" Sims said after a brief hearing in Shellie Zimmerman's case Oct. 17.
"Their lips are moving."

But what would he know, he just deals with the courts for a living.

You'll notice he didn't say "You know how you can prove someone's lying in court?". That would take someone stupid enough to lie blatantly and about something that can easily be disproved. Kind of like I already said.

 

[Dancing David]

Here's another part that doesn't make sense:




I thought Z had raised a ridiculous amount of money. Especially compared to what an average person has to defend themselves at an average murder trial...

What happened to all of it?

Fast living, loose women and Lawyers!