Re: George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #2

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:04 am

O'Mara said that Zimmerman didn't finish paying the bondsman, and is still outstanding for 10,000...Not good Zimmerman, you are going to need him again....

Don't burn your bridges unless you can walk on water.........

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:05 am

ellejay wrote:
CherokeeNative wrote:
ellejay wrote:--friday june 1st/2012 hearing.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Video-Zimmerman-evidence-hearing/-/1637132/14436208/-/i315lcz/-/index.html
Video: Zimmerman evidence hearing 1:06:14

Thanks Ellejay - I've tucked it away into my Disney vault. LOL

--excellent 'Cher', i'm on a new computer (love it!) as of last night, so my personal vault is pretty empty right now, i know we can always rely on you for docs and more!

--i hadn't watched the friday hearing----omara was clearly shocked!! when bond was revoked.his explanation re: the $$$ issue begins at approx 54:30, it's evident that he thought ( as he stated in his 'correspondence to the Court' as he says ) that once judgeL looked at the totality of 'who georgeZ really is' ---cooperated w/ LE/did all that they asked of him, presented himself respectfully to the Court, wears his GPS, has had no bond violations....that judgeL would go along w/ his "it was an innocent misunderstanding".

--'KZ' definitely called his expression correctly, "sucking his lips down his throat", when he heard judgeL rule that bond was revoked and george was to turn himself in in 48 hours. it also looks like he was drained of a few shades of his florida tan..

True look of disgust.......

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:26 am

Big thanks to Ellenay for posting the video!
Wow- I am losing respect for MOM. I think he was a bit deceptive himself discussing the passport. The explanation appeared to be that he finally found the original passport while moving, because he omitted the implausible parts - he ALSO lost (and forgot about passport 2) turned in passport one THEN found passport 2. He skimmed over it all so quickly that you'd think only one passport had ever been lost. Interesting!

About the money he made it sound as if the Zimmermans continuing to cry poor and not using the fund to pay bail was a good thing. To me it appears they were keeping up the fiction that they were broke - knowing that when they disclosed it that they would likely -and suddenly have to be accountable for it. MOM appeared to deceive the court in sayin they only took 5K for the bond - what about the 50k for expenses?
They has access to it all and the passport and we're a flight risk. I think of he could have figured out a way around the monitor, he'd be gone. That might have been the factor that had him dumping a plan to ditch. Also MOM now implies he advised him to take money for living expenses- that's not how I recall him explaining it before. IIRC , he said that money was taken out already before he was given access to the funds. MOM is misleading the court saying the money was monitored and accounted for - because that was only AFTER a quarter of it was pocketed by the Zims.

There was also a ton of nonsense about GZs good behavior - in that he didn't run.
But the idea for the money and passport to be turned over didnt willingly come from GZ- he knew he had to. He even complimented GZs demeanour in the court- HA- that he was polite as he sat there while aware people were lying to the court to his benefit? Seriously MOM- next he'll go on about he nice suit he wore.
MOM is a good lawyer no doubt, but I'm embarrassed for him now.
And at this point I think GZ deserves what a schmuck in his circumstances normally gets- a mediocre public defender.

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:36 am

WeeBonnie wrote:Big thanks to Ellenay for posting the video!
Wow- I am losing respect for MOM. I think he was a bit deceptive himself discussing the passport. The explanation appeared to be that he finally found the original passport while moving, because he omitted the implausible parts - he ALSO lost (and forgot about passport 2) turned in passport one THEN found passport 2. He skimmed over it all so quickly that you'd think only one passport had ever been lost. Interesting!

About the money he made it sound as if the Zimmermans continuing to cry poor and not using the fund to pay bail was a good thing. To me it appears they were keeping up the fiction that they were broke - knowing that when they disclosed it that they would likely -and suddenly have to be accountable for it. MOM appeared to deceive the court in sayin they only took 5K for the bond - what about the 50k for expenses?
They has access to it all and the passport and we're a flight risk. I think of he could have figured out a way around the monitor, he'd be gone. That might have been the factor that had him dumping a plan to ditch. Also MOM now implies he advised him to take money for living expenses- that's not how I recall him explaining it before. IIRC , he said that money was taken out already before he was given access to the funds. MOM is misleading the court saying the money was monitored and accounted for - because that was only AFTER a quarter of it was pocketed by the Zims.

There was also a ton of nonsense about GZs good behavior - in that he didn't run.
But the idea for the money and passport to be turned over didnt willingly come from GZ- he knew he had to. He even complimented GZs demeanour in the court- HA- that he was polite as he sat there while aware people were lying to the court to his benefit? Seriously MOM- next he'll go on about he nice suit he wore.
MOM is a good lawyer no doubt, but I'm embarrassed for him now.
And at this point I think GZ deserves what a schmuck in his circumstances normally gets- a mediocre public defender.

I agree, but what else would we expect a defense attorney to say..They are very aware that their clients lie to them all the time and they try to twist it around to make it not look that bad.

Your right, it's awful odd that MOM says that Zimmerman found his lost passport when he moved and immediately turned it into him. Zimmerman moved out the very next day after finding out that Trayvon belonged in the complex. Zimmerman wasn't living there that long (don't know the exact time but it wasn't very long) he applied for a lost passport in 2004 supposedly, so what he is saying that in all that time he couldn't find his passport until this last move that he did in a hurry? Doesn't sound to good to me.

I believe that he was indeed contemplating a run if things didn't go his way.....

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:38 am

What a sleaze. Lying to get cheaper bond and then not even paying it when he had been GIVEN the money for it. Dude certainly feels entitled to screw over others.

I'm starting to think he wanted his Dad to put a lien on his home just so he could keep ALL the money. I thought it was really interesting MOM had to talk him out if that. Lots of seemingly nicer kids have screwed over their parents like that - believing the house is their inheritance anyway! Wouldn't shock me if GZ felt similarly "entitled".
I have an image of him stubbornly grasping at the dollars, telling himself he deserves it all because his idiot contributors think he's a hero.

Gizmo711 wrote:O'Mara said that Zimmerman didn't finish paying the bondsman, and is still outstanding for 10,000...Not good Zimmerman, you are going to need him again....

Don't burn your bridges unless you can walk on water.........

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:01 am

Gizmo- I rewatched MOM and it seemed he sped through to make it appear there was only one "finding" of a passport. So it sounded more plausible. Which might be why the judge pronounced it no big deal. But he had not yet listened to GZs transcripts of jail calls.

He already knew from Shelly's calls there was big deception- there was no reason to deep dive into the passport issue.

Also the passport was a very new issue before the court- I'm wondering if the judge might revisit it with GZ at the hearing. At least as another example of how he needs to listen up and start making sure his lawyer isn't "accidentally" lying for him.

Gizmo711 wrote:
WeeBonnie wrote:Big thanks to Ellenay for posting the video!
Wow- I am losing respect for MOM. I think he was a bit deceptive himself discussing the passport. The explanation appeared to be that he finally found the original passport while moving, because he omitted the implausible parts - he ALSO lost (and forgot about passport 2) turned in passport one THEN found passport 2. He skimmed over it all so quickly that you'd think only one passport had ever been lost. Interesting!

About the money he made it sound as if the Zimmermans continuing to cry poor and not using the fund to pay bail was a good thing. To me it appears they were keeping up the fiction that they were broke - knowing that when they disclosed it that they would likely -and suddenly have to be accountable for it. MOM appeared to deceive the court in sayin they only took 5K for the bond - what about the 50k for expenses?
They has access to it all and the passport and we're a flight risk. I think of he could have figured out a way around the monitor, he'd be gone. That might have been the factor that had him dumping a plan to ditch. Also MOM now implies he advised him to take money for living expenses- that's not how I recall him explaining it before. IIRC , he said that money was taken out already before he was given access to the funds. MOM is misleading the court saying the money was monitored and accounted for - because that was only AFTER a quarter of it was pocketed by the Zims.

There was also a ton of nonsense about GZs good behavior - in that he didn't run.
But the idea for the money and passport to be turned over didnt willingly come from GZ- he knew he had to. He even complimented GZs demeanour in the court- HA- that he was polite as he sat there while aware people were lying to the court to his benefit? Seriously MOM- next he'll go on about he nice suit he wore.
MOM is a good lawyer no doubt, but I'm embarrassed for him now.
And at this point I think GZ deserves what a schmuck in his circumstances normally gets- a mediocre public defender.

I agree, but what else would we expect a defense attorney to say..They are very aware that their clients lie to them all the time and they try to twist it around to make it not look that bad.

Your right, it's awful odd that MOM says that Zimmerman found his lost passport when he moved and immediately turned it into him. Zimmerman moved out the very next day after finding out that Trayvon belonged in the complex. Zimmerman wasn't living there that long (don't know the exact time but it wasn't very long) he applied for a lost passport in 2004 supposedly, so what he is saying that in all that time he couldn't find his passport until this last move that he did in a hurry? Doesn't sound to good to me.

I believe that he was indeed contemplating a run if things didn't go his way.....

by Alessandra_Deux Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:21 am

Zimmerman attorney takes blame for 2nd passport

http://newarkpress.info/zimmerman-attorney-takes-blame-for-2nd-passport/

by ellejay Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:24 am

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/23-george-zimmerman-returns-to-sanford-fl

George Zimmerman Returns to Sanford, FL on 03 June 2012.

George Zimmerman has returned to Central Florida, arriving late Saturday evening. On Friday, June 1, the court revoked Mr. Zimmerman's bond, ordering him to return to custody within 48 hours. The defense team has coordinated with the Sanford Police Department to ensure Mr. Zimmerman's security when he turns himself in before today's 2:30 PM deadline.

While out on bond, Mr. Zimmerman has been living in a secure, undisclosed location as there are significant threats against his life.

Mr. Zimmerman's lawyers will request a new bond hearing where they can address the court's concerns regarding the representation of funds available at the time of the original hearing on April 20. The defense team hopes that Mr. Zimmerman's voluntary surrender to Sanford police will help demonstrate to the court that he is not a flight risk. Furthermore, the vast majority of the funds in question are in an independently managed trust, and neither Mr. Zimmerman or his attorneys have direct access to the money.

On May 8, Mr. Zimmerman waived his right to a speedy trial to allow the defense team the time needed to prepare for trial. It is anticipated, though not certain, that the case will not be ready for trial until some time into 2013, and the next bond hearing will determine whether Mr. Zimmerman will wait those many months in jail or not.

by Chickenbutt Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:27 am

ellejay wrote:http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/23-george-zimmerman-returns-to-sanford-fl

George Zimmerman Returns to Sanford, FL on 03 June 2012.

George Zimmerman has returned to Central Florida, arriving late Saturday evening. On Friday, June 1, the court revoked Mr. Zimmerman's bond, ordering him to return to custody within 48 hours. The defense team has coordinated with the Sanford Police Department to ensure Mr. Zimmerman's security when he turns himself in before today's 2:30 PM deadline.

While out on bond, Mr. Zimmerman has been living in a secure, undisclosed location as there are significant threats against his life.

Mr. Zimmerman's lawyers will request a new bond hearing where they can address the court's concerns regarding the representation of funds available at the time of the original hearing on April 20. The defense team hopes that Mr. Zimmerman's voluntary surrender to Sanford police will help demonstrate to the court that he is not a flight risk. Furthermore, the vast majority of the funds in question are in an independently managed trust, and neither Mr. Zimmerman or his attorneys have direct access to the money.
On May 8, Mr. Zimmerman waived his right to a speedy trial to allow the defense team the time needed to prepare for trial. It is anticipated, though not certain, that the case will not be ready for trial until some time into 2013, and the next bond hearing will determine whether Mr. Zimmerman will wait those many months in jail or not.

BBM....If not GZ or his attorneys, then who?

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:39 am

Alessandra_Deux wrote:Zimmerman attorney takes blame for 2nd passport

http://newarkpress.info/zimmerman-attorney-takes-blame-for-2nd-passport/

He taking the blame for giving it back late- and distracting from the fact that GZ lied that it was the ONLY passport.

IMHO it was no "coincidence" it came with the check. After the fund debacle, MOM had to ask - what ELSE haven't you told me about or allowed me to misrepresent to the court?!?! He HAD to ask at that point. If he was giving up the money and wearing an ankle bracelet the passport would now be useless to him anyway.

by ellejay Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:41 am

Chickenbutt wrote:
ellejay wrote:http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/23-george-zimmerman-returns-to-sanford-fl

. Furthermore, the vast majority of the funds in question are in an independently managed trust, and neither Mr. Zimmerman or his attorneys have direct access to the money.

BBM....If not GZ or his attorneys, then who?

--omara explained the "defense fund" on their gzlegalcase site when he took over the $$$'s from george (and his lying wife.)

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php?start=8

Details Regarding the George Zimmerman Defense Fund

--snipped---

How Is the Money Managed?

The fund itself is managed by a third-party administrator -- a former IRS agent who practiced many years as a CPA and has extensive experience as Chapter 7 bankruptcy fund trustee. Neither George Zimmerman or Mr. Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara have direct access to the fund.

by Chickenbutt Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:49 am

I think that is semantics...."no direct access to the funds" but they can ask the CPA for money. Are there restrictions on what it can be used for? Who made those restrictions? These are rhetorical questions, I don't really expect an answer, but feel free if you have the answers.

by ellejay Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:59 am

http://twitter.com/#!/joseluisdieppa

Jose Luis Dieppa‏@JOSELUISDIEPPA
@Fox35Tiffany says they are getting word in the field that #GeorgeZimmerman will return to the Seminole Co. Jail around noon.

--i imagine we'll be getting another look at george in bullet proof vest , bondsman at his side..

--we also heard from omara @ the hearing that george has only given the bondsman $5000 of the $15,000 that he owes him-----if i were him, knowing now that "the word" of liar #1 and liar #2 is (highly questionable) worthless---i'd be demanding that outstanding $10,000 a.s.a.p.

by ellejay Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:04 am

Chickenbutt wrote:I think that is semantics...."no direct access to the funds" but they can ask the CPA for money. Are there restrictions on what it can be used for? Who made those restrictions? These are rhetorical questions, I don't really expect an answer, but feel free if you have the answers.

--according to omara--

"How Much Money Has Been Raised?

Regarding how much has been raised, during the first day of the fund going live there has been warm support. Donations have ranged from $1.00 to $500.00 with the average donation being about $20.00. The donations have come from all over the country. However, a long legal fight lies ahead, during which time Mr. Zimmerman cannot work as he has threats against his life. The donations made will be used for reasonable living expenses and his legal defense.

--he also said @ friday's hearing that they have used some of the $$$'s for (george's) security expenses, moving expenses, car expenses, internet expenses...

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:07 am

Chickenbutt wrote:
ellejay wrote:http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/23-george-zimmerman-returns-to-sanford-fl

George Zimmerman Returns to Sanford, FL on 03 June 2012.

George Zimmerman has returned to Central Florida, arriving late Saturday evening. On Friday, June 1, the court revoked Mr. Zimmerman's bond, ordering him to return to custody within 48 hours. The defense team has coordinated with the Sanford Police Department to ensure Mr. Zimmerman's security when he turns himself in before today's 2:30 PM deadline.

While out on bond, Mr. Zimmerman has been living in a secure, undisclosed location as there are significant threats against his life.

Mr. Zimmerman's lawyers will request a new bond hearing where they can address the court's concerns regarding the representation of funds available at the time of the original hearing on April 20. The defense team hopes that Mr. Zimmerman's voluntary surrender to Sanford police will help demonstrate to the court that he is not a flight risk. Furthermore, the vast majority of the funds in question are in an independently managed trust, and neither Mr. Zimmerman or his attorneys have direct access to the money.
On May 8, Mr. Zimmerman waived his right to a speedy trial to allow the defense team the time needed to prepare for trial. It is anticipated, though not certain, that the case will not be ready for trial until some time into 2013, and the next bond hearing will determine whether Mr. Zimmerman will wait those many months in jail or not.

BBM....If not GZ or his attorneys, then who?

Very good question..........

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:10 am

Well Zimmerman is back in Sanford...O'Mara claims he has been ther since last evening.

What I am wondering is if George will step up and tell the judge that his wife was not to blame for anything that he is the one who told her to lie. The least this creep can do is try and protect his wife....However, I doubt that it will turn out like that, Georgie doesn't seem to be the type to take any blame.

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:11 am

Chickenbutt wrote:I think that is semantics...."no direct access to the funds" but they can ask the CPA for money. Are there restrictions on what it can be used for? Who made those restrictions? These are rhetorical questions, I don't really expect an answer, but feel free if you have the answers.

hi CB

What would normally happen is GZ would work out an agreement on MOM's fees and GZ s allowable living expenses contingent on each of their circumstances and also the a amount of donations. It's likely GZ has agreed to a retainer and payment schedule and to have George limit and document his expenses in a way that donors would not be scandlized.

The third party is there to make sure they are both following the agreement by checking he receipts and approving all disbursements from the account.
MOM was making sure GZ didn't plan to beat the check like he did with the last lawyers. Or funnel it all to Shelly and claim indignant or some other scam.

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:11 am

He has until 2:30 to turn himself in, I guess he will wait till the last minute....like someone else said "he will most certainly be in a bullit proof vets" without a doubt....

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:19 am

WeeBonnie wrote:
Chickenbutt wrote:I think that is semantics...."no direct access to the funds" but they can ask the CPA for money. Are there restrictions on what it can be used for? Who made those restrictions? These are rhetorical questions, I don't really expect an answer, but feel free if you have the answers.
hi CB

What would normally happen is GZ would work out an agreement on MOM's fees and GZ s allowable living expenses contingent on each of their circumstances and also the a amount of donations. It's likely GZ has agreed to a retainer and payment schedule and to have George limit and document his expenses in a way that donors would not be scandlized.

The third party is there to make sure they are both following the agreement by checking he receipts and approving all disbursements from the account.
MOM was making sure GZ didn't plan to beat the check like he did with the last lawyers. Or funnel it all to Shelly and claim indignant or some other scam.

What has me baffled is that the money is to be used for Zimmermans defense. I would assume that did NOT mean bail money. Because if that money runs out and his lawyer has to ask for state funds to defend him, that would mean that the tax payers actually paid for his bail.....

I remember in the CA case that 250,000 would have put her out on bail at one point, but the money that she sold the pictures for was 200,000 and Baez kept all that and still had to ask for state funds. But CA stayed in jail.

I just cannot imagine a person being able to bond out on a very high bond and yet claim indigent when it comes to their defense......

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:19 am

Gizmo711 wrote:Well Zimmerman is back in Sanford...O'Mara claims he has been ther since last evening.

What I am wondering is if George will step up and tell the judge that his wife was not to blame for anything that he is the one who told her to lie. The least this creep can do is try and protect his wife....However, I doubt that it will turn out like that, Georgie doesn't seem to be the type to take any blame.

I read one lawyers opinion that they would leverage Shelly's prosecution to push for a plea. I think he'd rather ask his Dad for money to defend her!
But I think knowing this scam is likely admissible he might actually be frightened to go to trial. I think his bond hearing will be pivotal, if he is forced to sit in jail for the SYG hearing, Shelleys trial and likely a real trial for him-(all with his credibility issues) he might just cry uncle and plea. But no, I don't picture him as being gentleman enough to take the fall. Maybe he'll say someone else - Dad?- told him to do it!

by ellejay Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:19 am

--live cam @ the jail awaiting george's return..

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/cvplive/cvpstream3#/video/cvplive/cvpstream3
--cnn LIVE stream---seminole county jail--

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:27 am

Gizmo711 wrote:
WeeBonnie wrote:hi CB

What would normally happen is GZ would work out an agreement on MOM's fees and GZ s allowable living expenses contingent on each of their circumstances and also the a amount of donations. It's likely GZ has agreed to a retainer and payment schedule and to have George limit and document his expenses in a way that donors would not be scandlized.

The third party is there to make sure they are both following the agreement by checking he receipts and approving all disbursements from the account.
MOM was making sure GZ didn't plan to beat the check like he did with the last lawyers. Or funnel it all to Shelly and claim indignant or some other scam.

Chickenbutt wrote:I think that is semantics...."no direct access to the funds" but they can ask the CPA for money. Are there restrictions on what it can be used for? Who made those restrictions? These are rhetorical questions, I don't really expect an answer, but feel free if you have the answers.

What has me baffled is that the money is to be used for Zimmermans defense. I would assume that did NOT mean bail money. Because if that money runs out and his lawyer has to ask for state funds to defend him, that would mean that the tax payers actually paid for his bail.....

I remember in the CA case that 250,000 would have put her out on bail at one point, but the money that she sold the pictures for was 200,000 and Baez kept all that and still had to ask for state funds. But CA stayed in jail.

I just cannot imagine a person being able to bond out on a very high bond and yet claim indigent when it comes to their defense......

well GZ started the fund and did also say living expenses.
But he has to negotiate something fair with his lawyer- he lawyer would be an idiot to let GZ spend it freely and have to get paid the cut rate by the state.
So, I think it's negotiated by them and they will work out what appears to be equitable. If GZs bond is high and wants to claim super high living expenses (paying off more debt, like he did before? Higher security costs? ) will MOM even want him out on bond?
He WAS going to do it pro bono, but lately he could be having regrets.
I don't know who'd decide this, or of it becomes a conflict of interest for MOM.

by KZ Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:37 am

DebFrmHell wrote:

"What I would really like to see/hear are the entire jail house phone conversations rather than just the items listed that the SAO did to make their case on the Motion to Revoke. I am hoping that those come forth in the next DocDump or the one after."

I'd also like to hear more of the bond hearing again, because, iirc, didn't SZ offer to call Robert Zimmerman on the phone in court to talk about the PayPal fund? I don't have a link, but I'm pretty sure I remember that.

I do think they lied/ obfuscated, but I guess I'm surprised that they didn't contact RZ about the PayPal. I'm surprised the court just takes someone's word about something like that, that could so easily be checked out.

by Tamta Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:45 am

KZ wrote:DebFrmHell wrote:

"What I would really like to see/hear are the entire jail house phone conversations rather than just the items listed that the SAO did to make their case on the Motion to Revoke. I am hoping that those come forth in the next DocDump or the one after."

I'd also like to hear more of the bond hearing again, because, iirc, didn't SZ offer to call Robert Zimmerman on the phone in court to talk about the PayPal fund? I don't have a link, but I'm pretty sure I remember that.

I do think they lied/ obfuscated, but I guess I'm surprised that they didn't contact RZ about the PayPal. I'm surprised the court just takes someone's word about something like that, that could so easily be checked out.

I am actually surprised that it has gotten this far.

In regard to the questioning of their finances, I found Shellie's answers evasive, and specifically deceptive.
She frequently answered with: "Not that I am aware of."

To me that clearly warranted follow up questioning.
I am baffled that those answers were accepted.

I am sorry I can not post a link to the transcript of that.

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:47 am

KZ wrote:I do think they lied/ obfuscated, but I guess I'm surprised that they didn't contact RZ about the PayPal. I'm surprised the court just takes someone's word about something like that, that could so easily be checked out.

Because you have a responsibilty not to lie under oath and there are penalties. The judge was right to ask Shelley and she was pretty obviously hiding info. Why give them more chances at deception?
I'm sure the prosecution knew they were lying but it's better to come back with solid evidence and let the judge rule they lied. It was MOMs job to make sure they made full disclosure. He failed. The prosecution rightfully allowed them to dig their own grave even deeper. Now it can go to his credibility at trial. Much smarter than trying to wrestle the truth out of that clan!

by Hinky's Mimi Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:57 am

ellejay wrote:
http://twitter.com/#!/joseluisdieppa

Jose Luis Dieppa‏@JOSELUISDIEPPA
@Fox35Tiffany says they are getting word in the field that #GeorgeZimmerman will return to the Seminole Co. Jail around noon.

--i imagine we'll be getting another look at george in bullet proof vest , bondsman at his side..

--we also heard from omara @ the hearing that george has only given the bondsman $5000 of the $15,000 that he owes him-----if i were him, knowing now that "the word" of liar #1 and liar #2 is (highly questionable) worthless---i'd be demanding that outstanding $10,000 a.s.a.p.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
snipped from ellejay's other comment"

"The donations made will be used for reasonable living expenses and his legal defense."
and..."they have used some of the $$$'s for (george's) security expenses, moving expenses,
car expenses, internet expenses..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So many expenses. Used from a fund that is obviously available to George... and needed by George since being bonded out. Yet, how quickly he seems to overlook that debt; owed for getting out in the first place so he could start creating needs and expenses for the fund to financially relieve. His very FIRST expense and he seems to skirt that issue immediately. What an operator he is, imo.
Priorities... priorities... it's all so complicated!
If I WERE in his corner (and I'm not) I would think long and hard before contributing another penny to someone who can pick and choose how and when he'll spend that money while he seems to ignore his very first legal bill. His life is up-side-down? Aw gee. I wonder why.

by emberl Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:59 am

Gizmo711 wrote:
WeeBonnie wrote:hi CB

What would normally happen is GZ would work out an agreement on MOM's fees and GZ s allowable living expenses contingent on each of their circumstances and also the a amount of donations. It's likely GZ has agreed to a retainer and payment schedule and to have George limit and document his expenses in a way that donors would not be scandlized.

The third party is there to make sure they are both following the agreement by checking he receipts and approving all disbursements from the account.
MOM was making sure GZ didn't plan to beat the check like he did with the last lawyers. Or funnel it all to Shelly and claim indignant or some other scam.

Chickenbutt wrote:I think that is semantics...."no direct access to the funds" but they can ask the CPA for money. Are there restrictions on what it can be used for? Who made those restrictions? These are rhetorical questions, I don't really expect an answer, but feel free if you have the answers.

What has me baffled is that the money is to be used for Zimmermans defense. I would assume that did NOT mean bail money. Because if that money runs out and his lawyer has to ask for state funds to defend him, that would mean that the tax payers actually paid for his bail.....

I remember in the CA case that 250,000 would have put her out on bail at one point, but the money that she sold the pictures for was 200,000 and Baez kept all that and still had to ask for state funds. But CA stayed in jail.

I just cannot imagine a person being able to bond out on a very high bond and yet claim indigent when it comes to their defense......

CA was out on bond when Padilla came up with the 50.000

She was then indited by the grand jury, was re-arrested and the judge gave her NO bond, that's why she stayed in jail.

by KZ Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:59 am

WeeBonnie, I agree that people have a responsibility to tell the truth under oath. However, "Trust, but Verify" should be a leading principle.

Why would the prosecution let that go for over a month? You would think they wanted GZ kept in jail. It didn't take a month to dig up the recorded phone calls.

Now, maybe it was just convenient to wait for a scheduled hearing, then bring that up. But I have to notice that the way BDL chose to push the point was to intentionally ambush MOM with a last minute filing. Yes, that is strategy, and sometimes it's dirty. I just think that the whole "waiting a month" to bring the PayPal obfuscation to the court's attention bothers me. BDL could have done that with an emergency filing before he was let out on bail. Just sayin'.

by Hinky's Mimi Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:08 pm

WeeBonnie wrote:
KZ wrote:

I do think they lied/ obfuscated, but I guess I'm surprised that they didn't contact RZ about the PayPal. I'm surprised the court just takes someone's word about something like that, that could so easily be checked out.

Because you have a responsibilty not to lie under oath and there are penalties. The judge was right to ask Shelley and she was pretty obviously hiding info. Why give them more chances at deception?
I'm sure the prosecution knew they were lying but it's better to come back with solid evidence and let the judge rule they lied. It was MOMs job to make sure they made full disclosure. He failed. The prosecution rightfully allowed them to dig their own grave even deeper. Now it can go to his credibility at trial. Much smarter than trying to wrestle the truth out of that clan!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ITA. The prosecution's job, in this case, imo, was to give the Zimmerman's enough rope to hang themselves. There was just a little time lag due to the prosecution having to collect all the information to present to the court the proof of the lies told previously. I'm guessing the prosecution enjoyed the bond hearing... kind of like anticipating the taste of a good meal before it's actually served.
edited: KZ... agree again. Having bond revoked at this time is much more dramatic and media catching than having original bond denied. Certainly seems showmanship is part of the deal here. But, I don't know what goes on behind the scenes and maybe they couldn't do it sooner for some legal reason. As you probably remember... I basically just speculate a lot. Sometimes I'm right and often I'm wrong... but I have to do it!

by ellejay Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:12 pm

KZ wrote:

I'd also like to hear more of the bond hearing again, because, iirc, didn't SZ offer to call Robert Zimmerman on the phone in court to talk about the PayPal fund? I don't have a link, but I'm pretty sure I remember that.

I do think they lied/ obfuscated, but I guess I'm surprised that they didn't contact RZ about the PayPal. I'm surprised the court just takes someone's word about something like that, that could so easily be checked out.

--this is the portion of the april 20th bond hearing when shellie testifies. they discuss $$$'s beginning at approx. 6:45.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7Rcanus4Oo
George Zimmerman's Bond Hearing: Wife Testifies.

by Requiem Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:20 pm

This is my first comment here, but I have been reading here for years.
I have been thinking about the passport issue for two days now. Question: What are the odds that someone would misplace two passports? First of all, most people don't lose a passport to begin with. If it does happen, the paperwork /process associated with obtaining a replacement advises the individual that the old passport is invalid and cannot be used for international travel. You are also required to turn over the old passport to the State Department if it is located. That is also in the paperwork. Since the lost passport is the one GZ turned in, he knew it was invalid. When MOM was provided the new passport, it should have been turned immediately over to the court, not tucked away in a file folder. MOM was given the valid passport following the $$$ fiasco. He knew good and well that GZ's latest attempt at deception would not bode well for his client. IMO, he was hoping the passport issue would go unnoticed, and that with GZ monitored and following all court orders regarding his release, they were in a "no harm no foul" situation. He had the passport, and there was no way it could be used at that point since a no travel hold had been placed on GZ. Problem is, the bait and switch was discovered. Now he is faced with yet another misrepresentation visited upon the court by his client. I hope the judge takes time to look further into the passport issue.

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:25 pm

KZ wrote:WeeBonnie, I agree that people have a responsibility to tell the truth under oath. However, "Trust, but Verify" should be a leading principle.

Why would the prosecution let that go for over a month? You would think they wanted GZ kept in jail. It didn't take a month to dig up the recorded phone calls.

Now, maybe it was just convenient to wait for a scheduled hearing, then bring that up. But I have to notice that the way BDL chose to push the point was to intentionally ambush MOM with a last minute filing. Yes, that is strategy, and sometimes it's dirty. I just think that the whole "waiting a month" to bring the PayPal obfuscation to the court's attention bothers me. BDL could have done that with an emergency filing before he was let out on bail. Just sayin'.

I know what you mean. But I think they pored over everything they could to beef it up present evidence they didnt have in hand and revoke (not just raise) the bail. There maybe other seeming deceptions out there they couldn't prove as well- the passport issue is a bit shakey.
I don't blame them one bit giving them all the rope they needed hang themselves.
Now they have seriously damaged his credibility and can prosecute Shelly too. A huge gain for them.
90% of the case will hinge on GZs word and they just managed to destroy his credibility. Much more fruitful than follow up questions or giving a delay to allow the brother to appear at the hearing. They were supposed to be prepared to disclose assets. The family was just going to jerk them around some more.
MOM has his work cut out for him.

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:28 pm

WeeBonnie wrote:
KZ wrote:I do think they lied/ obfuscated, but I guess I'm surprised that they didn't contact RZ about the PayPal. I'm surprised the court just takes someone's word about something like that, that could so easily be checked out.

Because you have a responsibilty not to lie under oath and there are penalties. The judge was right to ask Shelley and she was pretty obviously hiding info. Why give them more chances at deception?
I'm sure the prosecution knew they were lying but it's better to come back with solid evidence and let the judge rule they lied. It was MOMs job to make sure they made full disclosure. He failed. The prosecution rightfully allowed them to dig their own grave even deeper. Now it can go to his credibility at trial. Much smarter than trying to wrestle the truth out of that clan!

I believe that is exactly what took place. Everyone was able to see right thru Shellie's answers and was able to see the evasiveness. So I believe you are correct, they came back with the proof they needed to make her and hubby the liars that they are. This will also secure that there will be no dismissal in the making.....Zimmerman dug his own grave.

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:32 pm

emberl wrote:
Gizmo711 wrote:
WeeBonnie wrote:hi CB

What would normally happen is GZ would work out an agreement on MOM's fees and GZ s allowable living expenses contingent on each of their circumstances and also the a amount of donations. It's likely GZ has agreed to a retainer and payment schedule and to have George limit and document his expenses in a way that donors would not be scandlized.

The third party is there to make sure they are both following the agreement by checking he receipts and approving all disbursements from the account.
MOM was making sure GZ didn't plan to beat the check like he did with the last lawyers. Or funnel it all to Shelly and claim indignant or some other scam.

Chickenbutt wrote:I think that is semantics...."no direct access to the funds" but they can ask the CPA for money. Are there restrictions on what it can be used for? Who made those restrictions? These are rhetorical questions, I don't really expect an answer, but feel free if you have the answers.

What has me baffled is that the money is to be used for Zimmermans defense. I would assume that did NOT mean bail money. Because if that money runs out and his lawyer has to ask for state funds to defend him, that would mean that the tax payers actually paid for his bail.....

I remember in the CA case that 250,000 would have put her out on bail at one point, but the money that she sold the pictures for was 200,000 and Baez kept all that and still had to ask for state funds. But CA stayed in jail.

I just cannot imagine a person being able to bond out on a very high bond and yet claim indigent when it comes to their defense......

CA was out on bond when Padilla came up with the 50.000

She was then indited by the grand jury, was re-arrested and the judge gave her NO bond, that's why she stayed in jail.

At one point she stated to her mother on the jail house recording that the 250,000 that Cindy had collected would be enough to get her out. This was prior to her being indicted on murder one...with murder ne there is no bond... LP bonded her out with 50,000 up front "supposedly".. But that's a different topic.

I was trying to see if in fact Zimmerman could use that funding to bail out of jail and then turn around and expect the state to pay for his defense...that would make it that the tax payers would actually be paying his bond in a round about way...

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:37 pm

Requiem wrote:This is my first comment here, but I have been reading here for years.
I have been thinking about the passport issue for two days now. Question: What are the odds that someone would misplace two passports? First of all, most people don't lose a passport to begin with. If it does happen, the paperwork /process associated with obtaining a replacement advises the individual that the old passport is invalid and cannot be used for international travel. You are also required to turn over the old passport to the State Department if it is located. That is also in the paperwork. Since the lost passport is the one GZ turned in, he knew it was invalid. When MOM was provided the new passport, it should have been turned immediately over to the court, not tucked away in a file folder. MOM was given the valid passport following the $$$ fiasco. He knew good and well that GZ's latest attempt at deception would not bode well for his client. IMO, he was hoping the passport issue would go unnoticed, and that with GZ monitored and following all court orders regarding his release, they were in a "no harm no foul" situation. He had the passport, and there was no way it could be used at that point since a no travel hold had been placed on GZ. Problem is, the bait and switch was discovered. Now he is faced with yet another misrepresentation visited upon the court by his client. I hope the judge takes time to look further into the passport issue.

I agree completely...I don't buy any of what MOM stated in court on Friday. But he had to say something...It's all very fishy that he would lose the valid passport and turn in the invalid one and that MOM didn't submit the valid one until asked for it.

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:38 pm

KZ wrote:WeeBonnie, I agree that people have a responsibility to tell the truth under oath. However, "Trust, but Verify" should be a leading principle.

Why would the prosecution let that go for over a month? You would think they wanted GZ kept in jail. It didn't take a month to dig up the recorded phone calls.

Now, maybe it was just convenient to wait for a scheduled hearing, then bring that up. But I have to notice that the way BDL chose to push the point was to intentionally ambush MOM with a last minute filing. Yes, that is strategy, and sometimes it's dirty. I just think that the whole "waiting a month" to bring the PayPal obfuscation to the court's attention bothers me. BDL could have done that with an emergency filing before he was let out on bail. Just sayin'.

I know what you mean. But I think they pored over everything they could to beef it up present evidence they didnt have in hand and revoke (not just raise) the bail. There maybe other seeming deceptions out there they couldn't prove as well- the passport issue is a bit shakey.
I don't blame them one bit giving them all the rope they needed hang themselves.
Now they have seriously damaged his credibility and can prosecute Shelly too. A huge gain for them.
90% of the case will hinge on GZs word and they just managed to destroy his credibility. Much more fruitful than follow up questions or giving a delay to allow the brother to appear at the hearing. They were supposed to be prepared to disclose assets. The family was just going to jerk them around some more.
MOM has his work cut out for him.

by Gizmo711 Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:39 pm

I think it was a brilliant move on the prosecutions side to demonstarte just how deceptive Zimmerman can be, as well as Shellie.

Zimmermans credibility went out the window with this deception, and it will damage his claim of self defense, seeing as he is the only one left to speak about that...

by alabama52 Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:44 pm

Gizmo711 wrote:
WeeBonnie wrote:
KZ wrote:I do think they lied/ obfuscated, but I guess I'm surprised that they didn't contact RZ about the PayPal. I'm surprised the court just takes someone's word about something like that, that could so easily be checked out.

Because you have a responsibilty not to lie under oath and there are penalties. The judge was right to ask Shelley and she was pretty obviously hiding info. Why give them more chances at deception?
I'm sure the prosecution knew they were lying but it's better to come back with solid evidence and let the judge rule they lied. It was MOMs job to make sure they made full disclosure. He failed. The prosecution rightfully allowed them to dig their own grave even deeper. Now it can go to his credibility at trial. Much smarter than trying to wrestle the truth out of that clan!

I believe that is exactly what took place. Everyone was able to see right thru Shellie's answers and was able to see the evasiveness. So I believe you are correct, they came back with the proof they needed to make her and hubby the liars that they are. This will also secure that there will be no dismissal in the making.....Zimmerman dug his own grave.

Exactly! Good grief, anyone that had followed the news, up until the day of the bond hearing, knew of George's (the real) website & that he, and he alone, was collecting money from donations........and that would include his attorney, MOM! Heck, even George's previous attorneys announced on national tv that George was collecting his own dollars!

by Tamta Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:45 pm

KZ wrote:WeeBonnie, I agree that people have a responsibility to tell the truth under oath. However, "Trust, but Verify" should be a leading principle.

Why would the prosecution let that go for over a month? You would think they wanted GZ kept in jail. It didn't take a month to dig up the recorded phone calls.

Now, maybe it was just convenient to wait for a scheduled hearing, then bring that up. But I have to notice that the way BDL chose to push the point was to intentionally ambush MOM with a last minute filing. Yes, that is strategy, and sometimes it's dirty. I just think that the whole "waiting a month" to bring the PayPal obfuscation to the court's attention bothers me. BDL could have done that with an emergency filing before he was let out on bail. Just sayin'.

BBM

I have to agree with this.

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:56 pm

Tamta wrote:
KZ wrote:WeeBonnie, I agree that people have a responsibility to tell the truth under oath. However, "Trust, but Verify" should be a leading principle.

Why would the prosecution let that go for over a month? You would think they wanted GZ kept in jail. It didn't take a month to dig up the recorded phone calls.

Now, maybe it was just convenient to wait for a scheduled hearing, then bring that up. But I have to notice that the way BDL chose to push the point was to intentionally ambush MOM with a last minute filing. Yes, that is strategy, and sometimes it's dirty. I just think that the whole "waiting a month" to bring the PayPal obfuscation to the court's attention bothers me. BDL could have done that with an emergency filing before he was let out on bail. Just sayin'.
BBM

I have to agree with this.

How is ANY strategy dirty when you are proving they LIED To the court?
The filth comes from the lies. Having great timing and evidence in hand is merely
good strategy.
I'd never go up against a known liar without proof if I could help it because.... They'll just lie some more. You get no where being Mr Nice Guy around liars. You get screwed!

by alabama52 Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:57 pm

Gizmo711 wrote:
Requiem wrote:This is my first comment here, but I have been reading here for years.
I have been thinking about the passport issue for two days now. Question: What are the odds that someone would misplace two passports? First of all, most people don't lose a passport to begin with. If it does happen, the paperwork /process associated with obtaining a replacement advises the individual that the old passport is invalid and cannot be used for international travel. You are also required to turn over the old passport to the State Department if it is located. That is also in the paperwork. Since the lost passport is the one GZ turned in, he knew it was invalid. When MOM was provided the new passport, it should have been turned immediately over to the court, not tucked away in a file folder. MOM was given the valid passport following the $$$ fiasco. He knew good and well that GZ's latest attempt at deception would not bode well for his client. IMO, he was hoping the passport issue would go unnoticed, and that with GZ monitored and following all court orders regarding his release, they were in a "no harm no foul" situation. He had the passport, and there was no way it could be used at that point since a no travel hold had been placed on GZ. Problem is, the bait and switch was discovered. Now he is faced with yet another misrepresentation visited upon the court by his client. I hope the judge takes time to look further into the passport issue.

I agree completely...I don't buy any of what MOM stated in court on Friday. But he had to say something...It's all very fishy that he would lose the valid passport and turn in the invalid one and that MOM didn't submit the valid one until asked for it.

I agree, also. Good Grief, George ask Shellie to hold on to that second passport so the judge should look further into it. George only gave it up to MOM because MOM possibly put the squeeze on him, imo.

Okay, I'm going to grab my second cup of coffee & sit back & watch Georgie's 'perp' walk.

by ellejay Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:03 pm

KZ wrote:WeeBonnie, I agree that people have a responsibility to tell the truth under oath. However, "Trust, but Verify" should be a leading principle.

Why would the prosecution let that go for over a month? You would think they wanted GZ kept in jail. It didn't take a month to dig up the recorded phone calls.

Now, maybe it was just convenient to wait for a scheduled hearing, then bring that up. But I have to notice that the way BDL chose to push the point was to intentionally ambush MOM with a last minute filing. Yes, that is strategy, and sometimes it's dirty. I just think that the whole "waiting a month" to bring the PayPal obfuscation to the court's attention bothers me. BDL could have done that with an emergency filing before he was let out on bail. Just sayin'.

--i don't agree that de la rionda "waited a month" to bring up the what he did at the june 1st hearing.

--at the bond hearing, april 20th, he didn't know about the $$$'s in the paypal acct. or the phone calls where george/shellie talked about it in jail calls.

--it was at the media hearing, april 27th, that omara disclosed the $$$$'s (that he had found out after the bond hearing and had taken control of )--the judge wanted him to provide documentation to himself and the state w/ details of the acct. who knew what and when etc....before he would make a decision regarding the newly disclosed $$$'s.

--on may 18th omara sent the judge and the state the account particulars, including the fact that george had access to $135,000 before the bond hearing--it was then that the state got shellie & george's credit union stmts for the month of april and (then? probably) began listening to all of the jail calls, uncovering the ones (april 12,15,17 and 19) cited in their motion to revoke bond where george and shellie talk $$$'s.

--i can't see that it would be an "ambush" that the state then filed their motion (2 weeks later) based on the new info, omara would have known that sending in the acct. docs wouldn't have been the end of it--it did appear at the june 1st hearing that he never dreamed it would actually result in the judge revoking bond (after giving his lengthy explanation of it all being the "innocent misunderstanding" of a 28 year old dealing w/ a murder charge....and reminding the judge of what a great guy george really is...)

--the state couldn't have filed an emergency motion before he was let out on bail (3 days after the bond hearing) b/c they didn't have any of the info yet.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95589216/Prosecutors-motion-to-revoke-George-Zimmerman-s-bond
--state motion to revoke bond--

by serenaz1 Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:11 pm

Just switched to CNN's live feed & noticed the press running towards the front of the building.

They're pressed up against the glass, so maybe he's turned himself in now.

by CherokeeNative Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:16 pm

ellejay wrote:
KZ wrote:WeeBonnie, I agree that people have a responsibility to tell the truth under oath. However, "Trust, but Verify" should be a leading principle.

Why would the prosecution let that go for over a month? You would think they wanted GZ kept in jail. It didn't take a month to dig up the recorded phone calls.

Now, maybe it was just convenient to wait for a scheduled hearing, then bring that up. But I have to notice that the way BDL chose to push the point was to intentionally ambush MOM with a last minute filing. Yes, that is strategy, and sometimes it's dirty. I just think that the whole "waiting a month" to bring the PayPal obfuscation to the court's attention bothers me. BDL could have done that with an emergency filing before he was let out on bail. Just sayin'.

--i don't agree that de la rionda "waited a month" to bring up the what he did at the june 1st hearing.

--at the bond hearing, april 20th, he didn't know about the $$$'s in the paypal acct. or the phone calls where george/shellie talked about it in jail calls.

--it was at the media hearing, april 27th, that omara disclosed the $$$$'s (that he had found out after the bond hearing and had taken control of )--the judge wanted him to provide documentation to himself and the state w/ details of the acct. who knew what and when etc....before he would make a decision regarding the newly disclosed $$$'s.

--on may 18th omara sent the judge and the state the account particulars, including the fact that george had access to $135,000 before the bond hearing--it was then that the state got shellie & george's credit union stmts for the month of april and (then? probably) began listening to all of the jail calls, uncovering the ones (april 12,15,17 and 19) cited in their motion to revoke bond where george and shellie talk $$$'s.

--i can't see that it would be an "ambush" that the state then filed their motion (2 weeks later) based on the new info, omara would have known that sending in the acct. docs wouldn't have been the end of it--it did appear at the june 1st hearing that he never dreamed it would actually result in the judge revoking bond (after giving his lengthy explanation of it all being the "innocent misunderstanding" of a 28 year old dealing w/ a murder charge....and reminding the judge of what a great guy george really is...)

--the state couldn't have filed an emergency motion before he was let out on bail (3 days after the bond hearing) b/c they didn't have any of the info yet.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/95589216/Prosecutors-motion-to-revoke-George-Zimmerman-s-bond
--state motion to revoke bond--

ITA and Thank you Ellejay... I was just getting ready to post a reply to these comments. I don't understand how anyone could think the State delayed addressing these issues. This was the 2nd motion - the 1st being taken under submission by the court until MOM presented the accounting and evidence that he indicated he would provide the court. Once that was done, the State resubmitted its motion and provided the supporting documentation showing GZ's and Shellie's falsehoods.

by ellejay Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:21 pm

serenaz1 wrote:Just switched to CNN's live feed & noticed the press running towards the front of the building.

They're pressed up against the glass, so maybe he's turned himself in now.

--fox tweeted approx 20 minutes ago that he would be arriving at approx 1:30 EST (10 minutes from now..)

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/cvplive/cvpstream3#/video/cvplive/cvpstream3
--cnn live stream at the jail--

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Attorney-George-Zimmerman-back-in-Sanford/-/1637132/14442846/-/e4bomqz/-/index.html
--clickorlando live stream at the jail--

by WeeBonnie Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:22 pm

Cher and Ellejay you're right.
It was suggested however that the prosecution shld have probed more immediately, speak with the brother or ask better follow up questions AT the bond hearing.
I don't think we could reasonably expect them to have effectively proven the lies at that point. I don't think it's their job to interrupt these people while they are in the midst of perjury. A little evidence gathering means everything when the BS is flying.

by serenaz1 Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:23 pm

ellejay wrote:
serenaz1 wrote:Just switched to CNN's live feed & noticed the press running towards the front of the building.

They're pressed up against the glass, so maybe he's turned himself in now.

--fox tweeted approx 20 minutes ago that he would be arriving at approx 1:30 EST (10 minutes from now..)

Ahh, ok, thanks Ellejay! :)

by DebFrmHell Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:27 pm

Chickenbutt wrote:
ellejay wrote:http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/23-george-zimmerman-returns-to-sanford-fl

George Zimmerman Returns to Sanford, FL on 03 June 2012.

George Zimmerman has returned to Central Florida, arriving late Saturday evening. On Friday, June 1, the court revoked Mr. Zimmerman's bond, ordering him to return to custody within 48 hours. The defense team has coordinated with the Sanford Police Department to ensure Mr. Zimmerman's security when he turns himself in before today's 2:30 PM deadline.

While out on bond, Mr. Zimmerman has been living in a secure, undisclosed location as there are significant threats against his life.

Mr. Zimmerman's lawyers will request a new bond hearing where they can address the court's concerns regarding the representation of funds available at the time of the original hearing on April 20. The defense team hopes that Mr. Zimmerman's voluntary surrender to Sanford police will help demonstrate to the court that he is not a flight risk. Furthermore, the vast majority of the funds in question are in an independently managed trust, and neither Mr. Zimmerman or his attorneys have direct access to the money.
On May 8, Mr. Zimmerman waived his right to a speedy trial to allow the defense team the time needed to prepare for trial. It is anticipated, though not certain, that the case will not be ready for trial until some time into 2013, and the next bond hearing will determine whether Mr. Zimmerman will wait those many months in jail or not.

BBM....If not GZ or his attorneys, then who?

The CPA has control over that fund now. He was put in place a day or two after the GZLegal site was up and running.

by Chickenbutt Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:31 pm

Deb I agree the CPA has control. But does he decide what to spend it on? Or does MOM ad GZ ask for, and receive whatever they ask for? Who set up the rules? MOM and GZ? See what I'm saying? They may not have physical control, but still have spending control.

by serenaz1 Sun Jun 03, 2012 1:39 pm

O'Mara just tweeted George is in custody.

by Sponsored content