Wrong. The website specifically primised that "every nickel" would go to legal expesnses. That's fraud, however you rationalize it.
There is a new and an old version. The old one had a broader appeal. It is far from clear if the monies related to both were segregated. O’Mara should have told them to do that. If they didn’t, and got in dutch, well I think I’d be right to be disappointed.
No it did not, as I’ve already provided George Zimmerman’s statement on that website. Try again.
They're both not working and since the case is now all about finances, lets see their tax returns going back 10 years. If they can be put on their financial knees, with addition dirt found on them, they'll be begging for mercy!
The courts and their prosecutors have *millions* to blow in their pursuit of these two. By the time their done with them, they'll head to prison owing tens of thousands.
You made an oopsie and took a Dan Ratheresque concoction to be historical fact.
There is no “there” there.
The Zimmermans were above board about how the money would be used.
I think you may be in serious (and character-damaging) error. When you look at what Yahoo Published (click on the link on Post 34 above) where Zimmerman writes regarding his first appeal:
George Zimmerman launches website for donations via PayPal for legal, living expenses
By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News | The Cutline Mon, Apr 9, 2012
Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman has apparently launched a websiteTheRealGeorgeZimmerman.comto relay a message thanking his supporters, and to collect donations via PayPal for his living and defense expenses. The site had been down intermittently on Monday afternoon.
>> "I am the real George Zimmerman," a message on the site begins.
>> "On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event
>> which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage.
>> As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage,
>> I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer,
>> my family and ultimately, my entire life. This website's sole purpose
>> is to ensure my supporters they are receiving my full attention without
>> any intermediaries."
More from Zimmerman's site:
>> "It has come to my attention that some persons and/or entities have been
>> collecting funds, thinly veiled as my 'Defense Fund' or 'Legal Fund'.
>> I cannot attest to the validity of these other websites
>> as I have not received any funds collected, intended to support my family
>> and I through this trying, tragic time."
>> "I have created a Paypal account solely linked on this website
>> as I would like to provide an avenue to thank my supporters personally
>> and ensure that any funds provided are used only for living expenses
>> and legal defense, in lieu of my forced inability to maintain employment.
>> I will also personally, maintain accountability of all funds received.
>> I reassure you, every donation is appreciated."
>> George Zimmerman
(My emphases in the text above)
Does that answer the question as to whether you are right or wrong in your comment as quoted above?
We should all take note that:
(1) Some unsolicted (hopefully well-meaning?) funds collectors may have made other promises to which Zimmer does not have to answer.
(2) There has been a revision to the narrower restrictions on the funds, now perhaps only accepted (not collected), of which his defense team will be responsible and accountable. Promises made now cannot be made to apply to promises made regarding his earlier, broader solicitation.
(3) Commingling of funds solicited by the first letter would have been subjected to division at his own directed apportionment, which provision would have been in effect up until the revision of his commitment of further funds. They are now being designated only for legal expenses. This was, of course, poor judgment in early management of his receipts, and has led to misunderstandings, it appears.
It does not readily seem that Zimmerman and/or his wife had an intention to divide unconditional contributions other than which he first indicated and proposed. He may well have budgeted an portion for living expenses imminent or outstanding, with the remainder for case costs coming due farther on; the remainder being reported to the judge as the assigned amount apportioned for legal expenses. Was he lying to the judge? Not on that basis, neither being unfaithful to his supporters, eh?
There is simply no need for arguing about this, especially when wrong presumptions are proposed. It might be good for all to stop this. This is irrelevant to and should not materially affect proof of his innocence of the murder charge, IMHO as a bystander and observer.
But unfortunately, Hugin, it looks like your position is indefensible and untenable? How about checking this out for yourself, and come back with proof that my thesis is wrong?
Respectfully suggested --