Skip to comments.Zimmerman's wife arrested, accused of perjury
Posted on 06/12/2012 3:00:50 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
click here to read article
Thanks for the correction.
Sounds like O’Mara and the Zimmermans are screwed because the JUDGE denied due process.
Does O’Mara get access to the raw (unedited) audio of the taped phone calls?
Sounds like the judge and prosecutor should get a room...
This is unbeleivable- The judhe himself asked her if there wwere any assets, she said no, but offered to call the brother inlaw who was overseeing the paypal account to make sure, and the judge said ‘NO’- and even the judge didn’t know IF the money in the paypal account could be concidere assets- This judge is the one that shoudl be arrested for falsely havign others arrested for crimes they did NOT commit!
[[Why do I have the feeling that this is that jurisdictions way of saying, dont you dare question us?]]
Becasue that’s EXACTLY what they are saying- knowing ful lwell that they have an irate blaqck comunity behind them ready to explode into chaos and mayhem IF george zimmermaqn and wife are not prosecuted and convicted
Yeah she lied in court, under oath, that's technically perjury.
Forget the BiL, the Paypal account, and whatever restrictions you imagine were on it. In the 4 days before the hearing, she moved well over 100K out of George's credit union account, including more than 90K into her direct control. Even if she believes "George's account is family money, my account is personal", it's still against the law.
Clearly they were in over their heads with the Paypal account and in need of legal guidance regarding it. That guidance should have come before the bond hearing, and MOM should have been the one to provide it. That is what a lawyer is for. He dropped the ball bigtime and his client is paying the price.
But you are right about one thing. Things would have been so much better had they just left that money in the Paypal account. No one but GZ could have touched it. When they moved the money -- that's where they got in trouble here, because the prosecution is using those transfers as evidence to bring this charge of perjury.
I didn't say the money transfers were illegal (although LE/Treasury/Homeland Security may disagree with me on that). The point is she was specifically asked if they had any assets for bond, and she answered "no". Money in an account is normally considered assets, indeed liquid assets, the most available kind, and it doesn't legally become "no assets" simply by moving it into a spouse's or relatives' account.
When will we know if the judge is part of the set up?
When he isn’t pissed he was lied to and goes along.
Perhaps they didn't view the money from the Paypal account as "assets for bond". It was raised for his living expenses and lawyer's fees -- not for bailbond -- and should probably have been offlimits for bailbond calculation.
The prosecutor claims that because they had this money their bailbond should have been higher because it proves that they were not destitute. Who are they kidding??? They were and are a charity case facing a year of legal fees and that money will go fast. If $150,000 bond is considered low for someone in Zimmerman's financial situation, then their jails must be full.
When is it a crime to lie? When you are under oath in a court of law. It is perjury. Every time.
I do not remember us condoning perjury when it was Clinton. All of a sudden, we condone it. We think there is nothing wrong with lying under oath. Makes us look a bit hypocritical, doesn’t it?
How many years was Clinton jailed for?
If I recall, Linda Tripp got in more legal trouble than Bill Clinton. It’s hypocritical to support “Unequal Justice Under The Law”.
And were you of the belief that Clinton should not be held accountable for perjury? Funny how I do not remember that belief here on Free Republic at the time. It seems to me perjury was taken very seriously at the time. Sacred one’s word was at that time. Goose/gander...pot/kettle. And all that. I am of the belief that perjury should be punished for one and all. Period. There is no gray area when one swears to tell the truth so help me God. I am so sorry so many have chosen to condone perjury in this or any case. I cannot do that. And I am not morally superior to any I know though it may seem I am holding myself to be. That is not what I mean at all.
You misunderstand me. I'm trying to gently explain to you that the "justice" system is broken beyond repair.
All we have now is a bunch of overpaid thugs in black robes, nice suits, and blue uniforms running a vig operation.
"It's justifiably immoral to deal morally with an immoral entity."
Think about that. The "justice" thugs became an immoral entity when they refused to punish Clinton for his perjury, Berger for his willful destruction of government documents, Rangel for his tax evasion, Corzine for his fraud and theft, etc., etc.
no, we didn’t condone it. the left did. it was a private personal matter. a lie about sex. my point was, now the left has to again, cross the tracks in front of the train now that this is a case about race, dragged further down by a partisan hack of a president and accomlice media. i don’t condone perjury in this case or clintons. i wanted to point out that a former president, hero of the left, the first black president perjured himeself. was found guilty, impeached, disbarred, fined. now the left has to reconcile their support for him, to their condemnation of her.
[[Yeah she lied in court, under oath, that’s technically perjury.]]
She is on tape tellign hte judge that she didn’t know how much was in the account and askedd the judge if he wanted her to call the brotherinlaw and find out- to which hte judge replied ‘no- that’s not necessary’ and apaprently the judge is also on tape declaring that even he wasn’t sure of the legality of the paypal account and whether it could be concidered assets
Where are you gettign your facts? I’ve heard that she did not infact move it to her accouitn and that the brotherinlaw was incharge of the accouint-
You are statign htings that are not consistant with hte facts- http://www.cnn.com/video/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_freevideo+%28RSS%3A+Video%29#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/27/bts-zimmerman-paypal-money.cnn
This shows that the judge was nopt even sure whether that money could be concidered family assets- if you have proof zim’s wife knew them oney could be concidered amily assets, please post it- because even the judge wasn’t sure whether the paypal donations could have been called family assets- if a judge didn’t know- then how could someoen not aquainted with hte law know? She most likely answered how her lawyer told her to answer abotu hte account- their lawtyer isn’t stupid- and would have known the money would be an issue