George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin Case #3

Thanks Tamta. The only knowledge I have is from the trust we have set up for our kids/grandkids.

Tamta wrote:

Requiem wrote:Here is information on trusts from the IRS websitie. I would love to know what type of trust they have established and who the named beneficiaries are. Maybe we could ask O'Mara on his website. LOL

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106551,00.html

I put an email out to a friend who deals with a lot of trusts in his practice

Hopefully he can give an idea as to what the options for authority, protecting and accessing this fund

I was reading a bit about resetting the bond and contempt charges and perjury.
If Lester cites his wife for contempt, they could remove him from the case altogether.
If prosecuters go after Shelly it might be harder to win than we'd think. Supposedly it's the of the hardest charges to prove.
The judge has to be careful not to "appear punitive" in any way even though it's a direct offence against the court.

Bail could stay revoked if there was additional crimes committed brought to light- BUT it appears they can't get him for perjury- only Shelly - for contempt. So the case might have to go to another judge. There doesn't seem to be any way unless prosecuters could get him for conspiracy to commit perjury. (I just read that it's submotion? (sp) of perjury an very very hard to prove).
I have to go look up and see if that even exists!
His best option might be to claim circumstances have changed - and this must be the crux of why MOM is saying he cang have the fund money- so he can say GZ is still poor. Except for the 50k that is. CRAZY.

I wonder if AD prefaced his comments with "In my opinion".
I understand that he is a well respected law professor, but his public attack was fairly inflammatory. Too bad Corey took the bait.

Before Corey made her first press appearance the media was already talking negatively about her. Many in FL do not believe she is capable of handling a high profile homicide case and others believe she was doing this (rather than assigning to a team of better qualified attys) because she wants the media presence for a political run.

Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, go back to the very first media coverages.

I don't believe it is necessary to state "In my opinion" or IMO when someone is merely discussing their interpretation of what has been reported in the media. Rather than being critical of each other, we need to remember it is not our place to chastize each other - we need to leave that to the moderators. As J4A has suggested, if we do not like someone's comment, just ignore it.

I thought calling her "perjurious" "unlawful" and "anything but ethical" was going after her career.
But yeah, if he prefaced it with IMHO I guess he gets out if jail free on this one.

I met Dershowitz at a friends wedding. He brought along a dozen copies of his book.
Such class! And no ego whatsoever, HA.

Requiem wrote:I wonder if AD prefaced his comments with "In my opinion".
I understand that he is a well respected law professor, but his public attack was fairly inflammatory. Too bad Corey took the bait.

Freckles wrote:Before Corey made her first press appearance the media was already talking negatively about her. Many in FL do not believe she is capable of handling a high profile homicide case and others believe she was doing this (rather than assigning to a team of better qualified attys) because she wants the media presence for a political run.

Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, go back to the very first media coverages.

Do you think that the media wold have blasted her knowing what we know now about George's propensity to lie?

I agree with this comment: "Dershowitz’s claims are, to put it simply, completely wrong. His overblown accusations of criminal conduct on behalf of the prosecutors are not supported by the law, and there is absolutely no basis under which anyone could be charged with wrongdoing due to the specific acts that Dershowitz complains of. Dershowitz does not even attempt to identify any specific statutes or rules which may have been violated by the prosecutors. Instead, rather than providing any actual explanations, his accusations of criminal conduct are based on nothing more than a few empty declarations to the effect that “this is the justice system” and “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

More at link:
http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29/why-alan-dershowitz-is-completely-wrong-about-the-zimmerman-case/

You are in the right place, Porky. Just don't post in the new library and you'll be fine.
It's kind of obvious this is not a court of law, and you are not slandering AD.

I never understood why AD got all hung up on the pics as proof of anything?
The injuries to me look very superficial, and there's no firm medical reports that they were at all serious and that was all discussed before the affidavit?
I dont see any "half truths" there. Honestly I think AD was a one trick pony, he hasn't made a lot of sense to me for years. And his attack on Corey was ruthless.
Damned if I know why or if it was slanderous, but it seemed kind of ignorant to me.

Porky wrote:
I assume that the vast majority of what we all write here is personal opinion. I sure hope that I am in the right place lol

CherokeeNative wrote:I don't believe it is necessary to state "In my opinion" or IMO when someone is merely discussing their interpretation of what has been reported in the media. Rather than being critical of each other, we need to remember it is not our place to chastize each other - we need to leave that to the moderators. As J4A has suggested, if we do not like someone's comment, just ignore it.

CherokeeNative, when someone states something in their comment, especially if it is not a fact, then, imo, they should state it is their opinion as it is not a known fact. There is NO reason to give someone merely reading a comment that something is a fact if it is not. Anyone can interpret anything anyway they want to, most people BACK UP their opinion with known facts, if they have NO known facts, it is merely their opinion. It is not being critical, imo, there are facts & then there are opinions based on just one's own thoughts, but to state information in a comment that is NOT A FACT, imo, should be clarified.

I rarely comment on this thread, but when I see someone respond to MY COMMENT & state information that is not a fact, merely their opinion based on NO known facts, I will respond.

Porky wrote:

Freckles wrote:Before Corey made her first press appearance the media was already talking negatively about her. Many in FL do not believe she is capable of handling a high profile homicide case and others believe she was doing this (rather than assigning to a team of better qualified attys) because she wants the media presence for a political run.

Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, go back to the very first media coverages.

Do you think that the media wold have blasted her knowing what we know now about George's propensity to lie?

Hard to say. Two different issues.

Media was wanting a stronger prosecution team and they did not see Corey as capable of being lead on the team.

Freckles wrote:

Porky wrote:

Freckles wrote:Before Corey made her first press appearance the media was already talking negatively about her. Many in FL do not believe she is capable of handling a high profile homicide case and others believe she was doing this (rather than assigning to a team of better qualified attys) because she wants the media presence for a political run.

Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, go back to the very first media coverages.

Do you think that the media wold have blasted her knowing what we know now about George's propensity to lie?

Hard to say. Two different issues.

Media was wanting a stronger prosecution team and they did not see Corey as capable of being lead on the team.

Can you provide a link? I never got that from the media at first.

Hey Cher! I think your on to something here- since Dershowitz appears to be blowing lots of hot air with no specific allegations of misconduct- then he is not committing slander or defamation! Just like GZ he gets up there and gives an impression while actually saying nothing that he can be held accountable for. Funny how that works, huh?

CherokeeNative wrote:I agree with this comment: "Dershowitz’s claims are, to put it simply, completely wrong. His overblown accusations of criminal conduct on behalf of the prosecutors are not supported by the law, and there is absolutely no basis under which anyone could be charged with wrongdoing due to the specific acts that Dershowitz complains of. Dershowitz does not even attempt to identify any specific statutes or rules which may have been violated by the prosecutors. Instead, rather than providing any actual explanations, his accusations of criminal conduct are based on nothing more than a few empty declarations to the effect that “this is the justice system” and “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

More at link:
http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29/why-alan-dershowitz-is-completely-wrong-about-the-zimmerman-case/

WeeBonnie wrote:Hey Cher! I think your on to something here- since Dershowitz appears to be blowing lots of hot air with no specific allegations of misconduct- then he is not committing slander or defamation! Just like GZ he gets up there and gives an impression while actually saying nothing that he can be held accountable for. Funny how that works, huh?

CherokeeNative wrote:I agree with this comment: "Dershowitz’s claims are, to put it simply, completely wrong. His overblown accusations of criminal conduct on behalf of the prosecutors are not supported by the law, and there is absolutely no basis under which anyone could be charged with wrongdoing due to the specific acts that Dershowitz complains of. Dershowitz does not even attempt to identify any specific statutes or rules which may have been violated by the prosecutors. Instead, rather than providing any actual explanations, his accusations of criminal conduct are based on nothing more than a few empty declarations to the effect that “this is the justice system” and “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

More at link:
http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29/why-alan-dershowitz-is-completely-wrong-about-the-zimmerman-case/

Masters in the art of language. In my lifetime, I have met a lot of people who do a lot of talking and actually say nothing - they just like the air time and sound of their own voice / or print.

Everthing I initially saw about Corey was that she was a pitbull. A very tough prosecuter. So easy to find links to that, I'm not going to even bother.

Freckles wrote:

Porky wrote:

Freckles wrote:Before Corey made her first press appearance the media was already talking negatively about her. Many in FL do not believe she is capable of handling a high profile homicide case and others believe she was doing this (rather than assigning to a team of better qualified attys) because she wants the media presence for a political run.

Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, go back to the very first media coverages.

Do you think that the media wold have blasted her knowing what we know now about George's propensity to lie?

Hard to say. Two different issues.

Media was wanting a stronger prosecution team and they did not see Corey as capable of being lead on the team.

Porky wrote:

Freckles wrote:

Porky wrote:

Freckles wrote:Before Corey made her first press appearance the media was already talking negatively about her. Many in FL do not believe she is capable of handling a high profile homicide case and others believe she was doing this (rather than assigning to a team of better qualified attys) because she wants the media presence for a political run.

Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, go back to the very first media coverages.

Do you think that the media wold have blasted her knowing what we know now about George's propensity to lie?

Hard to say. Two different issues.

Media was wanting a stronger prosecution team and they did not see Corey as capable of being lead on the team.

Can you provide a link? I never got that from the media at first.

I don't save links. May I suggest you scroll back to the first media releases by Corey or use the internet?

I recall watching this live over the internet and the rather "off color" comments made by the news reporters.The link was provided here at that time and comments were made by others as well.

Porky wrote:I have never found Rush to be credible but I have not seen the stampede of media people who have been critical of Corey. Of course, we can expect defense attorneys to be critical. I know that Mark Nejame a very noted defense attorney here in Orlando who originally thought that the State had a weak case but has since changed his tune.

I am a bit amazed that one would use Rush Limbaugh off all people as a source in a serious debate. No offense meant.

I listen to a variety of talk show. While I may not agree with the points they bring forth I find it interesting to hear from all sides.

[quote="Freckles"]

Porky wrote:I have never found Rush to be credible but I have not seen the stampede of media people who have been critical of Corey. Of course, we can expect defense attorneys to be critical. I know that Mark Nejame a very noted defense attorney here in Orlando who originally thought that the State had a weak case but has since changed his tune.

I am a bit amazed that one would use Rush Limbaugh off all people as a source in a serious debate. No offense meant.

Freckles said:I listen to a variety of talk show. While I may not agree with the points they bring forth I find it interesting to hear from all sides.[/quote]

Freckles, I agree w/your thoughts, I read a large cross section of news daily across the US, I too find it interesting to evaluate all sides of the issue even if I don't like the commentor or analyst, I try to remain neutral until all the points have been made.

It too is interesting that Rush L's audience is in the millions everyday while CNN is at an all time low, the lowest in over 20 years. They have scrambled to re-organize but are not having much success, even Anderson Cooper has lost 1/2 of his audience, Pier's Morgan had an audience of 39,000 a couple of weeks ago. I love Anderson Cooper, imo, it may be that the show is on CNN & they have lost most of their audience, he may be a casuality of their audience loss. It just goes to show you, nobody has to like Rush L,. as it is certainly their right, apparently millions of American's like him & listen to him everyday, he remains to do well while other media outlets such as CNN are flailing.

I googled a bit as suggested to see if I was imaginjng things initially said about Corey: Tough , assertive, no nonsense, will charge on merit- not if she thinks she can win, tough, not a fan of plea bargaining and known to be a victims advocate.
I remembered correctly then.

It seems she's gotten flak from two primarily sources: defense pundits and Fox (and politically conservative outlets) . Fox is pro NRA snd pro Zimmerman all the way - that's what their audience expects. Its funny the conservative oriented sites are saying she's purely political. They must be rubber and she glue.

Thanks for that link CN. Very informative and well written article. (IMO). I agree with the quoted comment as well.

CherokeeNative wrote:I agree with this comment: "Dershowitz’s claims are, to put it simply, completely wrong. His overblown accusations of criminal conduct on behalf of the prosecutors are not supported by the law, and there is absolutely no basis under which anyone could be charged with wrongdoing due to the specific acts that Dershowitz complains of. Dershowitz does not even attempt to identify any specific statutes or rules which may have been violated by the prosecutors. Instead, rather than providing any actual explanations, his accusations of criminal conduct are based on nothing more than a few empty declarations to the effect that “this is the justice system” and “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

More at link:
http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29/why-alan-dershowitz-is-completely-wrong-about-the-zimmerman-case/

WeeBonnie wrote:I googled a bit as suggested to see if I was imaginjng things initially said about Corey: Tough , assertive, no nonsense, will charge on merit- not if she thinks she can win, tough, not a fan of plea bargaining and known to be a victims advocate.
I remembered correctly then.

It seems she's gotten flak from two primarily sources: defense pundits and Fox (and politically conservative outlets) . Fox is pro NRA snd pro Zimmerman all the way - that's what their audience expects. Its funny the conservative oriented sites are saying she's purely political. They must be rubber and she glue.

That certainly was my impression as well WeeBonnie. She has a reputation as a very aggressive Prosecutor, which Zimmerman just found out.

WeeBonnie wrote:Everthing I initially saw about Corey was that she was a pitbull. A very tough prosecuter. So easy to find links to that, I'm not going to even bother.

Freckles wrote:

Porky wrote:

Freckles wrote:Before Corey made her first press appearance the media was already talking negatively about her. Many in FL do not believe she is capable of handling a high profile homicide case and others believe she was doing this (rather than assigning to a team of better qualified attys) because she wants the media presence for a political run.

Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, go back to the very first media coverages.

Do you think that the media wold have blasted her knowing what we know now about George's propensity to lie?

Hard to say. Two different issues.

Media was wanting a stronger prosecution team and they did not see Corey as capable of being lead on the team.

Huh? Porky was the one who asked for a link IIRC. I was addressing my response to Porky. Perhaps you have a link to share with him?

[quote="art tart"]

Freckles wrote:

Porky wrote:I have never found Rush to be credible but I have not seen the stampede of media people who have been critical of Corey. Of course, we can expect defense attorneys to be critical. I know that Mark Nejame a very noted defense attorney here in Orlando who originally thought that the State had a weak case but has since changed his tune.

I am a bit amazed that one would use Rush Limbaugh off all people as a source in a serious debate. No offense meant.

Freckles said:I listen to a variety of talk show. While I may not agree with the points they bring forth I find it interesting to hear from all sides.[/quote]

Freckles, I agree w/your thoughts, I read a large cross section of news daily across the US, I too find it interesting to evaluate all sides of the issue even if I don't like the commentor or analyst, I try to remain neutral until all the points have been made.

It too is interesting that Rush L's audience is in the millions everyday while CNN is at an all time low, the lowest in over 20 years. They have scrambled to re-organize but are not having much success, even Anderson Cooper has lost 1/2 of his audience, Pier's Morgan had an audience of 39,000 a couple of weeks ago. I love Anderson Cooper, imo, it may be that the show is on CNN & they have lost most of their audience, he may be a casuality of their audience loss. It just goes to show you, nobody has to like Rush L,. as it is certainly their right, apparently millions of American's like him & listen to him everyday, he remains to do well while other media outlets such as CNN are flailing.

Hmmm I do not think that Rush is very popular among women

http://womensissues.about.com/b/2012/03/08/limbaughs-conservative-white-male-demographic-and-the-votevets-org-petition.htm
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1102/limbaugh-audience-conservative-men

Popular? That kind of implies a tacit approval. Never said I was a groupie or even a fan of Rush. Said I listened to him.And periodically, I do. I don't know I need to explain or defend WHY I listen to whomever I listen to.

You may listen to whatever radio you choose, too. That is part of America.

One does not have to like or agree with someone to listen to their views, do they? (It is wise to see all sides not just those you already support.IMO)

I was responding to your contention that it was initially reported she couldn't handle the case or she was too political.

I couldn't find anything of the sort said in the first 7-8 major news arrivals I skimmed for descriptions of her googling "Corey appointed".

I summarized how she was described in another post. The initial reaction was that shes competent and a tough cookie. I saw no mention of her political aspirations either.
Maybe that came later?

Freckles wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:Everthing I initially saw about Corey was that she was a pitbull. A very tough prosecuter. So easy to find links to that, I'm not going to even bother.

Freckles wrote:

Porky wrote:

Freckles wrote:Before Corey made her first press appearance the media was already talking negatively about her. Many in FL do not believe she is capable of handling a high profile homicide case and others believe she was doing this (rather than assigning to a team of better qualified attys) because she wants the media presence for a political run.

Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, go back to the very first media coverages.

Do you think that the media wold have blasted her knowing what we know now about George's propensity to lie?

Hard to say. Two different issues.

Media was wanting a stronger prosecution team and they did not see Corey as capable of being lead on the team.

Huh? Porky was the one who asked for a link IIRC. I was addressing my response to Porky. Perhaps you have a link to share with him?

I was responding to your contention that it was initially reported she couldn't handle the case or she was too political.

I couldn't find anything of the sort said in the first 7-8 major news arrivals I skimmed for descriptions of her googling "Corey appointed".

I summarized how she was described in another post. The initial reaction was that shes competent and a tough cookie. I saw no mention of her political aspirations either.
Maybe that came later?

Freckles wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:Everthing I initially saw about Corey was that she was a pitbull. A very tough prosecuter. So easy to find links to that, I'm not going to even bother.

Freckles wrote:

Porky wrote:

Freckles wrote:Before Corey made her first press appearance the media was already talking negatively about her. Many in FL do not believe she is capable of handling a high profile homicide case and others believe she was doing this (rather than assigning to a team of better qualified attys) because she wants the media presence for a political run.

Don't shoot the messenger. Instead, go back to the very first media coverages.

Do you think that the media wold have blasted her knowing what we know now about George's propensity to lie?

Hard to say. Two different issues.

Media was wanting a stronger prosecution team and they did not see Corey as capable of being lead on the team.

Huh? Porky was the one who asked for a link IIRC. I was addressing my response to Porky. Perhaps you have a link to share with him?

I don't recall the date of Corey's first media appearance.
Find that date and scroll back through the posts.
Posters here were commenting on the live feed from the reporters. Especially the feed where they did not know they were on the air.

Good night.

The descriptions of Corey I posted were culled from googling the day it was announced she was reported - NYT , Orlando Sentinel, CNN, USA Today - the most popular and respected mainstream sources' original articles regarding her appointment.
I couldn't find a single word about her being political or not being able to handle he case. They all paint her in a favorable light. I have not lied by omission. I'm leaving that job to GZ.

OMG 1 am! Goodnight!!

Freckles wrote:I don't recall the date of Corey's first media appearance.
Find that date and scroll back through the posts.
Posters here were commenting on the live feed from the reporters. Especially the feed where they did not know they were on the air.

Good night.

Wow, very intelligent article That eviscerates Dershowitz. Tks Cher!
He should be ashamed to be misrepresenting the law to such a large audience, IMHO. It's sad that people like that get paid to misinform the public. So irresponsible.
I miss the days when there were laws about accurate reporting. Any old crap gets put out there these days.

CherokeeNative wrote:I agree with this comment: "Dershowitz’s claims are, to put it simply, completely wrong. His overblown accusations of criminal conduct on behalf of the prosecutors are not supported by the law, and there is absolutely no basis under which anyone could be charged with wrongdoing due to the specific acts that Dershowitz complains of. Dershowitz does not even attempt to identify any specific statutes or rules which may have been violated by the prosecutors. Instead, rather than providing any actual explanations, his accusations of criminal conduct are based on nothing more than a few empty declarations to the effect that “this is the justice system” and “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

More at link:
http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29/why-alan-dershowitz-is-completely-wrong-about-the-zimmerman-case/

Dershowitz claims State Attorney Corey threatened to sue for slander, libel

Posted: 4:18 a.m. Thursday, June 7, 2012

By Rich Jones

Jacksonville, FL —
State Attorney Angela Corey is reportedly threatening to sue Harvard Law School over criticism by professor Alan Dershowitz.

He has openly critcized Corey for what he calls a misleading affidavit in the murder case of George Zimmerman.

Dershowitz tells NewsMax that Corey recently called him to engage in a 40 minute rant about her handling of the case, and that's when she threatened to sue the school for slander and libel.

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/dershowitz-claims-state-attorney-corey-threatened-/nPNdc/

Angela Corey didn't inject herself into the Martin/Zimmerman Case, she was assigned to the case by the Florida Governor, Rick Scott, and by the Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, after they asked the Seminole and Brevard County State Attorney, Norm Wolfinger, to recuse himself from the case.

Corey was named "Special Prosecutor" in the Martin case because she was "imported" from the 4th Judicial District (Duval, Clay and Nassau Counties in Northeaster Florida) to take over the investigation of a crime that was committed in the 18th Judicial District, which is under the jurisdiction of the Seminole and Brevard Counties' State Attorney (who was removed from the case).

After the public outcry and outrage against the Sanford Police Department, and the Seminole and Brevard State Attorney, for the way they had handled the investigation into Trayvon's death, the Governor wanted someone that didn't have ties to the City of Sanford to handle the case, there was a need for a fair, transparent an in-depth investigation into the fatal shooting of an unarmed teenager.

Porky wrote:

Gizmo711 wrote:

Porky wrote:Gizmo. Nejame used to think that it was a good defense case. He is now saying that the defense has some very serious issues. He has changed his tune

It was on the local news station. O'Mara is making it very clear that the donation money is going to the defense fund and not to a bond.. I hope Zimmerman heard this....Because he or Shellie wont ever see a penny of this money when O'Mara gets thru.

It has to be killing Zimmerman, that he has to pay for his defense

Sounds like O'Mara is going to try and ask the court to keep the same bond because his client is essentially "broke".

Yes, I think that is exactly what O'Mara is going to try and do. O'Mara already took himself off of the "pro bono" status, he would hate to have to put himself back on that. This is why he is making it very clear that the donations coming in is to be used for his defense, not his bond. A large bond could wipe all that money out.

CherokeeNative wrote:Well, I want to open up a website asking for donations to hire the very best experts, perform the best forensic tests, etc. to donate to the prosecution's side - to support the cause and see that justice is made equal through the expenditure of money. Think we can pull that off?

Doubt it...We probably would end up in the cell next to George..

Requiem wrote:I think O'Mara's assertion about the funds flowing into GZ's trust fund are interesting. Obviously, the terms of the trust are very specific, but GZ can, if he chooses to, change the terms if it is a revokable trust. so he could still screw his defense attorneys depending on the type of trust they established.
I wonder what Judge Lester's take will be on the restricted funds. If I am correct, it really doesn't matter that the money being donated has been designated to pay attorney fees and expenses, it is still income and is part of GZ's net worth. Therefore, wouldn't it be calculated when determining what he should be held to for bond?
I am also assuming at least part of the money continues to be used for GZ's living expenses, which seem to be more than they were pre PayPal. If that is the case, isnt that a misrepresentation as to the exclusivity of the trust fund?
Or maybe not. It could be that one of his benefactors is covering those expenses "off the books".

I believe you to be right. Either way the money belongs to Zimmerman. However, when it comes to lawyers, I really don't trust them too much, in the respect, that O'Mara probably already took his large retainer out of the money as well as all expenses. Which will probably utilize most of that cash coming in. I believe that O'Mara would have the authority (while holding that cash) to take out his costs up front. This will probably leave Zimmerman with lunch money or snack money.

O'Mara is not going to sit back and and do any work pro bono while that cash (that Zimmerman tried to screw him out of) goes to Zimmerman. O'Mara probably had George sign something to that effect.

Porky wrote:I wonder who will have the tax liability on these donations?

Very good question...CA had a debt to the IRS for 67,000 dollars that Baez received for the photo's of Caylee. I do believe that George can be held responsible for the tax either way.

I really don't think that lawyers give a hoot where the money is coming from. Let's not forget that lawyers defend criminals, and the money that these criminals have is usually obtained thru drugs, bank robberies, etc. The lawyers get theirs and they could care less what their client has to pay.

By O'Mara stating on the media that the donation money is going to Zimmermans defense which may run to a million dollars, I truly doubt that anyone is going to take this money from O'Mara. I bet O'Mara is already running the tab of the cost to date as well as future costs. The judge is not going to want to take away the defense money and then have to make the tax payers pay for Zimmermans defense.

So what I see happening here is that Zimmerman will probably remain in jail until his trial. I also doubt that the judge will let Zimmerman out on the same bond as before (that would be like saying it was OK to lie under oath). So the only solution here would be to keep Zimmerman in jail and the judge has the authority to do so. This was everyone is happy (except for Zimmerman of course)

One more thing to think about (I'm on a roll this morning) Why would O'Mara make a point to say to the judge that Zimmerman has an outstanding amount of 10,000 dollars to the bondsman? Then to say on the media that he wants Zimmerman to tell the truth from now on? This is almost like telling the judge to keep Zimmerman in jail. He's owning up to Zimmerman lying, he stating that Zimmerman did not even pay the bondsman all his money even though he was sitting on all that money.

It would be to O'Mara benefit if Zimmerman stayed incarcerated until the trial. He would than have nothing to worry about. If Zimmerman is on the outside, the bond money would have to come from the donations and O'Mara would have to prove (and go against his client openly) that he needed all that money for the defense. So to avoid all this, and without saying it outright, he is in hope that the judge will continue to keep Zimmerman on a 'no bond status".

I think O'Mara is just going thru the channels and adding up the hours involved, to keep Zimmerman under his control.

Even if Zimmerman was to fire O'Mara right now, he would not have enough money to hire another attorney and it's doubtful that Zimmerman will ever be entitled to a court appointed attorney after what he pulled. So in reality O'Mara has Zimmerman by the horns.

Hi Gizmo

I did a lot of reading on bond revoking (see previous page) and it seems the only thing Lester has to use is a change in GZs status. The only changes to his status are he is sitting on a huge pile of money and perhaps now he could be considered a flight risk. So MOM has been repeatrdlu saying he has no passport again and again, and now he's saying he can't - or won't get that money. So I do think he's working to GZs release.

Unfortunately it looks like the perjury (and Shelly's contempt) may not come into play at the bond hearing without the judge facing sccusations of predudice and being removed. It's up to the prosecuters to do what they can about that- and they only have the goods on Shelley.

Anyway that's what my research tells me.

Gizmo - I get your point. What gets me, is that MOM keeps pointing out that GZ hasn't even paid the 10k to the bondsman - but lets not all forget that GZ used 50k to pay off all of his personal debts before he turned the money over to MOM. That kind of ruins the contention that GZ didn't realize he could use the money to his own liking.

I am sure that MOM has some form of written agreement with GZ that makes clear that MOM will be paid his accrued fees out of the fund before it is to be released for any other reason, including bond. In fact, I would even bet this written agreement specifies that should GZ have a change of heart about his choice of legal representation, that MOM will get a percentage of the funds for his efforts in keeping the donations rolling in. MOM is a prudent business man that deals with crooks all day long and I am sure he is going to protect his own interests first.

WeeBonnie wrote:I wish I'd seen this earlier Deb!
If you cut a party ballon and place it over the nut, you get a little extra grip with your wrench. It can lessen the stripping.

DebFrmHell wrote:


I just got up from my 2 hours nap and am all kinds of fiesty! You drink coffee, I am going to go and try once again to get the bolt off of the lawnmower blade without stripping it! I ((heart)) swearing at the LM.

O/T - WOW! that is one of the coolest tricks I've heard of - thanks! That could work for a whole lot of things. I'm a diy fixer as I'm the only one keeping my house standing so these things are good to know!

Judge Lester will not allow fear of being asked to recuse himself effect his decision, and will deal with this situation and any other motions before him, based on the law and in the best interest of justice.

"The potted palm" doesn't seem to have applied much fertilizer to his brain for awhile, so I don't expect him to grow very much from his experience. So, I for one won't be surprised if Judge Lester is accused of being prejudiced against GZ no matter what he does, and at some point GZ's persecution complex will result in a motion for recusal.

Disclaimer: All of the above is based solely on my opinion, and cannot be supported by anything or anyone, unless someone happens to agree. Then it will become a shared opinion.

CN, that could very well be, but GZ has to allow his PayPal assets to be transferred to the trust. He can decide to stop that transfer at any time. So, if he does that, no more money flows into the trust. As for agreement to percentage of fund in the PayPal account, MOM would have to get ahold of it before GZ can spend it or hide it under his pot.

CherokeeNative wrote: I am sure that MOM has some form of written agreement with GZ that makes clear that MOM will be paid his accrued fees out of the fund before it is to be released for any other reason, including bond. In fact, I would even bet this written agreement specifies that should GZ have a change of heart about his choice of legal representation, that MOM will get a percentage of the funds for his efforts in keeping the donations rolling in. MOM is a prudent business man that deals with crooks all day long and I am sure he is going to protect his own interests first.

I just had an ah,ha moment. I bet GZ has no personal access or direct ownership what so ever to the new PayPal account set up by O'Mara. So, if someone donates to a legal defense fund, is it ever GZ's money or is it solely income for his defense team?

If this information is correct, it looks like he will have to pay taxes and the entity is set up solely for him instead of the general public. Anyone know how to look how the organization who is the shell for his defense fund is set up?

http://www.ehow.com/how_5075165_set-up-legal-defense-fund.html

Requiem wrote:I just had an ah,ha moment. I bet GZ has no personal access or direct ownership what so ever to the new PayPal account set up by O'Mara. So, if someone donates to a legal defense fund, is it ever GZ's money or is it solely income for his defense team?

I think i did read (shortly after it was first revealed about the money) that MOM was sure to point out early on that HE (not GZ or GZ affiliates) would be diredtly responsible for the new funds established. So yeah, I sorta got the impressoin that MOM appointed himself Trustee. That's not to say the money cannot be used for GZ's security, expenses, etc -- but I see no reason why MOM would feel much reason to place higher priority than on his defense expense. I also recall that MOM critics said it was a crafty way for high-dollar attorneys to get the public to pay for high-profile clients so it's a win-win for the attorneys -- they got both the publicity as well as avoiding pro-bono work. The critics said using social media to get the public to pay for high-profile clients was a practice that was generally frowned upon.

Think about it -- if you're an attorney and you don't want to work pro-bono but you want the publicity -- you could use social media -- in combination with some very cleverly well-played out media drama to direct attention to your client, generate a buzz, "orchestrate" a relatively little-known case into a High-profile case and then slap a PayPal fund out there asking for the public to cover your fees.

WeeBonnie wrote:Hi Gizmo

I did a lot of reading on bond revoking (see previous page) and it seems the only thing Lester has to use is a change in GZs status. The only changes to his status are he is sitting on a huge pile of money and perhaps now he could be considered a flight risk. So MOM has been repeatrdlu saying he has no passport again and again, and now he's saying he can't - or won't get that money. So I do think he's working to GZs release.

Unfortunately it looks like the perjury (and Shelly's contempt) may not come into play at the bond hearing without the judge facing sccusations of predudice and being removed. It's up to the prosecuters to do what they can about that- and they only have the goods on Shelley.

Anyway that's what my research tells me.

I am probably wrong but no charges have even been filed in her case. Regardless of if they do, the same process would be carried out as happened with GZ. She would get assigned a judge for her arraignment, bond hearing etc. and judges go by luck of the draw.

Should Lester try to put her on the stand, it would be her turn to be the potted palm and she would just plead he 5th and not answer anything.

As a result, Lester could stay in charge of the G Zimmerman court. Any bias that he may show, IMO! IMO! IMO! rest in the fact that GZ did not waive his right to defend himself at the bond revocation hearing. We don't know what direction MOM is going to take on the hearing on the 29th.

I went and asked the pros about Shelly Z. and could the State use her possible charges against George in an effort to plea down and this is the response...

Stinson v. State, 839 So. 2d 906 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 5th Dist. 2003. While noting that "[w]here the state threatens prosecution of one with whom the defendant has familial ties or other close bonds, the threat of coercion is much greater," the court nevertheless approves of plea agreements "involving leniency toward a third party, or a promise not to prosecute a third party" as long as "the government [has] probable cause to charge the third party at the time the defendant is offered leniency for the third party, or at the time the defendant is threatened that the third party will be charged." (Significantly, Zimmernman's court, the 18th circuit, is within the 5th district, so Stinson in binding law.)

But I was firmly reminded that I am putting my cart way before my horse in that charges have not been brought so it is a moot point until then...and told not to spread rumors of any plea deal! LOL! There is just no bs allowed at TL.

Stolat said:

I think i did read (shortly after it was first revealed about the money) that MOM was sure to point out early on that HE (not GZ or GZ affiliates) would be diredtly responsible for the new funds established. So yeah, I sorta got the impressoin that MOM appointed himself Trustee. That's not to say the money cannot be used for GZ's security, expenses, etc -- but I see no reason why MOM would feel much reason to place higher priority than on his defense expense.

MOM has said both publicly and in court that a neutral third party, not him, is the trustee for the defense account, and that every penny is well documented. Both incoming and outgoing. Neither GZ nor MOM have access to that account directly, which has been stated over and over. MOM will provide accounting of that fund to the court when and if he is required to by law. I don't have links right now, but I read within the last couple of days that MOM also stated he has not taken any payment from those funds yet.

GZ's defense fund will have a tremendous amount of scrutiny, going back to before the bond hearing. MOM can only control what he was initially given control of, and I have no doubt that from THAT point onward, the accounting is impeccable. MOM's personal life and business were running just fine before taking on the GZ case-- which he initially planned to take pro bono. MOM is not exactly Jose Baez with his finances.

He has acted very ethically, IMO, with that money from the time he was given control of it. He immediately established the trust and the custodial control outside of his and his client's control. That is the most ethical thing he possibly could have done. Compare and contrast that to Jose Baez and the $200K+ he personally controlled from ABC in the Casey Anthony case.

I saved this into favorites for referencing. It is usually updated within a day or two of any Motions or Hearings.

http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html

I wanted to remind people that there are a lot of court documents available for viewing that are not necessariy in the 183 page Doc Dump.

ishi wrote:MOM=Mark O'Mara Zimmerman's attorney

Thanks for clearing that part up for me.