Image 01 Image 03

True Story: GA Sex Offender Seeks Re-Trial of Zimmerman

True Story: GA Sex Offender Seeks Re-Trial of Zimmerman

Just when you thought the Zimmerman case couldn’t get any crazier, here we go.

An amicus curiae brief has been filed in support of a motion to re-try George Zimmerman for second-degree murder. The full brief is embedded at the bottom of this post.  (“Amicus curiae” literally means “friend of the court”, not a party to the action.)

Not only that, the brief argues that the prosecuting team should be found guilty of professional misconduct (no argument there), that they should therefore be disqualified from re-trying the case, and that a new prosecution team should be selected for this re-trial. And by whom should this new team of prosecutors be chosen? Why, by Martin family lawyer Benjamin Crump and cohorts. Naturally.

Martin family lawyer, Benjamin Crump

(Martin family lawyer, Benjamin Crump)

Chris Hansen To The White Courtesy Phone, Please

Before we get to the merits (ha-ha) of this brief, it might be worth taking a look at who authored this legal filing. Certainly not Angela Corey’s team who are called out as incompetent in the document. Was it Governor Scott, finally recognizing the enormous blunder that was the assignment of Corey to this case? No. Was it perhaps the Federal Department of Justice, seeking to relieve Sharpton’s racist tumescence by any means necessary? No, after some early jawing the DOJ has pretty much disappeared from this matter, as anticipated. Was it perhaps even Benjamin Crump himself? No again.

The filing was made by someone identifying themselves as Cleve L. Molette, residing at 4552 Old Dixie Hwy #272, Forest Park, GA 30297. Curiously, there was no bar association number, which lawyer’s routinely include on their filings, suggesting that Mr. Molette is not himself an attorney. Laughably, Mr. Molette includes as his email address [email protected]”.  (Get it? “I am Trayvon.”).


(Cleve L. Molette, filer of amicus curiae brief to re-try George Zimmerman)

So, who is this Cleve L. Molette? Naturally, I turned to Google. Seconds later I had a screen full of results, including one from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI). They, too, had a record of a Cleve L. Molette residing at 4552 Old Dixie Highway, #272, Forest Park, GA 30297. I’m guessing it’s the same guy.

Why, one might wonder, would the Georgia Bureau of Investigation have such a record of Mr. Molette? Because on July 23, 2010, at the age of ~47 years, Cleve L. Molette was convicted of sexual battery against a child under 16 years of age. As a result, he was required by the state to register as a sex offender, a registration maintained as a publicly accessible record by the GBI.

Screen Shot 2013-08-11 at 11.08.53 AM

(Cleve L. Molette, convicted sex offender)

Mr. Molette also appears to be something of a recreational jailhouse lawyer, having filed a variety of amicus curiae briefs in other cases. He also represented himself on Federal appeal of dismissal of a suit he filed against Georgia officials over an incident in which he was arrested for loitering and had a handgun he was carrying seized. (He lost that appeal: Molette v. Georgia, US 11th Cir., 2012.)

Molette Claims Prosecution Erred When Failed to Request “Aggressor” Instruction

Having thus informed ourselves on the man behind the brief, let’s take a look at the merits of his argument. In essence, Mr. Molette argues that the jury should have been read an “aggressor” instruction and that the failure to have this instruction read justifies a retrial of George Zimmerman.

So, what is an “aggressor” instruction?

The first fundamental principle of the law of self defense is “Innocence” (see Chapter 2, “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition”). This means that the right to justify one’s use of force against another person is normally reserved only for the innocent party. In contrast, a person who initiated, continued, or sustained a fight—the aggressor—is not normally entitled to justify his use of force as lawful self-defense.

This fundamental principle is found in one form or another in the self defense law of all 50 states. In the case of Florida it is found in  statute 776.041, which provides in relevant part:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor

The justification described in the preceding sections [describing lawful self-defense] is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself . . .

This language is mirrored in Florida jury instruction 3.6(f), which provides in relevant part that:

Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.6(f). Justifiable Use of Deadly Force

However, the use of deadly force is not justifiable if you [the jurors] find:

(1) Defendant was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of an applicable forcible felony; or

(2) Defendant initially provoked the use of force against himself/herself . . .

So, does Zimmerman qualify as an aggressor for the purposes of an aggressor instruction? Mr. Molette argues that he does, stating:

George Zimmerman was both the defendant and was charged with a forcible felony [murder]; Then, pursuant to Florida Standard Jury Instructions 3.6(f), the jury should have been instructed with Fla. Stat. 776.041, Aggressor, concerning whether Zimmerman committed a forcible felony against Trayvon Martin, or whether Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force against himself.

Shocker: Turns Out Molette’s Understanding of Actual Law is Negligible

Unfortunately for Mr. Molette he is mistaken on all counts.

With respect to whether Zimmerman would qualify for this instruction under subsection (2), “initially provoked the use of force”, there was not a sliver of evidence at trial that Zimmerman did anything that could have reasonably provoked Martin’s vicious aggravated assault on him.

With respect to whether Zimmerman would qualify for an aggressor instruction under subsection (1), “committing a forcible felony”, to wit murder, Mr. Molette also fails to understand how the law applies here.

Remarkably, Mr. Molette comes to his error error despite acknowledging in his own brief that an aggressor instruction applies “only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony” (emphasis added). The controlling law here is found in Giles v. State, 831 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), which was cited favorably as recently May 2012 in Santiago v. Florida, 88 So.3d 1020 (FL Ct. App. 2012).

In Giles the defendant got into an altercation with at a poker game and smashed the victim in the mouth with a brick.  He was charged with aggravated assault.  At trial, it was agreed the jury would be instructed on self-defense.  Over defense objection the judge also read the jury the aggressor instruction, including:

The use of force . . . is not justifiable if you find that the defendant was attempting to commit, committing or escaping after the commission of an aggravated battery.

Giles was convicted, and appealed.

The appellate court agreed that the instruction was in error, and was likely to confuse or mislead the jury.

This case was not one where the alleged aggravated battery occurred while Giles was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of some other independent forcible felony. The instruction is normally given in situations where the accused is charged with at least two criminal acts, the act for which the accused is claiming self-defense and a separate forcible felony. Here, by contrast, Giles committed only one act, the alleged aggravated battery.

The instruction given improperly told the jury that the very act Giles sought to justify itself precluded a finding of justification. Essentially, the jury was instructed that 776.041(1) would apply to preclude a self-defense claim, when it is claimed that the acts with which the defendant is charged are themselves committed in appropriate self-defense. Thus, even if the jury found that Giles’ act of aggravated battery was committed in self-defense, then the use of force was not justifiable because the act itself is a forcible felony. This reading, however, is erroneous because the proper test for determining the applicability of the instruction is not whether the self-defense act itself could qualify as a forcible felony, but whether, at the time of the self-defense, the accused was engaged in a separate forcible felonious act. Here, Giles was not engaged in a separate felonious act at the time of the alleged aggravated battery and so the instruction was inapplicable. At the very least, the instruction given was circular and confusing to the jury such that it basically negated Giles’ defense.

Giles’ conviction was reversed.

So, based on the actual law there is no basis on which the jury should have been read an aggressor instruction in the Zimmerman case, and to have read such an instruction and achieved a conviction would most certainly have been reversible error.

Can Improper Jury Instruction That Results in Acquittal Lead to Re-Trial?

Let’s pretend for the moment, however, that an aggressor instruction would have been appropriate in this case. Mr. Molette then goes on to argue that:

The jury instructions in this case were contrary to law. The jury’s deliberations where [sic] conducted using the erroneous instructions. Therefore, the verdict rendered is likewise contrary to law. A verdict contrary to law is proper ground [sic] to GRANT a new trial.

But is that really what Florida law says? So, sorry, Mr. Molette, I’m afraid not. In fact, “an erroneous instruction is not a ground for reversal if its effect is favorable to the defendant.” Roberts v. State, 113 So. 726 (1927).

So, even if an aggressor instruction had been warranted, and failing to so instruct the jury was error, so long as the instructional error was favorable to the defendant it is not grounds for reversal.

Plus, there’s the whole “double jeopardy” thing—but Mr. Molette ignores this in his brief, and I’ve already spent enough time debunking his legal silliness.

Hey, maybe Angela Corey will Appoint Cleve Molette Assistant State Prosecutor (just a joke)

Having now thoroughly debunked Mr. Molette’s brief, it is nevertheless striking that his legal reasoning and politically motivated twisting of the law is really no more deficient than that exhibited by Angela Corey, Bernie de la Rionda, John Guy, and Rich Mantei.


Angela Corey, Florida State Prosecutor

Who knows, perhaps they’ll soon have another peer with they can maliciously wield the power of the State to destroy the lives of other innocent Floridians.

If you have trouble finding Mr. Molette, Angela, just call the Georgia Bureau of Investigation—they’ll know where he is.

For those who are interested, here’s Mr. Molette’s amicus curiae brief:

Zimmerman Case – Amicus Brief Filed by Cleve Molette July 23 2013

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” now available at as well at, as either a hardcopy or in Kindle version, and at Barnes & Noble as hardcopy or in Nook version.

Andrew has also launched a series of state-specific supplements that dive deep into ever relevant statute, jury instruction, and court case that defines the law of self-defense in a particular state. Supplements are now available to order pre-publication for Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia at 38% off list price.

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense and using #LOSD2, on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Mrs. Leroy Goldberg | August 11, 2013 at 12:45 pm

Check out the latest upheaval at the Orlando Sentinel, explains a lot about the way they covered the Zimmerman trial. No negative stories allowed about St. Travoon, family and friends.

No shock here. Surprised they didn’t go to John Roberts to have him throw the case to FISA. Since we’re dealing with lots of people who don’t respect our Constitution. And, feel they have the opportunity to change things to just the way they like it.

It’s the Dee-Dee “rule.” Or the Oprah “rule.” They sez it, and so it tis. Starts with a solid hatred of our culture.

Harder to explain John Roberts than the other cohorts, here, who won’t get to first base.

Not a lawyer here, BUT you get a re-trial if the jurors found you GUILTY, if you can prove the judge didn’t instruct the jurors correctly, and according to the law.

There’s plenty of judicial error in Zimmerman’s trial. But lucky for Farley Rediculous Half Nelson, the jurors came back and said Zimmerman was NOT GUILTY. And, as Zimmerman exited the court, Half Nelson said to him “You have no more business here, LEAVE.”

Hard to get around the Constitution, even if you can the whole entire media apparatus to show up on your behalf.

I guess Crump doesn’t want to give up the mircrophone, huh?

And, I wonder if he can keep billing the Martin’s for his service?

    sequester in reply to Carol Herman. | August 11, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    Oddly enough Carol, the US Supreme Court decided Evans v Michigan this term. The Trial Court granted a directed verdict of acquittal in Evans’ arson trial. Both the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court held that the Trial Court made a legal error in granting the motion. A retrial was ordered. Evans appealed to the US Supreme Court which granted certiorari.

    By a vote of 8-1 the US Supreme Court held that a retrial was barred by the double jeopardy clause of the US Constitution. Alito, not Thomas was the lone dissenter.

      Carol Herman in reply to sequester. | August 11, 2013 at 5:51 pm

      Until john roberts set the secret FISA court into motion, alito was the worst one up there.

      And, in the dynamics of “things,” it was alito’s belief that “women had to ask their husbands approval” to get an abortion, that turned O’Connor off of Rehnquist’s “team.”

      Ruth Bader Ginsberg also came out and nailed why Alito was wrong! She said alito was attempting to treat women as less than equal.

      It’s one thing if you have enemies. But the Federalist Society just doesn’t have good judges in it. What’s the excuse for this?

      As to Crump, he’s not going to get to square one.

      The bigger question is if Rick Scott can win a second term. (If he wins a second term, he’s gonna consider himself republican presidential material.)

      Glad the jurors got it right!

        Juba Doobai! in reply to Carol Herman. | August 11, 2013 at 8:52 pm

        Why is it a bad thing that a woman has to get her husband’s approval for an abortion? Doesn’t he have to get her approval for a vasectomy? Is the child not half his? Why should she be the only one with a voice? If a husband’s refusal means that one less baby dies, then husbandly consent is a good thing.

          There is no legal requirement that husband get his spouse’s “approval” for a vasectomy. Some doctors ask that a spouse sign a consent form because the doctors (not the law) believe this is a decision that should be shared or perhaps they are trying to avoid a potential lawsuit. But it is not a legal requirement. And, from what I have read, may even be in violation of the law.

I hope @TheRevAl picks up on this and has this guy on his @MSNBC dog & pony show. That would be DVR-licous.

PersonFromPorlock | August 11, 2013 at 1:33 pm

Well, the Rev. Sharpton is getting on, and Mr. Molette may be aspiring to better things. If becoming the next Rev. Sharpton is a better thing, for him.

I would like to add a bit to Mr. Branca’s excellent debunking of Mr Cleve “The Perv” Molette’s ridiculous filing.

Florida’s 776.041 (2) (a) continues to say:

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm…


So, IMHO, it doesn’t even matter if Zimmerman started it or not, of which we have agreed there’s no evidence whatsoever. Trayvon martin used disproportionate force, giving Zimmerman the right to defend himself out of fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

JackRussellTerrierist | August 11, 2013 at 1:51 pm


As a convict, sex registrant, and jailhouse lawyer, one would think this moron would have heard of double jeopardy by now.

You just can’t make this crap up!

Did anyone notice the coincidence:


I find it hard to believe that given the activities of the federal authorities in getting Angela Corey appointed as Florida State Prosecutor in the Zimmerman case, that double jeopardy may also apply to any additional federal action.

In effect, Zimmerman had already been a finding of “self defense” so, even though it was by state officials, the fed’s have already had their day in court.

    platypus in reply to Neo. | August 11, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    You got it, Neo. A finding of fact is set in stone forever. That is my personal grievance against a whole bunch of trial courts here in WA state. They litigate no matter what if the finding is “an inconvenient truth” to the narrative they wish to support (usually in family law and domestic violence causes).

    D@mn it, I want my country back.

    platypus in reply to Neo. | August 11, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    I neglected to state that there must be sufficient admissible evidence to support a finding before it becomes immortal. My bad.

Thanks for posting this Mr. Branca– it always helps to get reminded of the astonishing amount of legal ignorance out there.

I suspect Molette suffers from what’s described as the Dunning-Kruger effect. For those unfamiliar with the term, the D-K is a form of cognitive bias where the unskilled think of themselves as superior to the average. In other words, when you are so stupid about something, you can’t see your own (obvious to others) stupidity. Now even non-lawyers have some notion of the concept of double jeopardy, and Molette should have started there.

On another legal blog, a commenter thought that Zimmerman was the attacker because Rachel Jeantel testified that she heard TM say “get off, get off” on her cell phone. While he did say “suggests,” I think that for him, it proved GZ attacked TM.

There are a whole lot of people out there who simply won’t accept the verdict. They seem to want the kind of criminal jurisprudence England had in the 11th and 12th Centuries where the defendant had to prove his innocence. In those days, the process proceeded in the following sequence: judgment, trial, sentence. Moreover, people with a vested interest in the case could serve on trial juries including victims, witnesses, and accusers. It took until the 1700s for jurors to lose the characteristic of also being witnesses. Were such a system in place today, TM’s parents could serve on the jury, and Jeantel too. Thus I find the Zimmerman case, and the aftermath extremely troubling because so many people seem to want: judgment, trial, sentence again. They would throw away all the progress we have made over the last 900 years. As America becomes more and more a multiracial society where tribal loyalty trumps everything, and politicians are willing to pander to groups who vote in coherently (all together), we are going to see repetitions of the Zimmerman imbroglio.

Ummm…Andrew, if I may be so bold, Sir: “ relieve Sharpton’s racist tumescence..”

PLEASE CHANGE TO: “ fill Sharpton’s racist testicular concavity..”

Thank you.

I have a suspicious mind, and I bet crump has defended/dealt with this guy before and put him up to this. I didn’t read everything, just glanced so if any interaction had already been mentioned I apologize.
do I have proof? nope, just a feeling.

Jesus H!

Just tuning up the grill for some burgers and I see angela HOARY, come on huh!

crump and company (and you know who/whom you are, keep this bullshit up and they WILL get what is their most ardent wish, A Race War.

Just as in the case of barry, bad at math. I’m here to help, check percentages of population.

From tragedy to farce in quick easy steps. Race hustlers will be dining out on Trayvon’s death for years to come.

There is a lot of humor and sarcasm in this piece. You do that very well by making it appear that his motion warrants such in depth discussion. Thanks.

    I had quite a few people direct my attention to Mr. Motelle’s brief, expressing genuine concern of legal jeopardy for Zimmerman.

    Thought it best to put that one to bed with two in the hat. 🙂

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      platypus in reply to Andrew Branca. | August 11, 2013 at 6:05 pm

      Wow, I’d be concerned about the health (mental or otherwise) of those who were “concerned” enough to write to you about their “concerns.”

      Of course, they may just have been operating in a vain manner by trying to get your attention because they admire you so. As do most all of us here.

      Here’s a smileyface back at ya. 🙂

        They just don’t know how the law works at that granular level, is all. One legal filing looks much like another to the inexperienced eye.

        Show me two wildly different pieces of sheet music and I’d have the same reaction–they look much the same to me. Sheet music is simply something I know nothing about.

        –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

          ConradCA in reply to Andrew Branca. | August 11, 2013 at 11:04 pm

          It’s not that they don’t know it’s that they are so full of racism and MSM lies that Zimmerman has to be punished no matter what the facts.

          You do know that Zimmerman defied a police order not to get out his car. He hunted down an unarmed child returning from buying candy at the store. That he provoked this incident which never would have happened if he had just stayed in his car. That he is a pussy because instead of taking a beating he shoot a little boy. etc /sarcasm

Phillep Harding | August 11, 2013 at 5:28 pm

Why do I suspect various people are frantically searching for something else to charge Zimmerman with?

I feel for the Martin family losing their son an all…but their 15 minutes are over.

The bigger shock ahead is that publishers won’t be printing the books, or the recaps. Or the tapes of Trayvon’s phone calls. Or anyone’s remarks if they managed to “interview” Dee Dee. (Dee Dee by the way is not a happy camper! Because she realizes that she’s the hub of the story that put real cash into the Martin’s bank accounts.)

Nobody goes to this high school, either, to see if there are any stories “floating around.” Odd that there’s such a “lack of media interest.”

Will any one individual figure out how to break this log jam?

    Phillep Harding in reply to Carol Herman. | August 12, 2013 at 12:00 pm

    Dee Dee is in a “no win” corner. She probably resents that the parents hit the jack pot, but her (slight) credibility will take a serious hit if she gets any money.

    If she does get any cash, no way is she going to be discreet with her spending.

A day or so ago a white guy, 26 years old, was walking in his neighborhood in St. Paul and came upon many black guys fighting. The report said about 50. He tried to go through them but they caught him and beat the cr*p out of him. He is probably badly brain damaged if he lives at all. Three juveniles and one adult have been arrested so far. My point is that this could be George Zimmerman if he had not had a gun. Too bad this guy didn’t have one. The media won’t report incidents like these black on white crime which is one reason why I have nothing but uttr contempt for them. Zimmerman must feel like the whole world is against him because he defended himself from probably the same condition this guy is in or death.

The black young people, both guys and girls, seem to be gearing up for a race war. They are doing these randon beatings and killings cowardly catching their victims alone for now but will probably get serious sometime soon.

    Phillep Harding in reply to BarbaraS. | August 12, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    Either it’s getting worse, or the PC shield is wearing thin. Could be both. I’m reading many comments (elsewhere) that would be considered outright racist a few years back. People are just tired of it all.

Here is a painting that purports to be Zimmerman shooting Trayvon, but it really looks like a creepy-ass cracker named Bernie De La Rionda, since George Zimmerman isn’t bald.

The Prosecution and Crump really showed their behinds in this case. Crump, Corey and De la Rionda. should be in jail. So should Sharpton and the NBPP party who posted an illegal $10,000. wanted dead or alive reward.

This is one creepy-ass of a Crumped-up case.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Uncle Samuel. | August 12, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    Yea, I have seen that “painting” that is supposedly “art”. While being nothing but fiction in the first place it is also extremely offensive.

    That must have been painted back when the GZ haters were so sure that TM was shot in the back while fleeing. It was truly stunning when the forensics came out, and they just pretended like it didn’t matter that the science backed up Zimmerman’s story and completely refuted theirs.

As for Cleve L. Molette, he’s just a typical Democrat putting out feelers about running for political office.

He will fit right in with Weiner, Filner, Spitzer, Clinton, following in the tradition of the Kennedys.

Strange … the photo of that guy has me scouring Youtube for old SNL Coneheads skits … mass quantities of stupid!

Aren’t you required to use your inmate number when filing an amicus curiae brief?

If argumento, double jeopardy; lack of standing and the Courts order that the defendant had no further “business before this Court” did not control, the recent Florida Appeals Court case; Fallwell v. Florida 5D10-2011 would be relevant. Fallwell was convicted of Aggravated Battery. At trial, following erroneous jury instruction was given:

To prove the crime of Aggravated Battery, the
Defendant must prove the following two elements beyond
a reasonable doubt

The appeals court ruled:

fundamental error can be waived when defense counsel requests an erroneous instruction, see Armstrong v. State, 579 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 1991), or affirmatively agrees to an improper instruction. …Here, Falwell affirmatively agreed to the flawed jury instruction. When the instructions were read to the jury, Falwell’s counsel agreed with the State that the defense bore the burden of proof on this issue, affirmatively correcting the trial court’s original charge, which told the jury that the State bore the burden of proof on this issue:

Usually, defendants who waive a fundamental right, must do so knowingly, and be informed by the Court and by their Counsel. I happen to think this Court is fundamentally wrong, but that is their ruling. The case, no matter how ill decided, is relevant to Molette’s frivolous motion.

Most jury instructions in Florida are standardized, so it is easy for defense counsel to merely skim the paperwork. Fallwell is a warning to all defense counsel to read the instructions carefully with an eye to variations from the standard jury instructions.

innocent bystander | August 12, 2013 at 6:48 am

“Having thus informed ourselves on the man behind the brief, let’s take a look at the merits of his argument.”

Indeed, I am interested in the “the merits of his argument.” Thank you for analyzing it. Your legal arguments are compelling. Your ad hominem arguments are unnecessary.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to innocent bystander. | August 12, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    I for one have no problem calling an idiot an idiot, I also have a great love of sarcasm and wit, so like most intelligent people I appreciate the ad hominem arguments. Frankly, with PC out of control these days we could use a fair deal more Ad Hominem in society. Also since “ad hominem” is an argument against he “opponent” where more than in legal argument is it more appropriate since the character of the one arguing is of particular merit?

    Well, Mr. Anonymous Innocent Bystander, just skip the parts of my posts you don’t like. Or present a reasoned counter-argument. Or don’t read my stuff. Or whatever.

    Just don’t be boring.

    Like now. Don’t be boring, now.

    –Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

      innocent bystander in reply to Andrew Branca. | August 14, 2013 at 8:32 am

      Andrew, thank you for reading the comments; not all authors do. Thank you for responding to my comment and asking for clarification. I wrote, too briefly, that your ad hominem attack on Molette was unnecessary. Indeed, your legal analysis demolished his argument.

      You wrote that he is “something of a recreational jailhouse lawyer” and that the lack of a bar association number on his filing suggests “that Mr. Molette is not himself an attorney.” I agree with you and Gremlin1974: this information is useful for evaluation of his legal filing. You also wrote that he “was convicted of sexual battery against a child under 16 years of age.” I thought that this was not relevant to evaluation of his brief and thus, an ad hominem attack.

      I’m not interested in defending Molette or practicing logic; my interest is very practical and personal. The internet listing of Molette as a sex offender is the result of Megan’s law, which helps parents protect their children. I’m a parent and I’ve used the listing check-out my neighborhood. I’m sure that’s something you support whole-heartedly. So please, use that information only for its intended purpose.

      Your legal analysis is very helpful. You’re fighting the good fight. Thanks.

Could somebody explain to me what “Sexual Battery against a child under 16” is. . . .and just how that doesn’t get you tossed in the slammer?

Or does the “GBI” records just indicate that he is not in the jailhouse at this present time?

    amatuerwrangler in reply to Narniaman. | August 14, 2013 at 12:48 am

    Sorry to be a day late, hope this doesn’t come up a dollar short.

    If you are referring to the GBI registration imbedded above, the incarceration status refers to the custody status on the date the record was accessed. There is also a last known address (LKA) and the date it was last verified.

    Yes, that offense is one that should get someone some slammer time, but unless one has access to the details of the offense and prosecution… well, anything can happen. If he was not convicted there would be no registration record, so we know that is the case. There is no data shown as to the date of either the offense or the conviction, so a period of incarceration could have been meted out and he is released from that.

    Hope that helps.

Well, the Trayvonites don’t seem to be going away quietly, yet. Sooo, on another website I wrote a really good and appropriate protest song for them. This is a serious song, and I didn’t play any of my usual games and make puns about skittles and stuff. Here is the song:

The Trayvon Martin Song
by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter

Comrades, we won’t forget the fallen Trayvon!
As we march on, and on with steady gait!
Join in our song, put on and wear your hoodies proudly
As we fight on, against the Racist State!!!
Join in our song, put on and wear your hoodies proudly
As we fight on, against the Racist State!!!

The sidewalk calls, his Profile there in chalk lines!
And there his Blood, which time has turned to Black!
Do not forget, the Injury which left him dying,
Was the result, of bigoted attack!
Do not forget, the Injury which left him dying,
Was the result, of bigoted attack!

So let us march, the Struggle has not ended!
Let bugles ring, and proudly beat the drum!
We can not rest, or ever sleep in peaceful slumbers,
Until the Racist State we Overcome!
We can not rest, or ever sleep in peaceful slumbers,
Until the Racist State we Overcome!

Sooo, anybody can use this for FREE, with attribution. Thoughtfully, I wrote the above song to fit the melody of an uncopyrighted marching song. It once proved very successful, and motivated a whole lot of people!!! And, it seems sooo appropriate for the Trayvonite race-baiting mindset!:

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

[…] A new motion has been filed in the George Zimmerman case.  Hey, wasn’t he acquitted of the murder charge?  Quite so, but a motion has been filed nonetheless.  Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection tells us:  […]