George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #2

Okay... Testing- I have enabled bcc ?
And up on top again.
How am I looking now?

Justice4all wrote:I already tested that theory. I'm truly baffled.

WeeBonnie - the last two posts have come through perfect. I don't know what you are doing differently, but it worked before you changed your profile.

WeeBonnie wrote:Okay... Testing- I have enabled bcc ?
And up on top again.
How am I looking now?

Justice4all wrote:I already tested that theory. I'm truly baffled.

Just georgeous!

Tamta wrote:Court Schedule

http://www.flcourts18.org/dockets/Alva/Master-jan-jun.pdf

I do not see anything for 6/29.

I read elsewhere that The Judge has set the date. Truly goofy! I guess we will find out soon enough.

LOL!

Oh lawd. Now Channel 6 has updated their web site to say that O'Mara has scheduled a "tentative" hearing date on the 29th. Legal beagles help me out please because if that is true, the next time I get a traffic ticket, I will call and ask for my "tentative: court date depending on how I feel that day.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Mark-O-Mara-George-Zimmerman-bond-hearing-scheduled/-/1637132/14678950/-/q4mpan/-/index.html

Seriously what the heck is a tentative hearing date. Will it be on the Judge's calendar or not?

Well that fits in with MOM saying he didn't know if it would be smart to have GZ testify.
I can believe those two having a difference of opinion because GZ doesn't have a lick of sense!

I'm guessing if GZ wants to appear or refuses to- that there's nothing MOM can do?

Porky wrote:Oh lawd. Now Channel 6 has updated their web site to say that O'Mara has scheduled a "tentative" hearing date on the 29th. Legal beagles help me out please because if that is true, the next time I get a traffic ticket, I will call and ask for my "tentative: court date depending on how I feel that day.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Mark-O-Mara-George-Zimmerman-bond-hearing-scheduled/-/1637132/14678950/-/q4mpan/-/index.html

Ha ha - thanks Deb!
It Is the bb code- And another whodunnit solved by the Chatterers!

DebFrmHell wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:Okay... Testing- I have enabled bcc ?
And up on top again.
How am I looking now?

Justice4all wrote:I already tested that theory. I'm truly baffled.

:suspect:
Just georgeous!

:D

Porky wrote:Seriously what the heck is a tentative hearing date. Will it be on the Judge's calendar or not?

Maybe they will pscych test him? Working on a plea?
Am I really off base here with the plea talk? I haven't noticed anyone here talking about the possibility.

I think that it is too early for both sides to be thinking plea. I get the feeling that Corey thinks that she can nail him anyway.

Porky wrote:Oh lawd. Now Channel 6 has updated their web site to say that O'Mara has scheduled a "tentative" hearing date on the 29th. Legal beagles help me out please because if that is true, the next time I get a traffic ticket, I will call and ask for my "tentative: court date depending on how I feel that day.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Mark-O-Mara-George-Zimmerman-bond-hearing-scheduled/-/1637132/14678950/-/q4mpan/-/index.html

It may be postponed or re-scheduled as not motion has been filed yet?

O'Mara had originally planned to file a motion for Zimmerman's second hearing on Monday, but delayed it in Judge Kenneth Lester's absence this week and also cited other scheduling conflicts.

Snipped

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Mark-O-Mara-George-Zimmerman-bond-hearing-scheduled/-/1637132/14678950/-/q4mpan/-/index.html

Is the new bond hearing June 29th? I heard Zimmerman's lawyer said that.

That doesn't make sense. Wouldn't he just file the motion and the court would just set it for a hearing?

My post was to Tamta. Sorry

Porky wrote:My post was to Tamta. Sorry

I really do not know.

If you look on the court schedule that I posted, there is nothing usually scheduled for Fridays.

I am not sure if the 'tentative' may have to do simply with a logistical reason related to the fact that Court is not in session.

Gizmo711 wrote: snipped: "Because whatever Trayvon did, if he attacked Zimmerman, if he beat Zimmerman up, if he tried to get the gun from Zimmerman, wont make a bit of difference because Trayvon was defending himself against an attacker. He had the right to use every means possible to defend himself, so if he did (which hasn't been proven) try to get the gun from Zimmerman, it was in hope of saving his own life, if he beat up Zimmerman, again it was in hope of saving his own life, if he thru the first punch, again it was in hope of saving his own life."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It sure doesn't look like Trayvon got ahold of that gun.
From discovery:

DNA done on holster, grip, trigger and slide...

Gun slide:
Limited DNA... can't determine if George or Trayvon are contributors

Gun holter:
At least 3 contributors... major contributor is George and others can't be determined so can't determine if Trayvon is a contributor.

Gun grib:
At least 2 contributors but ruled out Trayvon as being a contributor

Gun trigger:
Limited DNA... not interpretable.

Bob Kealing tweeted this earlier today:

bob kealing @bobkealing
8h
Just in: #GeorgeZimmerman attorney confirms June 29 bond hearing. Client will spend at least three more weeks in jail.

Hinky's Mimi wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote: snipped: "Because whatever Trayvon did, if he attacked Zimmerman, if he beat Zimmerman up, if he tried to get the gun from Zimmerman, wont make a bit of difference because Trayvon was defending himself against an attacker. He had the right to use every means possible to defend himself, so if he did (which hasn't been proven) try to get the gun from Zimmerman, it was in hope of saving his own life, if he beat up Zimmerman, again it was in hope of saving his own life, if he thru the first punch, again it was in hope of saving his own life."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It sure doesn't look like Trayvon got ahold of that gun.
From discovery:

DNA done on holster, grip, trigger and slide...

Gun slide:
Limited DNA... can't determine if George or Trayvon are contributors

Gun holter:
At least 3 contributors... major contributor is George and others can't be determined so can't determine if Trayvon is a contributor.

Gun grib:
At least 2 contributors but ruled out Trayvon as being a contributor

Gun trigger:
Limited DNA... not interpretable.

Good morning,

I was just hypothetically speaking. I don't for a minute believe that Trayvon went for the gun. What I was trying to say was that even had Trayvon did all these things, it would have been considered self defense. Zimmerman was the one that orchastrated the entire event. What did Zimmerman expect someone to do when confronted in that manner? The person is going to fight with all they have and understandably so. Trayvon is the one that was defending himself not Zimmerman. I'm sure O'Mara realized all this and this is the reason that he may not go the SYG law, because Zimmerman wont survive it.

I just heard on ABC that it will be announced sometime today regarding the June 29th hearing. O'Mara put in for availability.

This was probably instructed by Zimmerman.

July and August are the two months that many people go on vacation, including Judges. So it could be that Zimmerman is trying to squeez in before that happens. I truly doubt that O'Mara would want a hearing this soon, it just doesn't seem long enough for him to regroup on a defense for the lying. But that's JMO.

Porky wrote:I do not think that there will be riots on a not guilty verdict. This issue is pretty mainstream really. I was at the Sanford rally and they really are stressing no violence.

I do think that people will have it in for Zimmerman though.

I do believe the fear is being over reacted. It's probably to get sympathy from the donors. Cindy and George, two hated people during their daughters trial, still remained in the same home, they never left. There is absolutely no reason for any of Zimmermans family to relocate, or hide, it's all in their mind. They just want the synpathy...

However, Georgie is another thing, I don't think he would be safe out in the public anytime at all, just like CA. Someone will always be out to get him. And Zimmermans parinoia is getting the best of him, he wont even eat the food in jail in fear that someone will put something in it.

Gizmo711 wrote:

Porky wrote:I do not think that there will be riots on a not guilty verdict. This issue is pretty mainstream really. I was at the Sanford rally and they really are stressing no violence.

I do think that people will have it in for Zimmerman though.

I do believe the fear is being over reacted. It's probably to get sympathy from the donors. Cindy and George, two hated people during their daughters trial, still remained in the same home, they never left. There is absolutely no reason for any of Zimmermans family to relocate, or hide, it's all in their mind. They just want the synpathy...

However, Georgie is another thing, I don't think he would be safe out in the public anytime at all, just like CA. Someone will always be out to get him. And Zimmermans parinoia is getting the best of him, he wont even eat the food in jail in fear that someone will put something in it.

I agree that it is just for sympathy. Didn't Shellie speak of threats during the bond hearing but had to admit, when asked by the prosecutor, that none of the threats had been reported to police? Who wouldn't report a threat?

Ok then. MOM's office is definately leaking to Fox!
They were the first with this info.
They knew the hour of his surrender before anyone. And some other small scoop I can't remember.

Look to Fox to carry water for team Zimmerman.

BB code and smilies enabled-- Thanks everyone!

serenaz1 wrote:Bob Kealing tweeted this earlier today:

bob kealing @bobkealing
8h
Just in: #GeorgeZimmerman attorney confirms June 29 bond hearing. Client will spend at least three more weeks in jail.

I must be blind!! was there a document dump for this case and if there was is there a link? Thank you in advance.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-06-07/story/angela-corey-takes-well-known-legal-commentator-harvard-professor-alan#ixzz1x6cAsrdv
Angela Corey takes on well-known legal commentator, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz

Alan Dershowitz says the state attorney called the law school dean to complain

According to Harvard University law professor and famed legal commentator Alan Dershowitz, the Jacksonville prosecutor recently called the college's law school dean to complain about his criticism of her methods in charging George Zimmerman in the Sanford shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Dershowitz gave his perspective Tuesday in an article on Newsmax.com of what he called Corey's "40-minute rant" last week that she could sue the college for his comments. Dershowitz said Corey insisted that because he is a professor there, she could sue the school for libel and slander. The institution's stance was that the professor has a right to his opinion as a "matter of academic freedom."

Dershowitz recently criticized Corey on Fox News' "Huckabee" for omitting Zimmerman's injuries in the charging affidavit against the neighborhood watch captain. He said Corey may have even "laundered" information in order to have the police officer submit a probable cause affidavit. He said her actions should be investigated.

---more@link---

http://www.newsmax.com/AlanDershowitz/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305
Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatening to Sue Harvard for My Criticism

--snipped--

She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard.

When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand.

She persisted in her nonstop whining, claiming that she is prohibited from responding to my attacks by the rules of professional responsibility — without mentioning that she has repeatedly held her own press conferences and made public statements throughout her career

--more@link--

Who knows, DebfrmHell may be correct and MOM is filing a motion for reconsideration pointing out errors made by Judge Lester. It would stand to reason that MOM would not want such a motion to be on record weeks in advance for all the arm chair quarterbacks (including myself) to be theorizing in the media on the merits of his motion that Judge Lester erred in his ruling last Friday and risking embarassing Judge Lester more than necessary. It seems that the issue of whether GZ's procedural due process rights were violated is a debated contention between defense lawyers. I will stand on my belief that Judge Lester had discretion to do what he did - but then again, remember DLR in arguing for the bail to be revoked asked the Court to set an order to show cause hearing, leaving one to believe that an OSC hearing was the appropriate procedure.

CherokeeNative wrote:Who knows, DebfrmHell may be correct and MOM is filing a motion for reconsideration pointing out errors made by Judge Lester. It would stand to reason that MOM would not want such a motion to be on record weeks in advance for all the arm chair quarterbacks (including myself) to be theorizing in the media on the merits of his motion that Judge Lester erred in his ruling last Friday and risking embarassing Judge Lester more than necessary. It seems that the issue of whether GZ's procedural due process rights were violated is a debated contention between defense lawyers. I will stand on my belief that Judge Lester had discretion to do what he did - but then again, remember DLR in arguing for the bail to be revoked asked the Court to set an order to show cause hearing, leaving one to believe that an OSC hearing was the appropriate procedure.

I truly doubt very much that there was an error on Judge Lester's part. O'Mara was saying that he didn't prepare himself for the hearing. The defendant does not need to be present when bond is revoked. Many bonds are revoked without the defendant present. In fact more are not present than are present. Bonds are revoked for many reasons.

If Zimmerman should have been in front of the judge then he should have been there. But it wasn't necessary (as we saw).

O'Mara may try to say that he wasn't prepared with a comeback, but even that is not going to wash. There was no accuser in this case, there were jail house tapes that couldn't be argued. Zimmerman lied to the court and had his attorney and wife lie for him. There is nothing that Zimmerman can possibly say to undo those lies. Who would he face "the recording machine"? Zimmerman was busted, as one would say "caught with his pants down", he made a fool of his attorney, the Judge and the court. Zimmerman saw more money than he ever saw in his life time and he didn't want to part with a penny of it.

Now his attorney has to figure out what to say to the judge, how to keep Zimmerman off the stand and how to keep Shellie off the stand, because they would be ripped apart by the prosecution.

O'Mara has his work cut out for sure.

You know, that's probably his best move. We know GZ didnt want to be at either hearing - or MOM shld have asked for a delay based on that.
This way, he would still not have to appear.

But wouldn't MOM then have to produce GZ? Is there any reason to think the bail would not be revoked again- based on what we know? I'm just trying to figure out how this work- I mean, they are still too to want to adress the perjury eventually right? This won't make it all go away?

CherokeeNative wrote:Who knows, DebfrmHell may be correct and MOM is filing a motion for reconsideration pointing out errors made by Judge Lester. It would stand to reason that MOM would not want such a motion to be on record weeks in advance for all the arm chair quarterbacks (including myself) to be theorizing in the media on the merits of his motion that Judge Lester erred in his ruling last Friday and risking embarassing Judge Lester more than necessary. It seems that the issue of whether GZ's procedural due process rights were violated is a debated contention between defense lawyers. I will stand on my belief that Judge Lester had discretion to do what he did - but then again, remember DLR in arguing for the bail to be revoked asked the Court to set an order to show cause hearing, leaving one to believe that an OSC hearing was the appropriate procedure.

Mr. & Mrs. Zimmerman's crime of perjury is just not going to go away. It shouldn't be based on whether George wants to be rebonded or not. Otherwords, the perjury charge will not go away if George just decides to sit in jail until trial. Isn't that correct?

Right. Also let's say that the Judge did err, what is the remedy? The Judge could just grant a formal hearing and revoke the bail all over again as far as I see. This is why a motion challenging Lester does not make sense to me. It is not like the outcome would be any different.

At this juncture, neither GZ or Shellie have been charged with perjury or contempt of court. That would be for the State (on perjury charges) and the Court (on contempt charges) I believe. At this point the Judge has ruled that GZ blatantly misrepresented his assets by allowing his wife to lie to the Court without bringing it to the attention of the Court. He didn't have to testify in order to do that - all he had to do was whisper to MOM at the hearing that Shellie's testimony was incorrect. MOM could have taken it from there. But instead, GZ kept with his and his wife's scheme to not disclose the funds, GZ the potted plant, and Shellie the fertilizer so to speak.

If MOM files a motion for reconsideration, the Judge will review his ruling and either make adjustments or deny the motion. By adjustments, he could reset the issue for an OSC hearing whereby GZ would be required to be present, but he cannot be made to testify - that is his option. The Court could also require Shellie to be there as she testified as a witness in his Court, I believe. Since the tapes are the best evidence, the end result would be the same, except now there would be no issue of violating GZ's procedural due process rights...if that is indeed what occurred. I still don't think so.

Porky wrote:Right. Also let's say that the Judge did err, what is the remedy? The Judge could just grant a formal hearing and revoke the bail all over again as far as I see. This is why a motion challenging Lester does not make sense to me. It is not like the outcome would be any different.

I agree Porky, it would be an act in futility, except that it is most likely the route required in order to appeal the Court's ruling. At least in some states, in order to appeal a Court's pretrial rulings, a motion for reconsideration must first be made in order to allow the Court the opportunity to correct its own mistakes before moving on to a court of higher jurisdiction.

ETA: Sometimes it pays to "choose your battles" and seeing that if this is the what is happening based upon MOM's belief that GZ's procedural due process rights were violated, and all that would be necessary is to hold an OSC to correct that mistake, nothing will change - GZ is still in jail pending the hearing, GZ will still not testify most likely, and GZ's bail will once again be reaffirmed by the Judge as revoked. So, if MOM chooses to go this course, he could just be stirring up a hornet's nest by angering the Judge even further. Something tells me MOM is more calculated than that. JMHO

Sorry, just found this case here in the last few days... have we discussed the document dump?? Did I miss that discussion?? Trying to get caught up... still miss THM and learning my way around RC.

justanopinion wrote:Sorry, just found this case here in the last few days... have we discussed the document dump?? Did I miss that discussion?? Trying to get caught up... still miss THM and learning my way around RC.

Yes. The document dump was what seems like ages ago - have you check the first page of this thread? I don't recall the date. Sorry.

Gizmo711 wrote:

Hinky's Mimi wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote: snipped: "Because whatever Trayvon did, if he attacked Zimmerman, if he beat Zimmerman up, if he tried to get the gun from Zimmerman, wont make a bit of difference because Trayvon was defending himself against an attacker. He had the right to use every means possible to defend himself, so if he did (which hasn't been proven) try to get the gun from Zimmerman, it was in hope of saving his own life, if he beat up Zimmerman, again it was in hope of saving his own life, if he thru the first punch, again it was in hope of saving his own life."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It sure doesn't look like Trayvon got ahold of that gun.
From discovery:

DNA done on holster, grip, trigger and slide...

Gun slide:
Limited DNA... can't determine if George or Trayvon are contributors

Gun holter:
At least 3 contributors... major contributor is George and others can't be determined so can't determine if Trayvon is a contributor.

Gun grib:
At least 2 contributors but ruled out Trayvon as being a contributor

Gun trigger:
Limited DNA... not interpretable.

Good morning,

I was just hypothetically speaking. I don't for a minute believe that Trayvon went for the gun. What I was trying to say was that even had Trayvon did all these things, it would have been considered self defense. Zimmerman was the one that orchastrated the entire event. What did Zimmerman expect someone to do when confronted in that manner? The person is going to fight with all they have and understandably so. Trayvon is the one that was defending himself not Zimmerman. I'm sure O'Mara realized all this and this is the reason that he may not go the SYG law, because Zimmerman wont survive it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, I understood you as you said but wanted to put that down only because there are those who will speculate Trayvon went for the gun and thereby they will justify his death that way. I agree and have said from the first day... SYG applies to Trayvon in this case. HE is the one who stood HIS ground because HE was being followed, at night, by an unknown person for no apparent reason. George was the aggressor, by virtue of the fact that HE was following Trayvon (or Trayvon had every reason to believe so and any reasonable person in Trayvon's position would have felt the same way imo.) Trayvon turned around and asked,
"Why are you following me?" and then,
"Get off... get off" (or something very similar... means to me that George was reaching out and touching Trayvon at that point.)
I have no question who started the physical attack... putting your hands on someone IS battery... Trayvon stood is ground and, by whatever means, the law was protecting HIM at that point.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Porky wrote:Right. Also let's say that the Judge did err, what is the remedy? The Judge could just grant a formal hearing and revoke the bail all over again as far as I see. This is why a motion challenging Lester does not make sense to me. It is not like the outcome would be any different.

I agree Porky, it would be an act in futility, except that it is most likely the route required in order to appeal the Court's ruling. At least in some states, in order to appeal a Court's pretrial rulings, a motion for reconsideration must first be made in order to allow the Court the opportunity to correct its own mistakes before moving on to a court of higher jurisdiction.

ETA: Sometimes it pays to "choose your battles" and seeing that if this is the what is happening based upon MOM's belief that GZ's procedural due process rights were violated, and all that would be necessary is to hold an OSC to correct that mistake, nothing will change - GZ is still in jail pending the hearing, GZ will still not testify most likely, and GZ's bail will once again be reaffirmed by the Judge as revoked. So, if MOM chooses to go this course, he could just be stirring up a hornet's nest by angering the Judge even further. Something tells me MOM is more calculated than that. JMHO

Don't go accusing me of being right about anything! The whole snafu is head- scratchingly stupid.

It is true that judges revoke bond all the time. Usually, at the drop of a hat if a defendant is late by a few or whatever small infraction of their requirements while meeting their bond. Many judges don't play. The fact remains that GZ has complied with every issue regarding bond. He has no infractions.

I don't know how much trouble GZ is in but it seems that Shelly is in a world of hurt. She is the one in the court records making the misstatements. George is still the "potted palm." Even though they both had knowledge of the amount of money , he may not have even known she was going to misstate it in open court. She also stated that her BIL would know about the amounts so she kind of tossed him under the bus, too.

(That "potted palm" makes me laugh everytime I read it. Picture this smilie with a big clay pot underneath it. I thought it was the funniest thing a judge has said about a defendant!)

In one of the tape transcripts (The "not really a code" coded one) he seems hestitant about the whole issue of how to use that fund and she is the one that is pressing "that is what it is for." It makes me wonder how much influence she plays on him. He isn't the brightest crayon in the box. Makes me wonder if she is willing to take the hit on his behalf.

I was reading his intake form and he didn't lie on that but it is a very limited form (asked if he was employed, if he needed a public defender, etc. but never asked about money at hand) conducted by an interviewer and he signed it when the form was completed.

However it works out, I would think that she will have to throw herself on the mercy of the courts, plead immaturity, stupidity, or whatever. Me thinks she is going to have to get some knee pads because there is going to be some pitiful begging going on.

SZ has to clear this up or all of her nursing school training will be for naught. She will not be able to get her license or if she has completed training by now (didn't she have just a month left to complete her courses? She could have finished it all online with approval owing to their situation) she would have to surrender it. If she can get it reduced to a misdeanor, maybe, but I really have no clue there.

MOM said that they had to deal with her issues but I don't know that by doing that himself it doesn't point to a conflict of interest for him. Maybe he can get another lawyer friend to take her case. Donald West can't do it since he is a member of the firm.

I still say that I am not surprised that the bail was revoked. I just think GZ had the right to be there. That is the only thing I take issue with.

At best, his bond gets reinstated. At worst, it gets doubled, tripled or not at all. I don't think that Lester will make the bond high enough to erase that fund.

But that remains to be seen.

DebFrmHell wrote:

CherokeeNative wrote:

Porky wrote:Right. Also let's say that the Judge did err, what is the remedy? The Judge could just grant a formal hearing and revoke the bail all over again as far as I see. This is why a motion challenging Lester does not make sense to me. It is not like the outcome would be any different.

I agree Porky, it would be an act in futility, except that it is most likely the route required in order to appeal the Court's ruling. At least in some states, in order to appeal a Court's pretrial rulings, a motion for reconsideration must first be made in order to allow the Court the opportunity to correct its own mistakes before moving on to a court of higher jurisdiction.

ETA: Sometimes it pays to "choose your battles" and seeing that if this is the what is happening based upon MOM's belief that GZ's procedural due process rights were violated, and all that would be necessary is to hold an OSC to correct that mistake, nothing will change - GZ is still in jail pending the hearing, GZ will still not testify most likely, and GZ's bail will once again be reaffirmed by the Judge as revoked. So, if MOM chooses to go this course, he could just be stirring up a hornet's nest by angering the Judge even further. Something tells me MOM is more calculated than that. JMHO

Don't go accusing me of being right about anything! The whole snafu is head- scratchingly stupid.

It is true that judges revoke bond all the time. Usually, at the drop of a hat if a defendant is late by a few or whatever small infraction of their requirements while meeting their bond. Many judges don't play. The fact remains that GZ has complied with every issue regarding bond. He has no infractions.

I don't know how much trouble GZ is in but it seems that Shelly is in a world of hurt. She is the one in the court records making the misstatements. George is still the "potted palm." Even though they both had knowledge of the amount of money , he may not have even known she was going to misstate it in open court. She also stated that her BIL would know about the amounts so she kind of tossed him under the bus, too.

(That "potted palm" makes me laugh everytime I read it. Picture this smilie with a big clay pot underneath it. I thought it was the funniest thing a judge has said about a defendant!)

In one of the tape transcripts (The "not really a code" coded one) he seems hestitant about the whole issue of how to use that fund and she is the one that is pressing "that is what it is for." It makes me wonder how much influence she plays on him. He isn't the brightest crayon in the box. Makes me wonder if she is willing to take the hit on his behalf.

I was reading his intake form and he didn't lie on that but it is a very limited form (asked if he was employed, if he needed a public defender, etc. but never asked about money at hand) conducted by an interviewer and he signed it when the form was completed.

However it works out, I would think that she will have to throw herself on the mercy of the courts, plead immaturity, stupidity, or whatever. Me thinks she is going to have to get some knee pads because there is going to be some pitiful begging going on.

SZ has to clear this up or all of her nursing school training will be for naught. She will not be able to get her license or if she has completed training by now (didn't she have just a month left to complete her courses? She could have finished it all online with approval owing to their situation) she would have to surrender it. If she can get it reduced to a misdeanor, maybe, but I really have no clue there.

MOM said that they had to deal with her issues but I don't know that by doing that himself it doesn't point to a conflict of interest for him. Maybe he can get another lawyer friend to take her case. Donald West can't do it since he is a member of the firm.

I still say that I am not surprised that the bail was revoked. I just think GZ had the right to be there. That is the only thing I take issue with.

At best, his bond gets reinstated. At worst, it gets doubled, tripled or not at all. I don't think that Lester will make the bond high enough to erase that fund.

But that remains to be seen.

Snipped from video at link
BBM

Judge Lester:

"...and let his wife testify falsely."


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/osvideo-ndn-judge-revokes-zimmermans-bond-20120601,0,2519242.htmlstory#

Hinky's Mimi wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

Hinky's Mimi wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote: snipped: "Because whatever Trayvon did, if he attacked Zimmerman, if he beat Zimmerman up, if he tried to get the gun from Zimmerman, wont make a bit of difference because Trayvon was defending himself against an attacker. He had the right to use every means possible to defend himself, so if he did (which hasn't been proven) try to get the gun from Zimmerman, it was in hope of saving his own life, if he beat up Zimmerman, again it was in hope of saving his own life, if he thru the first punch, again it was in hope of saving his own life."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It sure doesn't look like Trayvon got ahold of that gun.
From discovery:

DNA done on holster, grip, trigger and slide...

Gun slide:
Limited DNA... can't determine if George or Trayvon are contributors

Gun holter:
At least 3 contributors... major contributor is George and others can't be determined so can't determine if Trayvon is a contributor.

Gun grib:
At least 2 contributors but ruled out Trayvon as being a contributor

Gun trigger:
Limited DNA... not interpretable.

Good morning,

I was just hypothetically speaking. I don't for a minute believe that Trayvon went for the gun. What I was trying to say was that even had Trayvon did all these things, it would have been considered self defense. Zimmerman was the one that orchastrated the entire event. What did Zimmerman expect someone to do when confronted in that manner? The person is going to fight with all they have and understandably so. Trayvon is the one that was defending himself not Zimmerman. I'm sure O'Mara realized all this and this is the reason that he may not go the SYG law, because Zimmerman wont survive it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, I understood you as you said but wanted to put that down only because there are those who will speculate Trayvon went for the gun and thereby they will justify his death that way. I agree and have said from the first day... SYG applies to Trayvon in this case. HE is the one who stood HIS ground because HE was being followed, at night, by an unknown person for no apparent reason. George was the aggressor, by virtue of the fact that HE was following Trayvon (or Trayvon had every reason to believe so and any reasonable person in Trayvon's position would have felt the same way imo.) Trayvon turned around and asked,
"Why are you following me?" and then,
"Get off... get off" (or something very similar... means to me that George was reaching out and touching Trayvon at that point.)
I have no question who started the physical attack... putting your hands on someone IS battery... Trayvon stood is ground and, by whatever means, the law was protecting HIM at that point.

I agree - and this is where I wish we had a couple of attorneys following this case on our thread. You read in the media that some legal analysists are claiming that this will come down to who was the aggressor - meaning that if Trayvon threw the first punch - or if GZ claims so and there is no evidence otherwise, that GZ is entitled to SYG defense. This goes completely against what is the morally correct standard, whether or not it is the correct legal standard. I do know that there is case law holding that a party cannot view the actions of a defendant in a vacuum. It was a series of events that led up to the killing of Trayvon, and hopefully, the law will protect Trayvon's conduct by holding that GZ, through a series of events, was the aggressor and wrongfully caused the death of Trayvon.

Reading more articles about GZ and his "fear" to tell the truth. I don't get it -- what did GZ have to "fear" abou telling the truth that he could indeed put up more money for a bond? He already had a pro-bono lawyer and he already had told his website supporters that the intent for the money was for legal expense (which would include bond) - so why would he not actually use the money for such and lie about it unless he was secretly collecting the money to skip the country? What could he possibly fear unless the fear was more related to his contemplation to flee and go underground? Why else would a person take such huge legal risks and repurcussions to lie in court about their bond money (when they already had a pro-bono lawyer) unless the only reason was that he was nest-piling to disappear?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/04/12053718-lawyer-says-george-zimmerman-knew-judge-was-misinformed-about-his-finances?lite

Stolat wrote:Reading more articles about GZ and his "fear" to tell the truth. I don't get it -- what did GZ have to "fear" abou telling the truth that he could indeed put up more money for a bond? He already had a pro-bono lawyer and he already had told his website supporters that the intent for the money was for legal expense (which would include bond) - so why would he not actually use the money for such and lie about it unless he was secretly collecting the money to skip the country? What could he possibly fear unless the fear was more related to his contemplation to flee and go underground? Why else would a person take such huge legal risks and repurcussions to lie in court about their bond money (when they already had a pro-bono lawyer) unless the only reason was that he was nest-piling to disappear?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/04/12053718-lawyer-says-george-zimmerman-knew-judge-was-misinformed-about-his-finances?lite

Plain old, stupid GREED. GZ has never seen that much money in his life. Notice he didn't have any problem deciding to use those funds to pay off all of his debts. No matter what, he was going to do that. I say it was pure GREED, and MOM is simply trying to gain sympathy by claiming fear. That man isn't afraid of anything except going to jail and dying - those are his main concerns. Period.

ETA: I wish this would happen although I won't hold my breath. MOM and GZ should man up and tell the court that they "F'd up" and see the mistakes that GZ made and it will not happen again. Period. All of this posturing and trying to come up with an excuse for the scheming he and his wife did are only making matters worse, IMO. Just man up GZ.

Hi Justanopinion

there Is expected to be another big dump in three weeks.
But to best catch up- i'd suggest you google articles on witnesses change statements.
There are also some interesting YouTube videos on that.
On top of that- is scroll back to this thread last Friday when it came out that there
are recording of GZ and wife conspiring to lie to the court.
Those are the highlights so far.

justanopinion wrote:Sorry, just found this case here in the last few days... have we discussed the document dump?? Did I miss that discussion?? Trying to get caught up... still miss THM and learning my way around RC.

ellejay wrote:http://www.newsmax.com/AlanDershowitz/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305
Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatening to Sue Harvard for My Criticism

--snipped--

She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard.

When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand.

She persisted in her nonstop whining, claiming that she is prohibited from responding to my attacks by the rules of professional responsibility — without mentioning that she has repeatedly held her own press conferences and made public statements throughout her career
--more@link--

ellejay, this was an interesting article. I have followed Derchowitz & really enjoyed his book/movie, "Reveral of Fortune," (Sunny Von Bulow case). I am really surprised that Ms. Corey chose to make a threat to Harvard, as Derchowitz pointed out, "he has the right to Freedom of Speech," surely Ms. Corey knows this, in addition, her rant of 40 minutes apparently was recorded, imo, by making this threat has put the criticism back in the news, the very thing she was complaining about. Besides being employed by Harvard, Derschowitz tries some cases, is a legal analyst, & author. imo, Corey can't control what legal analyst comment, anywhere, nor does she have to agree or like it, that is her right.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Stolat wrote:Reading more articles about GZ and his "fear" to tell the truth. I don't get it -- what did GZ have to "fear" abou telling the truth that he could indeed put up more money for a bond? He already had a pro-bono lawyer and he already had told his website supporters that the intent for the money was for legal expense (which would include bond) - so why would he not actually use the money for such and lie about it unless he was secretly collecting the money to skip the country? What could he possibly fear unless the fear was more related to his contemplation to flee and go underground? Why else would a person take such huge legal risks and repurcussions to lie in court about their bond money (when they already had a pro-bono lawyer) unless the only reason was that he was nest-piling to disappear?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/04/12053718-lawyer-says-george-zimmerman-knew-judge-was-misinformed-about-his-finances?lite

Plain old, stupid GREED. GZ has never seen that much money in his life. Notice he didn't have any problem deciding to use those funds to pay off all of his debts. No matter what, he was going to do that. I say it was pure GREED, and MOM is simply trying to gain sympathy by claiming fear. That man isn't afraid of anything except going to jail and dying - those are his main concerns. Period.

ETA: I wish this would happen although I won't hold my breath. MOM and GZ should man up and tell the court that they "F'd up" and see the mistakes that GZ made and it will not happen again. Period. All of this posturing and trying to come up with an excuse for the scheming he and his wife did are only making matters worse, IMO. Just man up GZ.

One thought that I had was CONTROL ISSUES-
and an inability to relinquish the illusion of control.

CherokeeNative wrote:

Stolat wrote:Reading more articles about GZ and his "fear" to tell the truth. I don't get it -- what did GZ have to "fear" abou telling the truth that he could indeed put up more money for a bond? He already had a pro-bono lawyer and he already had told his website supporters that the intent for the money was for legal expense (which would include bond) - so why would he not actually use the money for such and lie about it unless he was secretly collecting the money to skip the country? What could he possibly fear unless the fear was more related to his contemplation to flee and go underground? Why else would a person take such huge legal risks and repurcussions to lie in court about their bond money (when they already had a pro-bono lawyer) unless the only reason was that he was nest-piling to disappear?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/04/12053718-lawyer-says-george-zimmerman-knew-judge-was-misinformed-about-his-finances?lite

Plain old, stupid GREED. GZ has never seen that much money in his life. Notice he didn't have any problem deciding to use those funds to pay off all of his debts. No matter what, he was going to do that. I say it was pure GREED, and MOM is simply trying to gain sympathy by claiming fear. That man isn't afraid of anything except going to jail and dying - those are his main concerns. Period.

ETA: I wish this would happen although I won't hold my breath. MOM and GZ should man up and tell the court that they "F'd up" and see the mistakes that GZ made and it will not happen again. Period. All of this posturing and trying to come up with an excuse for the scheming he and his wife did are only making matters worse, IMO. Just man up GZ.

LOL! Gotcha! You just gave self-defense a boost....

Ain't I just the wit this morning? You need coffee!



And I need a nap!

WeeBonnie wrote:Hi Justanopinion

there Is expected to be another big dump in three weeks.
But to best catch up- i'd suggest you google articles on witnesses change statements.
There are also some interesting YouTube videos on that.
On top of that- is scroll back to this thread last Friday when it came out that there
are recording of GZ and wife conspiring to lie to the court.
Those are the highlights so far.

justanopinion wrote:Sorry, just found this case here in the last few days... have we discussed the document dump?? Did I miss that discussion?? Trying to get caught up... still miss THM and learning my way around RC.

WeeBonnie thank you... look forward to those... did catch up on some of the doc dump... autopsy etc... and some of the police statements... pics... funny how the pic of the back of GZ's head in the official doc dump is so different than the one we all saw...forever ago that was released when GZ was up for bond... getting caught up since thm went down has been brutal...

DebFrmHell wrote:

CherokeeNative wrote:

Stolat wrote:Reading more articles about GZ and his "fear" to tell the truth. I don't get it -- what did GZ have to "fear" abou telling the truth that he could indeed put up more money for a bond? He already had a pro-bono lawyer and he already had told his website supporters that the intent for the money was for legal expense (which would include bond) - so why would he not actually use the money for such and lie about it unless he was secretly collecting the money to skip the country? What could he possibly fear unless the fear was more related to his contemplation to flee and go underground? Why else would a person take such huge legal risks and repurcussions to lie in court about their bond money (when they already had a pro-bono lawyer) unless the only reason was that he was nest-piling to disappear?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/04/12053718-lawyer-says-george-zimmerman-knew-judge-was-misinformed-about-his-finances?lite

Plain old, stupid GREED. GZ has never seen that much money in his life. Notice he didn't have any problem deciding to use those funds to pay off all of his debts. No matter what, he was going to do that. I say it was pure GREED, and MOM is simply trying to gain sympathy by claiming fear. That man isn't afraid of anything except going to jail and dying - those are his main concerns. Period.

ETA: I wish this would happen although I won't hold my breath. MOM and GZ should man up and tell the court that they "F'd up" and see the mistakes that GZ made and it will not happen again. Period. All of this posturing and trying to come up with an excuse for the scheming he and his wife did are only making matters worse, IMO. Just man up GZ.

LOL! Gotcha! You just gave self-defense a boost....

Ain't I just the wit this morning? You need coffee!



And I need a nap!

AHA - ...so he WAS going to skip town then? If MOM plans to use that as a defense he'd be an idiot because all he'd be doing would be to support the assumption that George was going to skip town.

He already was in hiding and the courts knew how to reach him -- so if he was hiding money out of fear of dying and planning on using that money to go into even *deeper* hiding, then that resolves itself to the only assumption left: that the only next level down in terms of hiding would be *comletely* off the radar and disappear. MOM would expose himself to that conversation if he uses fear of dying as his defense.

In its forthcoming motion. the defense will argue that Zimmerman should be released on bond because he is not a flight risk.
---
I think the court will see it quite the opposite - I think the mere fact he was hiding funds from the court AND claims it was out of fear -- that shows the plausible assumption that the fear was over his ability to remain safe in hiding and *very well* could have been a flight risk.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-20120607,0,6915904.story

Fine, let him go but force an admission he CONSPIRED with Shelly to deceive the court. And them put some extra " bracelets" on him.

I think I'd Ask he makes a full confession - that he profiled and stalked this kid and did not have reasonable fear of death, I could live with manslaughter- the full stretch and no time off for good behavior.
And he should empty his account and give all the money (not spent at trial)to the Martins, upon agreement to waive a civil case against him.
Boy that would piss off his supporters, but that's what it would take for his to be resolved in peace. I do not want to see them go after Trayvon.

Stolat wrote:In its forthcoming motion. the defense will argue that Zimmerman should be released on bond because he is not a flight risk.
---
I think the court will see it quite the opposite - I think the mere fact he was hiding funds from the court AND claims it was out of fear -- that shows the plausible assumption that the fear was over his ability to remain safe in hiding and *very well* could have been a flight risk.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-20120607,0,6915904.story

Stolat wrote:

DebFrmHell wrote:

CherokeeNative wrote:

Stolat wrote:Reading more articles about GZ and his "fear" to tell the truth. I don't get it -- what did GZ have to "fear" abou telling the truth that he could indeed put up more money for a bond? He already had a pro-bono lawyer and he already had told his website supporters that the intent for the money was for legal expense (which would include bond) - so why would he not actually use the money for such and lie about it unless he was secretly collecting the money to skip the country? What could he possibly fear unless the fear was more related to his contemplation to flee and go underground? Why else would a person take such huge legal risks and repurcussions to lie in court about their bond money (when they already had a pro-bono lawyer) unless the only reason was that he was nest-piling to disappear?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/04/12053718-lawyer-says-george-zimmerman-knew-judge-was-misinformed-about-his-finances?lite

Plain old, stupid GREED. GZ has never seen that much money in his life. Notice he didn't have any problem deciding to use those funds to pay off all of his debts. No matter what, he was going to do that. I say it was pure GREED, and MOM is simply trying to gain sympathy by claiming fear. That man isn't afraid of anything except going to jail and dying - those are his main concerns. Period.

ETA: I wish this would happen although I won't hold my breath. MOM and GZ should man up and tell the court that they "F'd up" and see the mistakes that GZ made and it will not happen again. Period. All of this posturing and trying to come up with an excuse for the scheming he and his wife did are only making matters worse, IMO. Just man up GZ.

LOL! Gotcha! You just gave self-defense a boost....

Ain't I just the wit this morning? You need coffee!



And I need a nap!

AHA - ...so he WAS going to skip town then? If MOM plans to use that as a defense he'd be an idiot because all he'd be doing would be to support the assumption that George was going to skip town.

He already was in hiding and the courts knew how to reach him -- so if he was hiding money out of fear of dying and planning on using that money to go into even *deeper* hiding, then that resolves itself to the only assumption left: that the only next level down in terms of hiding would be *completely* off the radar and disappear. MOM would expose himself to that conversation if he uses fear of dying as his defense.

Where are you getting that he was planning to skip town? Morbid curiousity and the fact that I need a nap....

Prior to the Arrest:

Rallies were being held all around the country demanding Justice for Trayvon.

The media demonized him and put out a series of mistruths only slowing down to apologize when they got called out on it. And it wasn't until days or weeks later after it had a chance to fester in people's minds. Not one of the media admitted to an error on their own.

There was the small matter of the WANTED signs put out by the New Black Panthers, a group radical enough that the original Black Panthers distance themselves from them.

There is any number of people that could take on the task of taking him out that are just plain nuts or too emotionally involved in the case.

GZ had about $2700.00 to immediately access before the Murder 2 charge was rendered. He had to know it was coming on some level or he would not have retained a lawyer.

And yet he stayed.

In seclusion and always in contact with LE so they knew where he was. Even Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum couldn't say that. He went rogue on those two. IMO, they did him more harm than good and he was right to do so. He got a very competent lawyer in MOM instead.



In many ways he was facing heat much stronger then than it is now, simply because an arrest was finally made. They see the fruits of their labor, particularly with the rallies, coming to play as this enters into the court system. Many are now willing to see this come to trial.



Whereas I was *joking* around with CN and in an entirely different context than what you chose to read, IMO, he has every reason to fear the death threats. He is in protective custody while in jail. He can't be put into the General Population. I think it is obvious that even LE takes these threats seriously.

And seriously, why would he go on the run from a charge that he believes he is innocent of? No matter how you chose to ignore it, he has facts in evidence that support his claim of self-defense.