Image 01 Image 03

Next up: Florida v. Shellie Zimmerman

Next up: Florida v. Shellie Zimmerman

Forgotten in the publicity surrounding the jury verdict in the case against George Zimmerman is that a perjury charge against his wife, Shellie Zimmerman, remains active.

According to the State Court docket, the case is scheduled for trial August 21.  I have calls in to the prosecutors and defense counsel to confirm this.

The Judge on the case is Marlene M. Alva.

The Criminal Information and supporting Affidavit are embedded at the bottom of the post.

The charge surrounds Shellie’s sworn statements regarding funds available for George’s defense.  When it was revealed that George had more money than was disclosed, his bail was revoked and he eventually was released on much higher bond.

I extensively analyzed the allegations in a post on June 13, 2012, Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching.

The main problem with the State’s case, as I see it, is that many of the statements alleged in the Affidavit were matters which were ambiguous or subject of opinion. In order to commit perjury, one has to make a false statement of fact (which is why the feds prefer to go with “obstruction of justice” instead of perjury).

Here’s one example from the prior post:

Q. Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?
A. None that I know of.

What are “major assets”? Isn’t that a matter of opinion? Similarly, what does “reasonably” mean? Isn’t that also a matter of judgment, not a fact? The same lack of clarity accrues to “liquidate.” If the alleged funds already were liquid, the funds could not be liquidated again.

And another:

Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?
A. To my knowledge, that is correct.
Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A: I’m aware of that website.
Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.

Notice the specific wording of the questions and answers. I think the best case for perjury was the response to the question whether “you all had no money.” (added) The way the question was structured, however, the question was whether Shellie previously said that there was “no money,” not that at the time of the question there was no money.

A motion to dismiss the charge on grounds of jurisdicion was denied in February, and the case has been on hold pending the conclusion of George’s case.

Shellie Zimmerman reacting to not guilty verdict

Florida v. Shellie Zimmerman – Criminal Information and Affidavit of Probable Cause


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?”

Yup, another untrained prosecuter.

Did I mention something? Yup, I did.

Is the State going to prove that she didn’t mention it?

If Shellie Zimmerman’s actions or words support perjury allegations, then half of the Zimmerman prosecution team’s star witnesses should be facing charges also. Maybe Shellie can posit that she’s just very unsophisticated and language challenged like Ms. Jeantel..

    sequester in reply to Chuck50. | July 15, 2013 at 11:42 am

    Good point. The wise course of action is to dismiss this charge. However, this prosecutor is unpredictable.

    The dispute centers over whether she failed to disclose the funds in the website. She says she does not know and refers the questioner to someone who might know. Taken as a whole her testimony is not even deceptive.

Who OWNS the funds contributed via the website? Depending on the facts, perhaps they are not “owned” by George or Shellie Zimmerman, but instead held in trust for them for specific purposes.

    Pablo in reply to ddreyer. | July 15, 2013 at 11:57 am

    The original site went to George’s Paypal account, so he owned it. After O’Mara came on, they took that sire down and set up a more formal defense fund.

    Carol Herman in reply to ddreyer. | July 15, 2013 at 1:25 pm

    To pay their mounting legal bills.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to ddreyer. | July 15, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Those monies, IIRC, were contributed for GZ’s defense, not bond. If I had been asked those questions, I also would not have considered those monies available for bond, whether I’d been asked previously or asked what the current status was. IIRC, Shellie stated that a relatives was running the site for the defense fund, and she offered to get that person on the phone but the court failed to take her up on the offer. Since she could not know or say what the amount was in the fund, and since the court didn’t take her up on her offer to find out, it seems to me the court is at fault and the prosecution has once again placed itself as a vindictive tormentor of these poor people.

As I recall the testimony, it seems to me that Shellie testified that Robert Zimmerman could provide the court with information concerning how much money was in the bank account. The prosecution and the judge were not interested in calling Robert – at least there was no response to her helpful comment.

As an earwitness, however, my testimony may be suspect.

    Voluble in reply to gad-fly. | July 15, 2013 at 12:09 pm

    I remember this exactly as you do. She said she did not know how much was in it and helpfully pointed the judge to someone who did. I do not remember what the judge was mad about as far as alleging perjury but my memory of what I thought at the time was that he was at fault for not following up with what she had told him as far as where to get up to date information. Perhaps he was mad that an estimate she had previously made was low, which would be the case as donations came in. Certainly she could not disclose something that had not come in yet and the judge did not bother to ask her when she was aware of the fund… just what was currently in it so he apparently was not investigating her having hid it from the court.

    I had assumed that this was the reason the original judge was removed from the case as it was obvious he had gone overboard in a completely irrational manner. But all of this is just a recounting of the impression I had at the time.

    Make that 3 who remember it the same way.

    William has not put up that part of the testimony and I add that it was missing from the affidavit on purpose.

    When BDLR dropped that bombshell and forced the bond to be revoked he had deceptively manipulated the court report on Shellie’s testimony by removing the fact that she referred him to her brother in law Robert for the answer.

    At the time both BDLR and Judge Lester ignored what she had stated. Then Judge Lester got his panties in a wad at the later date because he had either taken no notice of her testimony or he did not bother to check what she in fact said.

    The perjury charge is a bit of a joke.

    iconotastic in reply to gad-fly. | July 15, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    I have a vague recollection of a jail cell conversation between George and his wife regarding these funds. Somehow that conversation also supported the perjury charge. But this is just from memory

Anything to keep their Reichstag fire burning.

Tom22ndState | July 15, 2013 at 11:53 am

One would believe the State’s fingers would be worn bloody from all the straws they’ve been grasping? But not the State of Florida’s Corey traveling witch trial show.

Wasn’t that money raised specifically for the costs of defense?

I think it is very reasonable to assume that in her mind, there was “our money” which consists of their savings and checking account before the incident, and the money that was raised for defense costs. And if they told the donors that they were going to spend the money on attorneys fees and other costs, then that money is not available for posting bond.

    EricRasmusen in reply to CENTFLAMIKE. | July 15, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    This is all very odd. From the affidavit, it looks as if she committed perjury. Centflamike gives the best defense— that the money was not available for the bond because it was in a trust (“constructive trust”?) for defense expenses.

    But it still seems odd that she wouldn’t bring that up, with her family’s own lawyer asking the questions and presumably knowing about the money. Why wouldn’t he press her to say more, if he knew she was committing perjury and sure to be caught? Why didn’t he tell her afterward to revise her statement? This makes me think that there are details that have been left out.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to EricRasmusen. | July 15, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      She offered, in court, to contact the person running the site who had control over and knew the sum available. The court declined to have her do that.

      the affidavit had deliberately manipulated Shellie’s testimony to remove the part where she referred them to her brother in law for the answer.

      It was ignored at the time. I think that BDLR had already decided to get Shellie for perjury in an effort to force George to make a plea bargain.

      The perjury charges are a travesty because they are based upon manipulated and false information.

    Hodor in reply to CENTFLAMIKE. | July 15, 2013 at 12:19 pm

    I can totally see myself answering as Mike describes believing myself to be completely honest and forthright. I don’t know all the details here but I do know that this charge contributed greatly to the overall “Zimmerman’s a liar” narrative. Isn’t perjury a rather rare charge overall? I mean for something like this…?

Exactly…If I write a check for $100 to a business and stick it in the mailbox, my account will show that $100 in my account, even though it has already been allocated to that check I wrote.

Perhaps the same thinking with the legal defense fund…money in the account, but already allocated.

This smacks of “any means necessary.”

“Nice family you’ve got there, George… be a shame if something were to happen to it…”

Sign the Angela Corey DOJ investigation petition.

Need 150 signatures to get it posted on the website.

Cut and paste to facebook, twitter or other forums.

    rabidfox in reply to mtx3. | July 15, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    No, this petition won’t go anywhere because it’s Holder’s call and he won’t follow up. Send e-mails to the Florida bar (if you are an attorney) and to Gov. Scott.

Wait. Rachel Jenteal and Tracy Martins’ lies were judged ‘ forgivable ‘ by the prosecution ….

Powerful piece!!!

My name WAS Antonio West and I was the 13-month old BABY who was shot at point blank range by two teens who were attempting to rob my mother, who was also shot. A grand jury of my mommy’s peers from Brunswick GA determined the teens who murdered me will not face the death penalty…too bad I was given a death sentence for being innocent and defenseless.

My family made the mistake of being white in a 73% non-white neighborhood, but my murder was not ruled a hate crime. Nor did President Obama take so much as a single moment to acknowledge my murder.

I am one of the youngest murder victims in our great nation’s history, but the media doesn’t care to cover the story of my tragic demise. President Obama has no children who could possibly look like me – so he doesn’t care and the media doesn’t care because my story is not interesting enough to bring them ratings so they can sell commercial time slots.

There is not a white equivalent of Al Sharpton because if there was he would be declared racist, so there is no one rushing to Brunswick GA to demand justice for me. There is no White Panther party to put a bounty on the lives of those who murdered me. I have no voice, I have no representation and unlike those who shot me in the face while I sat innocently in my stroller, I no longer have my life.

So while you are seeking justice for Trayvon, please remember to seek justice for me too. Tell your friends about me, tell you families, get t-shirts with my face on them and make the world pay attention, just like you did for Trayvon.

In regards to the questioning of SZ by BDLR this is what came next after the last question listed above:

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Who would know that?
A: That would be my brother-in-law.
Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.
A: No, he is not, sir.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.
Q. Okay. You haven’t talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amount of how much money?
A. No. No, I have not
Q. Okay. And how long has that website been in existence, ma’am?
A. I do not know. I have not been with my husband since he’s been in hiding. I do not know.
Q. Okay. So you mentioned your husband was in hiding. I understand he left the state, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q – Okay. And did you continue to have contact with him while he was out?
A. Yes, every day.
Q. And that was every day?
A. Yes.

If BDLR wanted to know how much was in the defense fund he could have questioned GZ’s brother but didn’t. This was nothing but a perjury trap, poorly done IMHO, but a trap it was. The only goal in the charges was to pressure GZ to beg for a plea to save the state from themselves for bringing charges in a case they had no chance of winning.

Mike Daniel at Stately McDaniel Manor had wrote about this in June of 2012 here:

    Carol Herman in reply to styro1. | July 15, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    You know, it seems odd to me that a defendant (or his wife) has to give the prosecutors information about their Defense Funds.) “Discovery” is supposed to work from the State supplying accurate and EXCULPATORY data that’s been collected on the accused.) But, no. They can’t stick their hands into any Defense lawyer’s pockets.

    So I learn something new every day. Dishonest government. And, here? The best attorneys money can buy. Thank goodness the Zimmermans are still receiving donations for their defense funds. Which will probably be gone over with a fine-tooth comb by Holder’s IRS instructions.

    thumbs up 100 times over because this contains the part of the testimony that was removed in the affidavit as well as when the bombshell was dropped.

    That affidavit is a lie and the person who raised it has also committed perjury.

Midwest Rhino | July 15, 2013 at 1:04 pm

Can’t she just “restate” her testimony, as Holder was allowed to do months later, on something much more important (the sale of 2500 guns to drug cartels that resulted in a few hundred murders)?

Can she just blame it on a couple rogue PayPal agents in Ohio?

Could she blame it on some video? Lying works fine for Hillary/Obama/Rice.

She told the judge to call the guy that knew, so it was not “hidden” at that point. There was ambiguity before that in the questions, and perhaps she even tried to be ambiguous in her answers. But when it came down to it, she gave the source. Not Hidden.

txantimedia | July 15, 2013 at 1:10 pm

The perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman was a transparent attempt by the State to coerce George Zimmerman into pleading to a lesser charge, in exchange for which they would drop the perjury charge against Shellie.

Unfortunately for the State, the Zimmermans actually believed in the justice system (I wonder if they still do!) and believed that an innocent person would not be found guilty of a crime.

I watched the hearing. Shellie Zimmerman clearly stated that Robert Zimmerman could answer all their questions. Unfortunately for her, the State had set a trap that they believed would catch her perjuring herself, and sure enough they filed charges on her.

I agree with Dr. Jacobson. The case is rife with vagaries that will make it quite difficult to find her guilty.

    Carol Herman in reply to txantimedia. | July 15, 2013 at 1:42 pm

    If, in such a predicament, with O’Mara (and West) as my attorneys I’d believe deeply in our American justice system. But I would also know it would take a long time.

    By the way, do you notice that to be safe George Zimmerman is in hiding! And, BDLR wanted Shellie to give the prosecution a phone number so they could go and locate his whereabouts. No?

    The State of Florida will bear the burden for this travesty of justice. Just as they became the laughingstock over “hanging chads.” Front page news NOT complimentary to Florida. Which can’t recover from its catastrophic debt and deficit without looking attractive to people outside the state … who could move their homes, factories, stories and other stuff, IN. (Even California is discovering it’s not enough to provide great weather.)

      Skookum in reply to Carol Herman. | July 15, 2013 at 7:19 pm

      And leftist morons still believe Gore won FL in 2000, despite not a single version of a recount (none of which were constitutionally relevant) showing a Bush loss.

Carol Herman | July 15, 2013 at 1:22 pm

Well, well, well. It’s Guy. The good looking prosecutor at the table that we all saw bringing in naked gray man. Then, of course, O’Mara, going over to where the Martin’s sit. And, pulling up the grey dummy, putting it on the floor. And, mounting it (with much embarrassment) … As he then showed the jurors (some of whom stood to see better) … How Zimmerman was the grey stuffed man on the ground. And, how the “boy” Trayvon could pick up his head to slam it into the concrete.

Will this judge Alva allow cameras in her courtroom?

Will the 50-shades-of-gray-man be brought back? This time he could flash a money belt about his waist.

She’s going to be represented, I think, by O’Mara. So towards the end of August … we will see another attempt to destroy the Zimmerman’s.

Uncle Samuel | July 15, 2013 at 1:23 pm

What is the attached form, detailing a conversation between Shellie and George, signed by the State Investigator O’Steen and what does this have to do with the charges?

The state in affidavit claims SZ lied b/c she said she didn’t know how much money was in defense fund on day of hearing April 20th, when she testified. But the only proof she new how much was in account were taped phone calls between GZ & SZ 4 days prior to hearing on April 16th. BDLR didn’t ask her how much was in account 4 days earlier he asked her how much was in there that day. There could have been more donations or money taken out by SZ’s brother-in-law, and she offered to have him testify but BDLR didn’t really want to know the amount. The prosecution are the one’s who lied in the charging affidavit by leaving out pertinent facts just as they did in GZ’s case.

Professor Jacobson has more on this from June 2012:

    Phillep Harding in reply to styro1. | July 15, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    I followed a Drudge link to BDLR saying that GZ had the firearm out before the assault, but he had no witnesses. So, how does he know?

Anyone catch BDLR on ABC this morning calling GZ a coward for not taking the stand in his own defense. What despicable, unethical little man he is.

    DollzWize in reply to styro1. | July 15, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    Dershowitz is Right – BLDR Should be disbarred!

    cazinger in reply to styro1. | July 15, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    It is disgusting what is being portrayed in the media now. GZ didn’t have the COURAGE?!? to take the stand? What BS from the prosecution.

    It could just as easily be said that BDLR did not have the COURAGE to conduct a demonstration for the jury, whereby he would lay on his back, with his head on concrete, and allow the MMA expert called by the Defense to do a ground and pound on him … you know, just to show that it really ISN’T that bad. Why didn’t BDLR or Mantei or Guy have the COURAGE to do that?!?

Carol Herman | July 15, 2013 at 1:34 pm

Ay, and then the rub. Sympathy for Shellie will increase donations to the defense fund! Even though the amount is meager in terms of the pot of taxpayer funds the State has; this just adds up that the Zimmerman’s are being abused by the State, who wants to destroy them.

Shellie is getting excellent advice from O’Mara and West! If the state wants a gunfight … they’ll discover how we citizens arm ourselves against their abuses.

Let alone that Florida is a state over it’s eyeballs in debt and deficit. If they didn’t have Disney World, i think they’d feel how their tourism business doesn’t keep up with the defense funds arriving for the Zimmerman’s.

Oh, and when half-nelson said to George Zimmerman “you are free to go” the bondsman had to remove his ankle bracelet. And, had to give him ALL the funds that had secured the bond that let Zimmerman walk among us free men. And, women.

    DollzWize in reply to Carol Herman. | July 15, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    Sorry I can’t recall where the info is but SZ is being represented by a different firm

    kermitrulez in reply to Carol Herman. | July 15, 2013 at 3:41 pm

    Just as a fact check, Florida has a balanced budget amendment and is running in the black and adding to its reserves.

      Matt in FL in reply to kermitrulez. | July 15, 2013 at 3:49 pm

      I appreciate you keeping the facts straight, kermit. It came as no great surprise to me to find that the author of the erroneous statement was Carol. I wish I could filter her comments out of this feed, as they are rife with misstatement and speculation.

Chuckin Houston | July 15, 2013 at 1:34 pm

At the time I thought this was a bald-faced attempt by the State to use bail, not to discourage flight/assure appearance in court, but to deprive Zimmerman of the means to hire effective legal counsel.

    Take a trip down memory lane for a moment and think about what happened at the time.

    Nobody expected that the amount of money that poured into the defense fund would happen.

    When the State and everyone else found out about how much was there, the usual suspects started creating a ruckus. They were totally p’d off because of those funds and they were agitating about increasing the bond etc. The loudest of those who were agiting was none other than Chump.

    The State created the perjury charge in order to increase the amount of bond that George had to pay. The State stole the earlier bond money when that bond was revoked and then took the majority of the defense funds that had been raised. Somebody had to help George to raise the over-reach of a $1 million bond. Somebody put their house on the line to make bond. It was never revealed how that money was raised in negotiation with the bondsman, but it would not have been the property of the Zimmermans.

The Shellie Zimmerman is Clearly unethical bullying and should be thrown out.

Holder speaking at the NAACP convention.

Uh, oh. He ‘shares their concern…’

    Carol Herman in reply to Fabi. | July 15, 2013 at 2:04 pm

    HA. HA. HA.

    If Holder’s talking most of the audience left for Disney World. Those that stay seated? Wouldn’t even be considered a crowd if they all stood at the counter at Nathan’s to buy hot dogs.

‘I hereby state under oath that I am instituting this prosecution in good faith.’

Roger that.

Carol Herman | July 15, 2013 at 1:58 pm

Okay. I used Google to look up Shellie’s attorney: Kelly Bryan Sims. I’m sure this man is not unknown to either O’Mara or West. (And, at Google I learned they are not in one practice, together, but have independent law firms, all within the Orlando area.)

So when is the perjury case against “DeeDee” Jeantel scheduled to be tried?

    Carol Herman in reply to BubbaLeroy. | July 15, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    Heck, when Dee-Dee gets her diploma if she graduates Crap. I mean Krup Senior High School, the paper will be written in cursive. So she’ll get a diploma she can’t even read. “Poor dear.”

    Fabi in reply to BubbaLeroy. | July 15, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    The publicity-shy Ms. Jeantel will be appearing on Piers Morgan tonight.

If Angela Corey (or her minions at the State table) is behind this charge, does anyone really think they’ll just quietly let it drop? They’re doing press literally calling George Zimmerman a murderer, for pete’s sake! At what point does that become slander, by the way?

    ProfessionalSpectator in reply to Matt in FL. | July 15, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    It’s getting pretty close. Calling someone a “murderer” on television after acquittal is, at the very least, grossly unprofessional. Zimmerman would probably have a little bit of trouble proving actual damage (which would be required due to the matter being one of “public interest;” normally, in libel cases, reputation damage is presumed) to reputation though. His reputation is already a bit diminished..

    robbi in reply to Matt in FL. | July 15, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    You’re right. Zimmerman probably can nnot sue them for malicious prosecution but the trial is over. I would LOVE to see GZ sue for slander now.

Empty suit US Member of Congress just said ‘he chased him down and confronted him’ and ‘he ignored the police and got out of his car’ and ‘he should have never gotten out of his car’.

A member of the United States House of Representatives. And he’s a former prosecutor!

    Voluble in reply to Fabi. | July 15, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    Well, in fairness to him, the press is supposed to correct him on the facts rather than mislead him. Given the coverage I can’t blame someone for believing falsehoods. I don’t know what party he is in but I am willing to let him have a trial in Florida to prove he was not willfully misstating the facts. Isn’t that how we do things now? We put people on trial even without evidence of a crime being committed?

      robbi in reply to Voluble. | July 15, 2013 at 2:59 pm

      No, I don’t accept the “in fairness” statement. We would all think GZ was guilty if we had depended just on the MSM. People like us took it upon ourselves to investigate further than the biased headlines.

    MarkS in reply to Fabi. | July 15, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    I’ll bet you an ice cream sandwich said member is a Democrat!

OK, I can see maybe why she got in trouble now. If she was saying she did not know about the defense fund and at the same time was consulting with George over what to do with the money then that could be a problem. The dates are not clear though so I can’t even say that much with surety.

We who watched the hearing were thinking it was a problem with the amounts rather than the existence. Perhaps that was an error. Has someone seen the charging document?

I could very easily have seen her lying to try to protect the family given what the prosecution was up to. It would have been a bad decision (if it happened) but I could see it.

    Fabi in reply to Voluble. | July 15, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    Has someone seen the charging document?

    It’s embedded at the top of this page. In a docstoc document frame, may not show up on a smart phone.

    Nope. She did not say that she knew about the defense fund. She stated that she did not know the amount in the defense fund.

    The specific question that trapped Shellie was along the lines of do you know the amount that is in the fund now.

    Shellie referred BDLR to her brother in law. She stated that Robert would have the answers that they required.

Just another example of the all powerful “State” that some folks seem to love. Isn’t there some sort of professional standards for prosecutors?

MouseTheLuckyDog | July 15, 2013 at 3:14 pm

Wrong the next course of action is the sanctions hearing that was interuppted pretrial. The one where Bernie got to cross examine Don West, but when OMara tried to call Bernie to the stand, He said he was not going to take the stand and before he could be forced the judge decided to adjorn the hearing till after the trial:

Now I see Bernie is saying that GZ should have had the courage to take the stand:

Bernie shouldn’t be showing us his balls, instead he should be showing us ****his courgage****.

According to this Orlando Sentinel article perjury charges in Florida are extremely rare. According to the Sentinel prosecutors in 16 Florida counties have not filed perjury cases in five years. Miami Dade had only two filed in a 12 month period and both were dropped.

The Sentinel does say

Special Prosecutor Angela Corey of Jacksonville, whose office filed the perjury charge against Zimmerman’s 25-year-old wife, Shellie, is far more aggressive and successful, data from her office reveal.

From 2009, when she took office, through June 30, she successfully prosecuted nearly three dozen perjury suspects in Duval County.

Most were guilty of lying while filling out workers’ compensation forms, making insurance claims or filing police reports. A far smaller number — 10 — were witnesses who lied in court, records from her office show.

Sentences imposed on those 10 people generally ranged from 12 months of probation to 13 months in state prison. One defendant, also a burglar, was given five years of prison time.

Isn’t the deceptive editing of the transcript, the oath on the document, … a self-establishing commission and confession of perjury?

It’s a travesty to continue to torment this family. We should demand, by way of petition, perjury prosecutions of the states lying witnesses to illustrate the injustice in this.

Who would be the top 3 candidates for perjury prosecutions from the trial and the lies they told?

    Skookum in reply to jimbo-d. | July 15, 2013 at 7:40 pm

    The four members of the prosecution team need to be brought up on charges in civil court, federal court, and before the bar. Complaints against the judges who allowed this case to go forward, jeopardizing the six jurors, need to be filed with the State’s commission on judicial conduct, and these judges need to be prosecuted in federal court for civil rights violations and hate crimes.

    Sitting back and allowing emotional and illogical racists to intimidate society hasn’t worked; appeasement never works. It’s time to fight fire with fire. GZ’s ongoing persecution is for being multi-racial. TM racially profiled GZ, he stalked GZ, he approached GZ, he verbally confronted GZ, and he violently assaulted GZ. Because GZ is a black-native Anerican-white man, the State refuses to ackbowledge his god-give right to self defense, which John Locke called the first natural right.

      Sitting back and allowing emotional and illogical racists to intimidate society hasn’t worked;

      It has been a feature of American politics like forever.

      The shoe in now just on the other foot.

      Deplorable? Of course. But how do you fix it?

This is just sick. The prosecution may yet get the blood it craves.

Any word on the sanctions hearing for the alleged discovery violations by the prosecution? Is that going to proceed?

Reading the comments reinforces the old, tried & true principal that there’s a limitless ability of people to rationalize.
Let’s pluck the facts from this lint-covered old jacket.
The accepted standard for interpreting the language that’s being parsed and beaten senseless in this cyber-exercise in obfuscation is…what would a reasonable person think?
No, that’s not up for interpretation.
Just as we all know what pornography is, we all know what reasonable is.

The presumption is that a lawyer, and those who hang with him to discuss legal matters, have a respect for the law.
Did George and Shellie have more money than they revealed when questioned under oath?
Did they know they had more money?
Court is now in session.

    Allyn in reply to danobivins. | July 24, 2013 at 11:34 pm

    “Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
    A: I’m aware of that website.
    Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
    A: Currently, I do not know.
    Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?”

    Stick to the facts. First George was not questioned under oath about his finances, so he could not have lied.
    Second, Please state which of Shellie’s answers was false.
    “Did they know they had more money?” More than what? She was asked about NOW. Not 4 days ago.
    I assume you were sure that George was guilty of some crime as well. Wrong again!

[…] time to visit two articles by Professor Jacobson, one from June 13, 2012, and a more recent one from July 15, 2013 on this case.  You’ll discover his conclusions mirror mine, but he approaches things from a […]