They won’t charge Brett Kimberlin with perjury for numerous false statements under oath, including false statements designed to incarcerate people, and to obtain injunctions against them for the purpose of harassment.
But Zimmerman’s wife says she’s not sure if she has enough to pay his bond, and the authorities throw the book at her.
Wow.
This does not seem right. To put it mildly.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Powered by WordPress.
Ding.
Patterico (feda6b) — 6/12/2012 @ 10:59 pmObviously she has other things to pay for.
She might not know if she can afford his bond off the top of her head, even if she did get enough donations to cover just the bond… because if I recall correctly, the donations were also to pay other expenses.
I’d ordinarily be surprised they made such a case out of this. This poor woman has been through a lot and could use a little slack.
But as Patterico notes, it’s amazing to see Kimberlin get away with perjury that was intended to put an innocent man in prison, and this woman get prosecuted while he isn’t.
It would be a shame if they offered to drop charges against her if George takes a manslaughter plea. I’m guessing at this point they are hoping he takes a plea, and he’s refusing. At least up to this point. I’d plea guilty to a crime I was innocent of to keep my wife out of jail, without hesitation.
What a mess.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/12/2012 @ 11:10 pmThe longer this goes on, the worse Gov. Scott will look.
AD-RtR/OS! (2bb434) — 6/12/2012 @ 11:22 pmIf you challenged them, or the MD people, I’m sure they’d each say “different jurisdictions”; the FL people would claim they’d have charged BK, and the MD people would claim they wouldn’t have charged Mrs Z. Go prove them wrong.
But I think the truth is as Dustin said, they’re using Mrs Z. to extort a plea out of her husband. I believe this is a common tactic among a certain class of prosecutors. Patterico, please tell us that your unit would never do such a thing, no matter how guilty you think the husband is.
The whole idea of using the fund to calculate how big the bond should be strikes me as morally wrong. People donated that money to help GZ, not to boost the bond agents’ income. IIUC if you pay a bond you never get it back; it goes into the agent’s pocket. So how is it morally right to use people’s donations to increase the amount that he has to throw down that hole, at the donors’ expense? I’m not expressing this clearly, but I think the moral problem should be obvious. You know what it’s like? It’s like taxing a beggar’s take, or clawing it back by deducting it from his welfare benefits. Or, worse, it’s like how a pimp takes his cut from his girls’ earnings.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/12/2012 @ 11:26 pmThey can’t strike out at Dershowitz, so they hit her instead. Governor Scott needs to step up, fire this prosecutor, and say that he won;t allow lynchings on his watch.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/12/2012 @ 11:26 pmAnd actually, Zimmerman at this point should be demanding a speedy trial. He has nothing to gain by delay.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/12/2012 @ 11:30 pmIt’s particularly ironic that Corey is charging Mrs Z. with perjury, considering that she’s guilty of it herself.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/12/2012 @ 11:44 pmlawyers, laws and who gets the shaft. Our system is fixed. I know I have been set up like a mother trucker. And did time. In the judicial system it is who you know, not what happened.
mg (44de53) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:31 amAn article from a week ago says the Zimmermans lied about having no money for Mr.Z bond so he was released with no bond. They had collected about $130K from a defense fund and were trying to hide that fact from the court. Maybe it was Mrs.Z who hid the money
jasond (0b7791) — 6/13/2012 @ 4:24 amThere are transcripts from their calls showing them conspiring to hide the money from the Court and then lying about it under oath. How hard is it to see that she would be charged with perjury for directly lying to the judge
Timb (8f04c0) — 6/13/2012 @ 4:55 am“There are transcripts from their calls showing them conspiring to hide the money from the Court and then lying about it under oath.” Yeah, what they did was incredibly stupid. Kimberlin is too much of an evil mastermind to make the same mistakes.
milowent (009b1e) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:03 amSpeaking of miscarriages of justice, one old one hsa finally been put right. A fourth inquest on Azaria Chamberlain has made official what everyone has known for years: the first inquest got it right, and she was taken by a dingo. From the second day of the first inquest, I was convinced that the whole case against the Chamberlains was a blood libel. None of the evidence brought forward in the subsequent inquests and trials ever seemed credible to me.
What I did learn from that whole sorry episode was to distrust forensic scientists who testify confidently on findings that are really much more speculative than they admit.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:09 amLying to the court is one thing. However, a lie is more than a confused statement that was jumped on by a prosecutor to presure a defendant. Remember Scooter Libby? Fitzgerald needed a scalp to display after the Valerie Plame matter failed to net a president. In this case, the prosecution knows it cannot win in court so charge the wife and put presure on the husband to take a plea. There are rotten apples in the prosecutorial barrel.
Michael M. Keohane (e0f839) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:09 amI personally fail to the relevance of how much money they have access, when it comes to setting bond. Whether they have a penny or a million dollars is materially irrelevant to the setting of bond. As for her perjury, I would have to read a transcript of what was asked and how she answered before commenting further. With that said however, if she is convicted of perjury, she should face the consequences of that choice.
r2 (521658) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:10 amWhat exactly was this “code” they were using? Initial reports seemed to indicate that they simply referred to thousands as units; that’s not a code, it’s normal language. At my first job I was paid 17, which meant K, not dollars. Does the prosecution really believe that the Zimmermans expected them to believe they’d raised a mere $130?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:17 amNot really. The purpose of bail is to make sure the person will show up for trial, so it needs to be high enough to matter to them. But I don’t think donations should be taken into account for this purpose.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:19 amThe Zimmerman’s were dumb, dumb, dumb. They should have let their lawyers know about the money right from the start. George has been ignoring his lawyers’ advisements from the beginning, doing everything wrong in an attempt to appear innocent. He is obviously under the delusion that innocent people do not need lawyers.
As for this particular problem, my guess is that they feared that the bail bond would wipe out their defense fund and they’d have no money left to pay their bills.(dumbDumbdumbdumbdumb)
Xmas (0dee32) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:24 am13. Sounds like the payoff to me.
OT Don’t let me near Davy Brooks, no bath salts needed:
“I don’t know if America has a leadership problem; it certainly has a followership problem. Vast majorities of Americans don’t trust their institutions. That’s not mostly because our institutions perform much worse than they did in 1925 and 1955, when they were widely trusted. It’s mostly because more people are cynical and like to pretend that they are better than everything else around them. Vanity has more to do with rising distrust than anything else.”
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:39 amAre you sure perjury is a crime? That Clinton bloke got away with it.
Leo (cc5a1b) — 6/13/2012 @ 6:09 amNeither alleged George Zimmerman lied. They allege he was deceitful through his silence. I think why he was silent needs to be examined, and in examining it, I can’t quite decipher what his lawyer, Mark O’Mara is saying: Is he falling on his sword because Zimmerman deceitful to him and the Court, or is he acknowledging his own missteps for failing to properly inform Zimmerman and by extension, his wife?
Neo (d1c681) — 6/13/2012 @ 6:36 amXmas: Zimmerman was right to not pay much attention to his first set of lawyers, who he never met face to face. His current lawyer had been on the case for 2 or so days before the bail hearing, and is now saying something to the effect that at that time Zimmerman had not yet gained much of his trust. If you want more on that or to follow all the details TalkLeft is the best site I’ve found; while it’s explicitly leftist, the blogger is a criminal defense lawyer, is quite unimpressed with the prosecution, and is questioning some of the judge’s recent actions.
Lina Inverse (8620c2) — 6/13/2012 @ 6:58 amI’m not sure what this post is insinuating. That the justice system is leftist? McCarthyism anyone?
tye (ab6b28) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:08 amHuh?
I’m with you on the need to bring justice to Brett Kimberlin. I hope “they” are all over it by now, looking into him and his buds — especially a conspiracy to dupe law enforcement into harming innocents, from swatting to the Aaron Walker type set-up.
But is Kimberlin doing his thing in Florida? No. e.g. you write: “They won’t charge Brett Kimberlin…..But (Zimmerman’s wife etc.)”
Zimmerman’s case is problematic, as I expect you see on certain levels. Zimmerman is a wannabe cop. You know, the type who buys used police cars with spotlights still on the side and pie-plate hubcaps, and keep all kinds of cop tools on cop belts. (This is not precisely the way Zimmerman played his wannabe role, but he’s one of those guys.)
And he’s packin’ and walking the streets looking for troublemakers. A self-appointed cop.
Then there’s Trayvon Martin. He’s coming of age and he’s probably attained that pissed off, “we’re oppressed by white folks staring at us like we’re criminals” attitude and now is big enough and strong enough to do something about it.
Zimmerman stalks him, and quite obviously so. Then the kid turns and stalks him right back, confronts him and proceeds to kick his ass.
Zimmerman pulls out the gun and blows him away at very close range.
Problematic case.
I have a hunch the judge has come to a conclusion not terribly dissimilar to the one I just laid out. And thus the judge is now like an umpire or referee doing a make-up call. The Zimmermans must pass through the eye of a needle.
Larry Reilly (0841dd) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:10 amProblematic case.
19-No, he didn’t. He was impeached.
tye (ab6b28) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:16 amThat is what you can expect from a JournoLister. Thank you, Mawy.
JD (95e569) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:18 amTime for a Billy Madison, link, JD.
narciso (494474) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:19 amPrincipal: Mr/Mrs Reilly, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
JD (95e569) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:26 amLarry Reilly: Okay, a simple “wrong” would’ve done just fine.
OMG- great contribution Jd. I feel so much smarter having read that.
tye (ab6b28) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:30 amAnd he’s packin’ and walking the streets looking for troublemakers. A self-appointed cop.
Thank you for the laugh.
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:33 amLarry Reilly, let’s stipulate every single fact in your recital, and it’s still not a problematic case. If it went down as you speculate it did, Martin was the aggressor, and Zimmerman the victim was entitled to defend himself. End of story. So why is he facing charges, and in custody? And why was his wife asked about money for a bond, when the prosecutor had no business bringing charges, and the judge should have dismissed them on the spot?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:34 amMillhouse,
No malice or forethought there. You are right to defend her.
weird thing is, is that I think George Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, but I’m pretty damn sure no one can convict him of it (due to a combination of shoddy police work, publicity, and Florida self-defense law). I would bet every penny in the Patterico defense fund that he walks. And, I get that all the guys and glas here at Anti-Brett Kimberlin central think he is innocent.
But, that in no way excuses what his wife did here. Whether or not George is guilty of a crime in the Martin shooting, the woman clearly perjured herself. There’s no gray area here: she lied under oath. Why defend that? Why adopt moral equivalencies? This doesn’t mean George Zimmerman is guilty of the earlier incident; it means he and his wife were stupid.
timb (449046) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:36 amLarry Reilly makes up stuff. Much as Angela Corey has, without actual factual basis.
SPQR (edc546) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:38 am; it means he and his wife were stupid.
True, never in dispute.
JD (95e569) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:39 amAngela Corey is going to end up a verb before this farce is over.
geoffb (1f4c30) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:54 amtimb, if it is determined he acted within the bounds of FL self-defense law, he is by definintion not guilty of a crime. As he is presumed to be now.
sarahW (b0e533) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:02 amdue to a combination of shoddy police work,
Really?
Please tell us what the police did that qualifies as “shoddy”
I can’t wait to hear this…
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:02 amI think George Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, but I’m pretty damn sure no one can convict him of it (due to a combination of shoddy police work, publicity, and Florida self-defense law)
The publicity works against him if anything. I don’t see how it is possibly an obstacle to being convicted. I don’t know what the shoddy police work was.
As to FL self-defense law, which I think is probably about the same as self-defense law elsewhere, if the proper application of it results in his acquittal, which it should since he was defending himself, then he is not guilty of a crime.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:08 amPeople donated to that fund to help pay Zimmerman’s defense costs, not to pay the bail.
That money was specifically NOT available for the bail. So I don’t see a problem with them not including that in the amount they tell court they have available to them to pay the bail.
Mike S (d3f5fd) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:10 amThere are three accounts involved. The Paypal account which the BIL has control of and which gets contributions 24/7. GZ’s account which is the one funds from the Paypal account can be transferred to by the BIL. Wife’s account which she can have funds transferred to from GZ’s account. From the transcript.
If you have a checking account which you write checks on daily and which have automatic deposits come in at irregular times tell someone, right now, without checking with the bank, how much exactly is in the account?
geoffb (1f4c30) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:11 amFor a good background look at all of this.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/5/223228/5631
geoffb (1f4c30) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:16 amOne might almost think the “fix is in”, were it not for the prosecutor’s long history of probity and trustworthiness…
Space Cockroach (8096f2) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:19 amhttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/12/what-director-alan-pakula-s-papers-reveal-about-watergate.html
narciso (494474) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:24 amNo, he isn’t. Educate yourself beyond the lies pushed by the press and the Black Klan.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:25 amOf course you do, timmah. He didn’t take his beating like a good sheep, and you hate him for it.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:26 amThe left despises the idea of defending yourself. It means you’re not dependent on the state, on the good graces of the politically connected. It makes it tougher to intimidate people when they can defend themselves all the way to the point of lethal force; that’s why the historical and the modern Klans have worked hard to disarm the populace.
It also prevents the criminal class from playing crime as a “heads I win, tails you lose” game — they can’t treat a dead thug as a lottery ticket.
In the laws like Florida, you’re also protected from being sued by the family of the criminal you had to defend yourself from — which pisses off the trial lawyers, another key left-fascist demographic.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:32 amBTW — I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the “evidence that Zimmerman has been lying” that Corey’s gang alluded to in court. Phrasing it that way lets them make it sound like they can impeach his statements with physical evidence relevant to the charges.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:34 amAnd this is alleged to be a “code”?! Even if I believe that they actually said “ten dollars” and “nine dollars” rather than just “ten” or “nine”, if the Corey claims that they intended any listeners to believe they were talking about taking $9 or $10 out of the ATM, or that any listeners were so deceived, she is the one perjuring herself. It’s obvious that nobody in need of cash takes out $10, let alone $9; you can’t take $9 out of an ATM anyway.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:35 amHow? She said she didn’t know how much there was, and offered to check. The judge said never mind.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:37 amGee, the Zimmerman clan ain’t telling the truth?
Color me stunned.
‘…Those talks included the transfer of money from George Zimmerman’s account to accounts of his sister and wife, according to the affidavit.’
‘Records show $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman’s account to his sister’s account from April 16 and 17, authorities allege. Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $74,000 from her husband’s account to her account from April 16 to April 19, the affidavit states.’
‘George Zimmerman asked his wife in jail calls to “pay off all the bills,” including an American Express bill and a Sam’s Club card, prosecutors allege.’
Then…
‘At her husband’s April 20 bond hearing, Shellie Zimmerman was asked whether the couple had financial means to assist in the defense.’
‘”Uhm, not — not that I’m aware of,” she replied, according to a probable cause affidavit filed Monday.’
Bye-bye dickheads.
That’s assuming the report is accurate, of course.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 9:21 amtimb, you obviously don’t realize it but you write nonsense. You believe Z is guilty of a crime, but can’t be convicted of it because of the law?!?!
Yeah, you have a point. He can’t be convicted of a crime because self-defense isn’t a crime. It’s perfectly legal.
Have you ever thought of becoming a prosecutor in Florida? This Corey hack reminds me quite a bit of you. She’s accusing and whenever possible charging people right and left with crimes that really aren’t crimes because of the law.
She’s even accused law professor Alan Dershowitz of committing the speech crime of criticizing her.
But I’m pretty sure she won’t be able to convict him because of a combination of “shoddy police work,” “publicity,” and the law.
Because of a few quirks in the way our constitution and our laws are written, like the “crime” of self-defense, criticizing a prosecutor is no crime at all.
And no amount of really brilliant police work, let alone “shoddy police work,” can turn a non-crime into a crime. And I don’t know about you, but I believe that when a power-mad prosecutor is trying to railroad someone for a non-crime then publicizing that fact is a good thing.
Of course, Larry. Z didn’t play out his “wannabe role” in precisely that way. As in, not at all. He’s just the type to buy police surplus patrol cars. Except he drives a pick-up truck. And he’s just the type to keep all kinds of cop tools on cop belts. If he were the type that wore cop belts.
Other than that, Larry, it’s like you know him. Not.
He’s packing because a Sanford FL cop advised him to. And the troublemakers have been coming into his neighborhood breaking into houses. Essentially, the other way around; they were looking for him.
I could go on. Except for not including a single fact in your post but rather demonstrating you’ve watched “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” way too many times it’s almost like you know exactly what you’re talking about.
Brilliant observations there, big guy. Thanks for sharing them.
As far as the Zimmerman’s supposedly concealing this money from the court, that strains belief beyond the breaking point. They made zero attempts to conceal this website from the public. In an example of not so “shoddy” investigative work on behalf of the prosecutors, they apparently were adept enough to Google “Zimmerman” and come up with the incredible number of news stories reporting on this donation website. Which was apparently the brainchild of Zimmerman’s original set of lawyers, Uhrig and Sonner.
This article is even more specific:
Apparently when Zimmerman went into hiding out of fear for his life, and his attorneys announced that although the continued to believe in Z’s innocence, they could no longer ethically claim to represent him since they had lost contact with him, they didn’t set up the website for Z so Z did it himself.
It’s abundantly obvious that the Zimmermans and George’s attorneys were doing everything in their power not to hide this money.
It’s also clear that Z was not clear on the concept that a legal defense fund under his attorneys’ control would be seen differently by the court than a legal defense fund under his personal control.
All in all, the evidence points to the conclusion that the Zimmermans were not trying to deceive anybody. They didn’t realize that the court, at this vindictive and unethical prosecutor’s insistence, would simply take the donations they received for living expenses and George’s legal defense and use it to set a higher bail.
Thus defeating the entire purpose of having a legal defense fund in the first place. Something they quite obviously had discussed with their first two lawyers (even though the hadn’t met face to face). I can see how this possibility may not have dawned on them. As I’ve said on other occasions, these people don’t strike me as the sharpest tools in the shed.
But getting back to Dershowitz’s scathing, spot-on criticism of this unethical prosecutor, Angela Corey doesn’t have the excuse of being unaware of what she’s supposed to provide to the court. If George Zimmerman’s silence when this website was discussed is supposed to be taken, we are told by the prosecutors, as evidence that he was concealing something from the court, what then are we to make of the prosecution’s silence on the evidence such as George Zimmerman’s injuries that this was indeed self-defense?
They had an ethical duty to disclose all the evidence to the court, and they didn’t. They only disclosed what evidence they cherry-picked to support an impression of guilt that’s unsupported by the evidence as a whole. Evidence they were aware of when they drafted that farce of an affidavit.
Frankly, the way Angela Corey is running this abortion of a prosecution leads me to believe she and her team are no smarter than Zimmerman. She’s providing copious amounts of clear evidence she doesn’t know what her ethical obligations are, or she doesn’t care as she obviously figures she can abuse the power of her office to get away with it. I certainly hope she’s stupid enough to violate ethical standards and sue Harvard and Alan Dershowitz for publicly criticizing her. Appropriately enough, criticism focused on her prior, well-documented ethical violations in this case.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 9:40 am______________________________________________
The left despises the idea of defending yourself.
And that’s one of the contemptible ironies and ridiculous parallels between this case and the one involving Aaron Walker/Worthing and Brett Kimberlin.
Pressure from the left (ie, from the usual suspects like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, etc) has corrupted the judicial process in Florida so that a guy in a neighborhood rattled by crime and affected by that immediately becomes Heavy No. 1, and is put behind bars, while a liberal judge in Maryland expresses sympathy for sidewalk justice (but presumably if it’s emanating from the left—in an Occupy-Wall-Street manner) but also displays indignation towards Walker for being too much of a go-it-alone instigator in trying to get the system to give Kimberlin his just desserts.
Meanwhile, the left in New York City (which is quite libertarian and tolerant — or permissive — about so many forms of dysfunctional behavior in general) is contemplating banning large servings of soft drinks and, now, also popcorn and milkshakes.
The idiocy is so breathtaking, you couldn’t make it up even if you tried. And when a situation becomes absurdly ass-backwards, invariably — invariably — the influence of liberalism is at play.
Mark (a2e041) — 6/13/2012 @ 9:42 am_______________________________________________
That’s assuming the report is accurate, of course.
Dave, I know you mentioned in another thread that your wife is a liberal, if not hard-core leftist, and that — most crucially — you live in a neighborhood that is so safe you rarely or never lock your doors.
The dynamics of “limousine liberalism” (and one does not have to be wealthy to be guilty of that common form of two-faced, double-dealing left-leaning bias) can very easily be triggered by such influences in one’s life.
Mark (a2e041) — 6/13/2012 @ 9:50 amThis is the danger of Angela Corey’s strategy of trying this case in the press.
Speaking in “code” doesn’t work very well when everyone knows what you’re talking about. It especially doesn’t work when the alleged “code” is, in this instance, a common way of talking about money.
Enough people are piling on about the Zimmermans not being too bright. Fair enough, although it should be a mitigating factor that they are operating in what for them is completely uncharted territory. I mean, I’m sure they have zero experience with how to run a legal defense fund.
But Angela Corey? All she’s managed to do so far is convince people she doesn’t have a case against Zimmerman. This has been racially charged from the start, but as she’s laid out her theoretical evidence 40% of black Americans now believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense. The same percentage as Americans in general.
Now her evidence that the Zimmermans were lying to the court includes a “code” that is no code at all. She’s trying to convince people via the press that the way I and almost everyone else I know talks about money on at least some occasions is a “code.” I’ve long had the impression, based upon her demonstrated behavior and actions in this case, that Angela Corey is dishonest. Now I’m getting the impression she’s stupid as well.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 9:53 amIt doesn’t look too good when you’re moving tens of thousands of dollars between various accounts, and then you walk into court a couple of days later, and declare under oath, that you aren’t sure if you have any money.
This kind of thing makes judges get all testy.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 10:15 am“I think George Zimmerman is guilty of a crime, but I’m pretty damn sure no one can convict him of it…”
I reckon we’ll find out when it goes to trial.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 10:18 amhttp://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/06/i-changed-my-mind-about-prosecutor.html She is going to be a Nifong before this is over.
EBL (dbc1c8) — 6/13/2012 @ 10:18 amDave Surls: What about the thesis that charging his wife is a gambit to force him into a guilty plea to keep her out of jail? I.e. to keep this debacle from ever going to trial, heck, even going to the pre-trial immunity hearing Zimmerman can ask for to allow the judge to decide on a preponderance of evidence that it was self-defense.
Granted, the judge is now possibly showing enough bias (see the TalkLeft blog I linked to above) the latter is probably a bad idea, in that Zimmerman would likely lose while the prosecutor would get an advance look at his self-defense legal defense.
Lina Inverse (8620c2) — 6/13/2012 @ 10:30 amI think Corey deliberately concealed essential material facts in her charging document to gain advantage. Her affidavit was false in essentials. Where is her felony charge?
sarahW (b0e533) — 6/13/2012 @ 10:36 amIt was a stupid thing to do, but perhaps she really wasn’t sure she could afford the bond. And throwing the book at her in this instance is just bizarre. It’s just bizarre.
They are trying this case in an awful way, in my opinion.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/13/2012 @ 10:43 am“From April 16 to 19, Shellie Zimmerman transferred $74,400 from George Zimmerman’s account to her own in small chunks: She transferred just under $10,000 six times and $7,500 twice.”–AP
Slick financial manuvering there.
Think you’re not going to get caught, just because transactions under $10,000 don’t get reported to the feds, sweetheart?
What an idiot.
God only knows what these halfwits thought they were going to accomplish.
Of course, what they have accomplished is to totally destroy Zimmerman’s credibility, not that he had much to start with.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 10:50 amAt this point it’s a demonstrable fact that Corey’s office deliberately concealed material facts from the court in her charging affidavit.
And her attempts to make George Zimmerman somehow complicit in his wife’s alleged perjury by remaining silent and not disclosing certain facts to the court when he had the chance simply highlights her own, far greater offenses against justice.
That’s not an accurate description of what Zimmerman’s wife actually said. She answered specific questions about how much money was in a specific account at a particular time.
And frankly it wouldn’t surprise me one bit to find out that the prosecution was aware of what was in that account as well as of what was in those taped jailhouse conversations before Zimmerman’s bond hearing. It would be entirely consistent with this prosecutor’s demonstrated non-existent ethical standards if this line of questioning at Zimmerman’s bond hearing was intended to elicit what they could later claim was perjured testimony.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 10:59 amOf course, what they have accomplished is to totally destroy Zimmerman’s credibility, not that he had much to start with.
Comment by Dave Surls
How would you know?
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:04 am*IF* there was any “code” it was because JZ was in jail and SZ was on a cell in a public place – where BOTH could be overheard by G*d-knows-what sort of scumbag!
Everyone knows jailhouse phones are recorded, and everyone knew about the paypal account.
NOT noted in this article (or corey-the-hutt’s latest fictional “affidavit”) is that SZ said her BIL would know the total AND OFFERED TO GET HIM ON THE PHONE!!
THERE WAS NO LIE!
This is even more disgusting than the ORIGINAL charge against Jorge. This entire case is a travesty and all involved in this PERsecution deserve tar & feathers AND WORSE.
The most disgusting thing of all is that they not only released face and profile pics of a woman under death-threat from the Nutty Black Pamper Pussies and others, but they EVEN RELEASED THE TOWN WHERE SHE’S BEEN HIDING OUT!
This is the WORST sort of extortion – threatening a man’s wife and family trying to force him into a plea is beyond filthy.
May all involved burn in hell.
Dedicated_Dad (afdd55) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:05 amIt doesn’t look too good when you’re moving tens of thousands of dollars between various accounts, and then you walk into court a couple of days later, and declare under oath, that you aren’t sure if you have any money.
Comment by Dave Surls
It doesn’t look too good when you post misrepresentations of actual facts on the Internet.
All you’ve accomplish is totally destroying your credibility. Not that you had much to begin with.
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:06 amHow would you know?
Comment by Jay — 6/13/2012 @ 11:04 am
If you’ve been reading his comments on other threads , he just “knows” things about the case. His “explanations” of how he knows consists of stuff like [rolls eyes] and other such logical content.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:09 am63. Seems like more fodder for the ‘Prosecutorial Misconduct’ horse headed for the barn.
Gonna blow up real good.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:13 am“I think Corey deliberately concealed essential material facts in her charging document to gain advantage.”
LOL.
Is that what you think?
I told you guys months ago that Zimmerman’s minor injuries weren’t relevant. But, would you listen?
Noooooo.
Instead you listen to pinheads like Alan Dershowitz (and then you follow that up by taking hearsay from the guy as gospel as if he was a prophet from God).
‘Alan Dershowitz criticized the probable cause affidavit against Zimmerman as “so thin that it won’t make it past the judge,”‘
ROTFL
Of course that doesn’t mean that he can’t convince a jury that after first stalking someone who was doing nothing wrong, he just had to kill an unarmed teenage kid because the kid punched him in the nose.
I’ve seen stranger things happen in a courtroom.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:15 amMore of your fact-free commentary, Surls. You’ve never been able to point to any facts to support your claims, no matter how often you’ve been challenged to do so.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:22 am‘How would you know?’
“George Zimmerman’s latest entanglement with law enforcement was a “mistake” and “has undermined his credibility, which he will have to work to repair,” his attorney said in a statement Monday.”– (the always reliable) LA Times
You know you’re in trouble when your own attorney states that your credibility is questionable…in public.
But, if you want to think he’s a credible witness…don’t let me stop you.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:23 amThis is a pathetic description of George’s case. You are unhinged.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:26 am______________________________________________
If you’ve been reading his comments on other threads, he just “knows” things about the case.
One’s willful naivete can be excused when such a person — unlike Zimmerman and his neighbors — lives in a community so tranquil and safe, that he doesn’t even bother locking his front door at night.
How nice for such people, to be able to pontificate from the comforts of a pleasant, secluded, socio-cultural enclave. Quite different from someone like me, who has personally experienced (and lived) the sociological dynamics — and forms of dysfunction thereof — of a changing neighborhood and school.
Mark (a2e041) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:32 amYes Dustin he is unhinged.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:37 amNow the loon is claiming the blood streaming from Zimmerman’s head was due to a punch in the nose.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:39 amThat is the the blood streaming from the back of Zimmerman’s head.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:40 am________________________________________________
This is a pathetic description of George’s case.
But you have to admit his injuries were “minor,” including that of a broken nose.
BTW, I understand that Trayvon Martin’s misbehavior at school was no less minor. Getting expelled from campus happens to plenty of students.
Mark (a2e041) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:40 amI told you guys months ago that Zimmerman’s minor injuries weren’t relevant. But, would you listen?
Noooooo.
Hysterical.
Nothing, not one single thing, has demonstrated they are “not relevant”
Your post was a beclowning self parody.
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:41 amMark, only Surls thinks that Zimmerman was required to wait until after he received serious injuries to shoot. Self-defense law requires that the shooter be in fear of serious bodily injury, not already having received it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:42 am“George Zimmerman’s latest entanglement with law enforcement was a “mistake” and “has undermined his credibility, which he will have to work to repair,” his attorney said in a statement Monday.”– (the always reliable) LA Times
Of course you used the word “destroy” which the attorney did not use.
Further, you are clearly unable to differentiate between your silly, ignorant hyperbole and a defense attorney who is aiming to be conciliatory toward a court.
But keep going. Really. You’re doing fantastic.
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:44 amAre there really that many commenters on this board who do not understand the difference between what a person believes and what one can prove in a court of law? If so, why are y’all up in arms over Aaron’s case. After all, a judge found him in violation so it must be true.
OJ is innocent, according to that logic. Scooter Libby was too. So, is Ollie North.
I believe he was the proximate cause of a confrontation which resulted in a homicide, which is a crime. I do not believe a prosecutor can convince 12 Floridians he did that. Does not mean I think he is innocent, any more than I think OJ is innocent.
oh, and Rob Crawford, you don’t really like other people do you? “Take his beating?” In a confrontation he initiated and where nothing like what just posited has been shown to be true, that’s a pretty amazing statement. Joined the CCC yet? Or, is it re-joined
timb (449046) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:45 amOf course that doesn’t mean that he can’t convince a jury that after first stalking someone who was doing nothing wrong,
Of course nobody was “stalking” anybody and you have not the foggiest clue as to whether or not Martin was doing anything wrong.
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:45 amI believe he was the proximate cause of a confrontation which resulted in a homicide, which is a crime.
Really?
A crime in which state?
Can you cite the statute?
Thanks.
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:47 amIn a confrontation he initiated
Really?
Where are you getting this “fact” from?
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:48 amAre there really that many commenters on this board who do not understand the difference between what a person believes and what one can prove in a court of law?
You apparently are someone who can’t understand the difference between a preferred narrative and actual truth.
For example, you said there was “shoddy police work” yet can provide no examples.
Why do you think that is?
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:50 amtimb, why is it that you can’t tell the difference between claims that you’ve made up without any evidence?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:53 am________________________________________________
Surls thinks that Zimmerman was required to wait until after he received serious injuries to shoot
Moreover, I imagine Dave is puzzled that George Zimmerman and his neighbors had to lock their front doors at night, if not during the day too. Such a strange chore and inconvenience, and undoubtedly a sign of the paranoia of people living in that peaceful, idyllic, crime-free community in Florida.
Mark (a2e041) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:53 amI believe he was the proximate cause of a confrontation which resulted in a homicide, which is a crime.
There is no evidence Zimmerman caused the physical confrontation, but note:
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:54 amA defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force
I enjoy Dave Surls’ posts.
They help demonstrate a fact I believe constantly needs to be kept to the fore.
There is no honest way to make GZ appear guilty of second degree murder. So his accusers, in the courtroom as well as the blogosphere, have to resort to dishonest means.
There’s a reason for that, Dave. The judge decides what evidence is relevant. Not the prosecutor.
Of course, the judge can’t decide what evidence is or isn’t relevant when the prosecutor deliberately conceals that evidence from the judge to prevent it’s consideration.
Also known as lying by omission.
But, as I pointed out there is no honest way to make Z look guilty of a crime. So dishonesty is the order of the day for those who’d like Z to appear guilty.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:55 am“This is a pathetic description of George’s case.”
I’d say that pretty well sums up what happened.
Now Georgie Porgie is going to have to convince a jury otherwise…only, now his word ain’t worth a plugged nickel.
Not that it was worth much to start with.
He’s already lied about other violent altercations he initiated in the past.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:55 amI find Zimmerman’s and his wife’s unsophisticated and ham-handed attempts to protect their money for attorneys’ fees very believable.
They’re Democrats.
That doesn’t mean he wasn’t acting in self defense when attacked by Voltron, but he’s damn sure making things tough on his defense team with this foolishness.
Empire of Jeff (81bd3b) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:56 amI’d say that pretty well sums up what happened.
Of course you would, you’re here just making stuff up.
Georgie Porgie is going to have to convince a jury otherwise…only, now his word ain’t worth a plugged nickel.
Yes!
Because as we all know, the defense is going to be to put Zimmerman on the stand to convince everyone of his account of the events!!!
Do you ever get tired of acting so silly?
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 11:57 amBy the way, I anxiously await the part of the Zimmerman trial where the judge instructs the jury on how they must consider his wife’s perjury charge as to whether or not he committed 2nd degree murder….
Jay (4f25cc) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:03 pmIn a confrontation he initiated
Comment by timb — 6/13/2012 @ 11:45 am
If you mean threw the first punch, acted threatening or even said anything to Martin, even the prosecutor hasn’t claimed that, for good reason, because there’s no evidence that happened.
Your and Surls’ comments have the identical fact-free aspect.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:05 pmSPQR, who, exactly, is making stuff up?
Facts:
Dec. 2008 Zimmerman applied for admission to a citizen’s police academy with the Seminole sheriff’s office. He completed the one-night-a-week, 14-hour program. It’s not police training, but rather educates citizens about law enforcement, which is probably as close as he could get because of his record. Zimmerman had to deal with a certain problem on the application. He had to explain his 2005 arrest for battery on a law enforcement officer and obstructing justice. First, he said he didn’t know the guy was a cop.
And then he wrote this on the application: “I hold law enforcement officers in the highest regaurd [sic] as I hope to one day become. I would never have touched a police officer.”
He had previously told a neighbor he aspired to be a cop.
Got a gun permit and a gun and started patrolling the neighborhood.
Not a wannabe cop, huh?
Go on back to your circle jerk, fellas.
Larry Reilly (0841dd) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:07 pmNow Georgie Porgie is going to have to convince a jury otherwise
Yes it’ll be real hard to convince the jury Martin did more than punch him in the nose once. Hey maybe you’ll testify that’s what happened. Why don’t you call the prosecutor?
When and where did he lie about violent altercations he initiated in the past?
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:09 pm89-There are some pretty wealthy democrats out there.
Also, your blog is ridiculous. It is complete and total drivel.
tye (72de6a) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:09 pmThe Zimmerman paypal account was public knowledge and had a website behind it. At least one of his lawyers knew about it. I would say he was just asked an over generalized question and the prosecutors parsed it the way they wanted to. That seems standard practice?
And as far as the Zimmermans not talking, the current wisdom is don’t say anything unless you have a lawyer standing next to you.
He was probably trying to do the right thing and didn’t have representation up to par.
scable (40a8c6) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:11 pmNot a wannabe cop, huh?
Go on back to your circle jerk, fellas.
Comment by Larry Reilly — 6/13/2012 @ 12:07 pm
Larry in your analysis there the contrasts are stark. People either want to be a cop or a robber. And Zimmerman choose which one. That is the foundation thought for him here. I assume by you negativity here that you prefer the robber side?
scable (40a8c6) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:13 pmAlso, your blog is ridiculous. It is complete and total drivel.
Comment by tye — 6/13/2012 @ 12:09 pm
Whose blog? Mine? Probably right.
scable (40a8c6) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:13 pmOJ went free. Let Z go.
scable (40a8c6) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:15 pmLarry Reilly, go back and look at your comment and see how much of your hyperbole is without factual foundation. Like timb, you make up stuff without any factual basis.
And the fact that he wanted to be a police officer has nothing to do with whether or not he had a valid self-defense claim. Its not illegal to want to be a police officer. Its not illegal to obtain a concealed carry permit – almost all US states allow them. It proves nothing about whether or not on that specific incident he had a valid self-defense shoot.
So get your hands off your own dick.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:18 pm“Of course you would, you’re here just making stuff up”
Uh huh…and yet there Zimmerman sits in jail (last I heard anyway), charged with murder in the second degree.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:18 pmSurls, charged by a prosecutor who thinks she can sue Harvard Law School for Alan Dershowitz’s free speech.
You got a nice club going with timb and Larry Reilly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:20 pmand yet there Zimmerman sits in jail (last I heard anyway), charged with murder in the second degree
Hey nobody here knew that! Now we realize anything you say about it is true!
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:21 pmDave Surls. Mike Nifong
scable (40a8c6) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:21 pmDave, yep!
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:21 pmWitness that supported Zim’s version of events have changed their stories. Zim (and lovely wife) are perjurers. Zim be toasted…
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:23 pmWhich makes their testimony, less reliable, not more.
narciso (494474) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:33 pmZimmerman, yep
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:36 pmJust in response to 79, homicide in and of itself is not a crime. Thus the term ‘justifiable homicide.’
We have categories like murder, manslaughter, and so on, which codify what homicides are criminal homicides and which are not.
For example, if someone jumps in front of my car I have committed homicide but it was truly accidental and no crime was committed. If I was grossly exceeding the posted speed limit at the time and thus unable to detect the jumper or safely slow down, I can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a lesser criminal homicide, because I was breaking the law at the time of the homicide and it arguably led to demise.
If all homicides were criminal, the state could never execute a death penalty, and yet strangely it can.
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:38 pmNo, the witness, the prosecutor looks past the 10,000 bounty on Zimmerman, threats against him
narciso (494474) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:39 pmand his parents, it’s the full Vercotti,
“When and where did he lie about violent altercations he initiated in the past?”
Just go read the application Larry is talking about. The part where he claims the police officer who arrested Georgie for assault on a police officer, actually assaulted him.
Sure, Georgie.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:43 pm110 what do threats or his parents have to do with whether Zimmerman is a murder or not?
And if witnesses changing their story after saying they had been coerced into their original story hurts THEIR credibility, what does perjury do for Zimmerman’s credibility? (hint: it doesn’t help)
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:44 pm111 Zim is clearly a serial liar. I wouldn’t believe anything he says
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:45 pm“Surls, charged by a prosecutor who thinks she can sue Harvard Law School for Alan Dershowitz’s free speech.”
Does she, Counselor?
Prove it.
Show me some evidence of that…other than hearsay coming from Alan Dershowitz.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:47 pmGood allah (sorry JD)
narciso (494474) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:48 pmHearsay? Do you even know the definition of hearsay? I’m going to go with no.
Kaitian (267d40) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:54 pmGood Allah
JD (95e569) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:58 pmI suggest staying out of the weeds and on the main topic:
1) Zim has a history of violence
2) Zim has a history of lying
3) Zim lied to the judge and thus got put back in jail
Not really the horse to back imho
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 12:58 pm“There is no evidence Zimmerman caused the physical confrontation…”
Unfortunately for Zimmerman all the evidence points to that.
Except his unsupported claim of self-defense.
And, now it looks like him and his missuses were trying to conceal their finances (albeit ineptly), and a passport…which I imagine the prosecution will bring up at trial in order to impeach his credibility.
My, I certainly wouldn’t want to be in Georgie’s shoes.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:03 pm“Do you even know the definition of hearsay?”
I do indeed.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:04 pmI figure this is just Corey being her usual charming self, and possibly lashing out at the people she can actually reach, unlike Dershowitz.
perlhaqr (5a082d) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:05 pm119 he shoes are in jail, where they belong
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:06 pmWell, we’ve established several things. Among them are included the facts that:
1. RyyRy doesn’t know what the word “perjury” means.
2. Dave Surls doesn’t know what the word “hearsay” means.
3. Larry Reilly doesn’t know what the word “stalking” means.
4. Timb doesn’t know what the word “initiated” means.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:09 pmIf they can’t punish Zimmerman directly, they will do it indirectly. That’s how the game is played.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:09 pmThe passport argument was thrown out because it was irrelevant and expired. He had already relinquished his current and updated passport to the court. As for finances, the defense fund was explicitly stated for defense purposes & living expenses, not bail and also was coordinated by his lawyer & her BIL. At no point did she lie in the trial anyways because of the questions and phrasing offered at her. Prosecutions are not allowed to manipulate questions which Nifong did that and we know the results of that consequences. Especially we know that she offered to get a hold of her brother-in-law to get the financial situations at the CURRENT time according to the question asked of her.
Say I got $1000 in my bank account from a month ago. Is it a gaurantee that I will have a $1000 in my account at the end of the month? Hell no. The only way to know is to check personally.
I know, Dave Surls, I’m wrong, you can tell me go to hell, kill myself, etc. I don’t care.
Kaitian (267d40) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:10 pm“I do indeed.”
Oh really? I didn’t know that Dershowitz was on trial here testifying under oath. By your logic, 100% of the information is false because they are repeated through a medium which in this case was Dershowitz. Corey has hell of a lot less credibility if any when compared to Dershowitz.
Kaitian (267d40) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:13 pm“Dave Surls doesn’t know what the word “hearsay” means.”
Sure I do.
The claim has been made that Angela Corey threatened to sue good old Harvard U. for defamation, and the only evidence for that is hearsay coming from Alan Dershowitz.
At least that’s all I’ve heard.
If you have any other evidence that she did that, then show it to me.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:16 pmMissed one:
Dave Surls doesn’t know what the word “evidence” means.
As in, investigator Dale Gilbreath has already testified that there is zero of of any of that which would contradict Zimmerman’s contention he was on his way back to his truck (doesn’t Z know he’s the kind of wannabe cop Larry Reilly just knows out to be driving a used police car instead?) when he was confronted by TM, who initiated the physical confrontation, forcing Z to shoot in self-defense.
Yup. “All the evidence” points to Z “stalking” M, “initiating” the confrontation and gunning down the sweet cherub in cold blood cuz that’s just how racist white hispanic cracker cop wannabes roll.
“All.” As in “none.” Zero. Zip. Nada.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:17 pm“Yup. “All the evidence” points to Z “stalking” M, “initiating” the confrontation and gunning down the sweet cherub in cold blood.”
That’s pretty much the size of it all right…except I don’t about the cold blood part of it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:19 pmAre you just copying verbatim out of Corey’s argument? Because that’s all you’re doing at this point. After all, she did manipulate evidence submitted to the court against Zimmerman when she was supposed to disclose it all.
Kaitian (267d40) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:23 pmTye,
That’s because it’s written for my amusement, not yours, you poncy jerkoff. Kisses!
Empire of Jeff (81bd3b) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:24 pmDave, one reason to credit Ds “hearsay” is that Harvard can say no such call happened rather easily.
But the better reason it is of a piece with Corey’s previous actions. It’s a tactic she’s used before.
sarahW (b0e533) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:28 pmAngel Corey has a history of accusing critics of libel and making threatening phone calls. In the case of an editorial in the Florida Times Union that attracted her ire, she sent a threatening letter on official state letterhead stationary to make the accusation of libel:
All the evidence points to the fact that Angela Corey acts unethically on a regular basis, then threatens critics when they point that out.
But then, we’ve already established the fact that Dave Surls attitude toward “evidence” is identical to Angela Corey’s attitude toward “professional ethics.”
Neither one knows what those words mean, but they’re pretty damned certain that whatever it is they don’t need none.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:32 pmAnyone recognize RyRy? It should be pretty easy.
JD (95e569) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:44 pm131- if that is so then you should write it in a journal and keep it hidden under your mattress
tye (72de6a) — 6/13/2012 @ 1:56 pmSo tell us what the evidence is. Is it a secret only you and the voices in your head are privy to?
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:06 pmAnd BTW why don’t you know about the cold blood part of it? You just know stuff right? Or did you just decide you don’t want to know that?
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:07 pmYou have a link?
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:09 pmThe point is Zim is a liar, and indeed is in jail at this moment for lying, to the judge.
Oh, and that he is going down. And not to alphabet street.
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:09 pmGeorge Zimmerman is in jail for lying to the judge? I thought it was a murder charge.
Gerald A (cc0aaa) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:12 pm140: nope. He was released, remember, then his serial lying got him thrown back in the cooler.
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:14 pmSurls is back to claiming things are true when he cant point to any evidence.
As for the claims by Corey of perjury, prof. Jacobson lists the dishonest edits to transcripts by Corey. No wonder Surls is so fond of her work.
SPQR (edc546) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:19 pmI think George Zimmerman’s bail was revoked because Zimmerman allowed others to misstate his financial situation in court, and thus the judge reasonably decided he had been misled about funds available for Zimmerman’s bail. But it looks like the prosecutor may have been misleading, too.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:23 pmI was just about to point that out, DRJ.
narciso (494474) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:27 pmYes, Zim and his klassy lady lied to the court, and now he is where he belongs
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:28 pmUh huh…and yet there Zimmerman sits in jail (last I heard anyway), charged with murder in the second degree.
Comment by Dave Surls
And then what?
Everyone charged with a crime is guilty, right?
Or are you simply incapable of coherence?
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:30 pmUnfortunately for Zimmerman all the evidence points to that.
Please point out this evidence Dave Surls, I can’t wait to read all about it.
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:32 pmBy the way Dave Surls, from what I can see, all the evidence I have available points to you being a child molester.
[Dave Surls is not a child molester to
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:33 pmmy knowledge and I am aware of absolutely no evidence — zero — that he is. The commenter here is making a point with hyperbole but it needs to be clear that his comment is not
to be taken literally. — Ed.]
Jay, a lot of guilty people, such as Zim, are in jail. What is incoherent about that? Also Zim lied in court. So, jaily!
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:33 pmIf you have any other evidence that she did that, then show it to me.
Comment by Dave Surls
Hysterical.
Coming from the author of endless unsupported accusations.
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:35 pmJay, a lot of guilty people, such as Zim, are in jail. What is incoherent about that? Also Zim lied in court. So, jaily!
Comment by RyyRy
Which court has convicted Zimmerman of a crime again?
You don’t seem to understand what the term “guilty” actually means.
I’m stunned by this development. Really, I am.
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:36 pmDRJ’s got it right in post #143… spot on.
Colonel Haiku (56d9ee) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:36 pmThe point is Zim is a liar, and indeed is in jail at this moment for lying, to the judge.
Comment by RyyRy
You don’t seem to be at all familiar with what has actually transpired.
Carry on.
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:37 pmSurls is back to claiming things are true when he cant point to any evidence.
While of course demanding to see evidence for readily apparent facts he does not like…
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:38 pmDRJ – The prosecutor redacted the transcript, with no acknowledgement of the redaction, and the redacted part is eculpatory.
I daresay that’s…unethical.
sarahW (b0e533) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:38 pmexculpatory.
sarahW (b0e533) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:38 pmCorey is the serial liar. She eliminated the transcript language in which Shellie Zimmerman said her brother-in-law would know how much money was in the website account, and offered to get him on the phone from the affidavit of probable cause.
It boggles the mind that a prosecutor would be so stupid as to again clearly establish her lying by omission in a document that is supposed to contain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury.
There is zero evidence that Shellie Zimmerman actually perjured herself. There is no reason to believe that she has anything to do with the PayPal account. George’s brother is quite capable of depositing money into the Zimmerman’s accounts, and while Shellie Zimmerman would know what money he had deposited on their behalf, she wouldn’t know what money had been donated at the time the prosecutors questioned her.
And they asked specifically about the website. Essentially, the only reason she’s being charged with perjury is because the prosecutors were too lazy or negligent to actually follow-up on her offer to put them in touch with the person who would know. And she was under no obligation to hazard a guess.
The prosecutors, on the other hand, submitted a document that proves, in black and white, that they omitted material facts in order to mislead the court. Amazing.
Apparently Angela Corey has political ambitions. She just endorsed the former state AG for Senate. And there’s bad blood between her and the black community due to some of her past prosecutions, such as charging a 12 y.o. black kid as an adult for 1st degree murder. So she’s using this Zimmerman prosecution as a way to get back into the black community’s good graces, justice, the law, and the constitution be damned.
Apparently she believes the best way to accomplish that goal is to keep filing false affidavits with the court. Amazing.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:39 pmyeah… just say bye-bye
Colonel Haiku (56d9ee) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:39 pmto ryyry just another damn
lies to power yap
angela corey
Colonel Haiku (56d9ee) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:40 pmhas a screw loose one fry short
of Teh Happy Meal
surls is denizen
Colonel Haiku (56d9ee) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:41 pmof Teh People’s Republic
of Bay Area
the boy can’t help it
Colonel Haiku (56d9ee) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:43 pmsomething they put in water
Mass Hysteria
Unethical? Definitely. But isn’t it also illegal? Or is there some sort of prosecutorial exemption to the perjury laws, allowing the state to lie by omission in sworn statements in order to mislead a court?
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:46 pmJay: sorry for the facts and complex vocabulary. Perhaps you can enlighten? Why is Zim now in jail? Why did the judge put him there?
For a bonus, define jail!
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 2:58 pmDave Surls’ hero is acting unethically? SHOCKA!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:07 pmAlex is rather transparent
JD (95e569) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:11 pmJay: sorry for the facts and complex vocabulary. Perhaps you can enlighten? Why is Zim now in jail? Why did the judge put him there?
Comment by RyyRy
You haven’t presented any facts.
You aren’t familiar at all with what has transpired here.
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:16 pmAlso Zim lied in court.
Really?
Which “lie” did he tell?
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:17 pmOne thing’s for sure. You won’t find any actual lies identified in the affidavit of probable cause this political hack of a prosecutor filed against Shellie Zimmerman. Not one statement she made under oath is singled out as a deliberate false statement. Or even an inadvertent false statement. Hell, not one statement is singled out as false.
Good luck with trying to hang the charge of lying to the judge on George Zimmerman, even by omission by remaining silent and not volunteering information on subjects that he hadn’t been asked about.
The only concrete evidence we have of anyone lying by omission is in the charging documents the prosecutors have filed against the Zimmermans. And this evidence incriminates the prosecutors.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:25 pmThat’s easy. Why is Z now in jail? Because he’s not a flight risk, as evidenced by the fact he surrendered himself to the county sheriff when directed by the court.
That’s why he’s in jail.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:28 pmI’m looking forward to Surls telling us how Corey was supposed to edit a transcript like that to fake perjury that did not happen … or to explain his fascinating theories of defamation some more …
SPQR (edc546) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:28 pmAgain, why did the judge put ok Zim in the can? Hmmmm? What did the doofus do? (hint: it involved opening his mouth)
RyyRy (eafb17) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:30 pmIs it that you can’t even grasp simple facts, or that you’re incapable of honesty? Even the people who allege GZ deceived the court contend his guilt involves not opening his mouth. His alleged dishonesty involved keeping his mouth shut, keeping quiet, and not volunteering information to correct his wife’s testimony.
Since you don’t even know the difference between opening your mouth and keeping your mouth shut, I believe the rest of us are justified in viewing your uninformed posts as purely for entertainment value only.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:36 pmAgain, why did the judge put ok Zim in the can? Hmmmm? What did the doofus do? (hint: it involved opening his mouth)
Comment by RyyRy
Again, which “lie” did he tell?
You aren’t familiar at all with what has transpired here.
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:38 pmThe whole thing is ridiculous anyway. Everyone knows that funds belonging to family members can be used for bail, or for living support, but they are not counted as assets. neother ia a LIONE OF CREDOT.
And whatever money the PayPal fund has, it might get more in the future. So how can a number be put on it??
The amount did not go up too much later because Mark O’Meara made a change and the effect was to cut off the amount of money raised (the website was closed, and while another was substitutred it had much less publicity)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:46 pmComment by Steve57 — 6/13/2012 @ 2:39 pm
And she was under no obligation to hazard a guess.
They did ask her:
Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A. I do not.
They could claim that she knew very well more or less what amount of money was in it, as SHE HAD DISCUSSED THAT IN CODE WITH HER HUSBAND.
But she did volunteer to try to get accurate information. They weren’t interested enough.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:50 pmDo you mean that you believe he attacked Martin, and Martin only hit him in self-defense? What is your basis for believing that? And why would he do so? Or are you going with the nonsensical theory that his perfectly lawful actions “caused” Martin to attack him, whereupon he somehow lost the right to defend himself.
Milhouse (bec503) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:50 pmThe best defense is that this information was not material.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:52 pmBulldust.
Milhouse (bec503) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:52 pmHow do you know it wasn’t the truth?
Milhouse (bec503) — 6/13/2012 @ 3:55 pmThey elect public defenders in Florida? And Angela Corey has endorsed the current one for re-election?
http://www.folioweekly.com/documents/folio1220wkl007_000.pdf
Corey also suggested that their relationship
is par for the course in local legal/judicial circles.
“There is a long history in Jacksonville of both
very close relationships and campaign support
demonstrated between many elected state
attorneys, judges, public defenders and private
criminal defense attorneys,” Corey wrote.
Former Public Defender Bill White counters
that hosting a political fundraiser goes beyond
even those cozy relationships. “Both should have
known better to have her displayed as a co-host,”
he says. “It damages the image of the Public
Defender’s Office. You should be thinking of those things when you are in public office.”
Former State Attorney Harry Shorstein,
who fired Corey in 2006, declined to
comment directly on her role as co-host, but
did comment by way of comparison on his
association with White’s predecessor, the late
Lou Frost.
“I was the state attorney for five terms and
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2012 @ 4:11 pmhad a close personal relationship with Lou
Frost, who hired me,” says Shorstein. “As close
as we were personally, we would never have
considered a public endorsement or support
[of] each other. There would have been a
perception the adversarial criminal justice
system was not functioning as it should.”
Has everyone read Legal Insurrection’s take (and update) on Mrs. Zimmerman’s arrest?
See here: http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/perjury-charge-against-shellie-zimmerman-raises-more-questions-of-prosecutorial-overreaching/
I’m sorry it’s such a long url; I’ve never really mastered the art of tiny url.
Dianna (f12db5) — 6/13/2012 @ 4:25 pmYes, they can claim that. But all they can prove is that she was discussing the amount of money in their bank accounts with her husband. They asked her about the PayPal account linked to the website. Knowing how much money has been deposited in her bank account is a far cry from knowing how much money was, at that moment the prosecutor asked about it, in the PayPal account.
Apparently she did not perjure herself when she said that George’s brother was handling that account, not her. There is nothing in the probable cause affidavit accusing her of lying about that, which would be a demonstrable lie if she was handling the PayPal account along with George’s brother.
Of course, there are no specific statements she made while under oath that are singled out as lies in that document. At all.
If she wasn’t in charge of dealing with that PayPal account, then there’s no basis to suspect she’d know how much was in it. And I stand by my statement that, just because the prosecutors asked for an estimate, she was under no obligation to hazard a guess if she didn’t believe she could provide the court with accurate information about an account for which she had no first-hand knowledge.
As you point out, during the course of the hearing she offered to get the guy who could provide the actual numbers on the phone. As you also point out, they weren’t interested at the time.
But the prosecutors were interested in that offer later on, at least to the extent of duplicitously editing that offer from the portions of the transcript used in the charging affidavit to give the false impression that she never offered.
The prosecutors’ conduct was so egregious I wouldn’t have any trouble believing they were simply trying to set a perjury trap for members of GZ’s family. They weren’t at all interested in getting information about that account for purposes of setting bail, because had that been the case that information was only a phone call away. Instead they were simply interested in questioning GZ’s family members who were under oath about it. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn the prosecutors were well aware of the answers to the questions they were asking before they asked. Just as they undoubtedly were aware of those taped phone conversations.
Even those allegations about speaking in “code” about the money smacks of dishonesty. Who could possibly have been fooled by that “code?” Do you realize how many times I and everyone else in the US have used that “code.” As in, “it looks like a nice house; how much are they asking?” “They want 250.”
Angela Corey, super-genius, would allege that either the owners of that house want only 250 dollars and zero cents for their home, or everyone’s speaking in “code.”
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 4:28 pmhttp://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/13/164455/280
Judge Orders Release of George Zimmerman’s Statements to Police
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/SKMBT_363-V12061312310.pdf
That means we should soon be seeing all that (what he said)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/13/2012 @ 4:30 pmIt was reported in multiple media outlets for weeks that Zimmerman had a Web site collecting donations for a legal defense.
Why didn’t Angela Corey know about this?
Jay (ea25d4) — 6/13/2012 @ 4:32 pmFLORIDA ÜBER ALLES!!!
Icy (665a14) — 6/13/2012 @ 4:55 pmBecause the two jackalope attys who gave the press conference, about a day before the arrest, got in the way,
narciso (494474) — 6/13/2012 @ 4:58 pmIs it the purpose of bail to break an entire family financially so that they have no resources to hire an attorney or even live day to day? That seems to be part of the tone of the hearing apart from any other maneuvering to induce perjury.
“To Corey” will be part of the language before too long.
geoffb (1f4c30) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:03 pmActually, it was more than being merely reported about. Zimmerman’s former attorneys were giving statements to anyone in the press they could talk to about it. And they were telling the press that they were going to set up a fund for the purpose of taking care of GZ’s living expenses and legal defense at http://www.zimmermandefense.com.
Several things are clear from the reporting. First, the legal defense fund was the brainchild of GZ’s original attorneys, Uhrig and Sonner. Second, these attorneys had discussed the defense fund, including its legitimate uses, with the Zimmermans. Third, when Zimmerman went into hiding and Uhrig and Sonner announced they could no longer represent him since they had lost contact with him, Zimmerman went ahead and set up a “legal defense fund” on his own behalf at his own site, http://www.therealgeorgezimmerman.com.
What is not so clear from the reporting, but appears obvious, is that the Zimmermans did not consider this account for donations to be a personal asset like a car or their earned incomes with which they could do with as they liked. Undoubtedly, they got this impression from their attorneys, who were telling the press they were going to set up an account for Zimmerman’s living and legal expenses. When Zimmerman set up his own account, he stated any money he received via donation would be used only for those purposes.
Zimmerman’s new attorney, O’Mara, was apparently the only one in that courtroom who wasn’t aware of that account. Inexplicably, even after the prosecutors questioned Zimmerman’s family about it in his presence, O’Mara never asked Zimmerman about it. Zimmerman spontaneously raised the issue with O’Mara just a few days after being released on bond.
It’s going to be hard to make the case that the Zimmermans were trying to hide anything from the court, especially money in a PayPal account that their legal representatives were telling the press about and was linked to website openly advertising for donations on the internet for the whole world to see.
Which would explain why the prosecutors have to misrepresent Shellie Zimmerman’s testimony, as in lie about it by omitting key parts, in their affidavit of probable cause.
“Testilying” about their case in order to make it appear that there’s something to their charges when there isn’t seems to be a habit with this prosecutor and her team. But the fact that they are so blatantly deceiving the court is a good sign that even they know these charges they’re bringing against the Zimmermans are completely bogus.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:09 pm“To Corey” will be part of the language before too long.
Amen, bro geoffb.
JD (318f81) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:48 pmShe’ll think it’s a compliment too.
geoffb (1f4c30) — 6/13/2012 @ 5:58 pmCorey will claim, if needed, that there was no intent to actually prosecute Mrs. Z, it was an allowed negotiating tactic. The error in the transcript was an inadvertent mistake. She seems to be one of those people who really don’t understand karma.
htom (412a17) — 6/13/2012 @ 6:00 pmExcept of course she claims in the charging documents that she is bringing the perjury charge against SZ in good faith.
Which would have to mean she believes in good faith that SZ committed the crime of perjury. So if she’s charging GZ’s wife with a crime purely as a negotiating tactic, then this is another example of Angela Corey documenting her own perjury in the documents she submits to the court.
Or rather, the documents her assistants submit on her behalf. In which case, she like Eric Holder is simply too incompetent to keep track of what’s going on with the case she’s been assigned to oversee as the special prosecutor.
Perhaps if she didn’t spend all her time monitoring the press so she can attack her critics, she might be aware of what’s going on in her office.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 6:43 pmAnd yet, this out of control prosecutor is Surls’ heroine.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/13/2012 @ 6:44 pmPlease explain this person to me, because I purely don’t get him. He spews nonsense – on Aaron Walker getting arrested after the court date, he kept going on and on and on about the bloody iPad incident, which had zero, zip, zilch to do with what happened. More, this had been explained in the post leading to the thread.
And on the Zimmerman matter, he keeps repeating things as if saying them makes them true. I do not understand. Is he playing devil’s advocate, or is he really that obtuse?
Dianna (f12db5) — 6/13/2012 @ 6:59 pm____________________________________________
Surls is back to claiming things are true when he cant point to any evidence.
I guess his living in a community where he boasts of never having to lock his doors make his outlook on reality full of gauzy rose colors. This controversy, therefore, is just a hypothetical to folks like him, no more than a judicial version of a board game like Monopoly or Risk.
It really irks me if his type will be no slower in feeling ill at ease if more and more of the people moving into his neighborhood suddenly became variations of Trayvon Martin and Company.
“Psst,” says Mr. Two-Faced Idealist to the missus. “Call our real estate agent right now! I think it’s time for a change in our life. Time to find a new place to call home!”
Mark (a2e041) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:16 pmThere were 400 calls from that complex, during that year, maybe only a half dozen from Zimmerman himself
narciso (494474) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:24 pmIt’s hard to see why that’s the case, other than the fact he has such a hard-on for Zimmerman that he’s willing to overlook this prosecutor’s numerous, publicly displayed professional, moral, and intellectual deficiencies.
I suggest you read those charging documents, the criminal information filing and the probable cause affidavit. The only possible perjury SZ could have committed is when she responded to these questions from GZ’s attorney and from the prosecutor. The first questions came from O’Mara:
If George’s brother controls the PayPal account, SZ can’t liquidate it. The state carefully ensured that portion of the transcript in which SZ informs the court that GZ’s brother controls that PayPal account and offers to get him on the phone never made it into the charging documents.
Clearly SZ provided a truthful answer, as O’Mara would clearly know what discussions he personally had with GZ’s family.
SZ said not that she was aware of; and the state will have to prove a number of things if they want to claim she deliberately lied. Including that the money donated to that PayPal account comprised part of what was in her understanding her personal “financial means.”
Clearly SZ answered truthfully, as O’Mara and the prosecutor did ask questions of the other family members, they responded that they did have these discussions, and none of them have been charged with perjury.
The affidavit mentions the following questions that prosecutor De La Rionda asked SZ:
Who the hell does “you all” refer to? Just the three involved in testifying via conference call? If so, George’s brother wasn’t there and he controls the PayPal account.
If she’s not in charge of that website, as she clearly wasn’t or else the state wouldn’t have edited out her statements about GZ’s brother running it and instead would have attempted to charge her with perjury for those as well, then how in hell should she be expected to know how much money “is in that website right now?”
Again, why should she know that? She’s not in charge of that website.
It’s interesting in that the only things the state passes off as evidence that SZ was lying about the website are conversations, bank records, and discussions the investigator had with an assistant bank manager where the Zimmerman’s do there banking.
In other words, nothing at all about the website. And zero evidence that SZ, and not GZ’s brother, transferred any money from the PayPal account to those bank accounts.
I say “approaching evidence” because not even the investigator makes any claim that any of SZ’s statements under oath were false in any regard, let alone deliberately so. He just makes the implication that if SZ was transferring funds around in accounts that had nothing to do with the website, then she must have known about the funds in the website (as De La Rionda put it).
Which of course does not follow at all.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:35 pmYou know, this is starting to remind me very strongly of this recent case in which the court wrote:
Milhouse (312124) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:48 pm
Milhouse (312124) — 6/13/2012 @ 7:52 pmBlackHispanic kid. So how she makes up for throwing the book at one Hispanic by throwing the book again at another Hispanic is a bit confusing to my little mind. (The 12-year-old’s victims were his younger brothers, therefore also Hispanic.)Did she? I thought she discussed how much her brother-in-law had transferred from that account into hers, not how much was in it.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:00 pmIt sounds like more than perjury. It sounds like money laundering.
BTW, in Illinois at least, perjury need is not a crime if you correct your “misspokening” before final decision in the prceeding.
nk (875f57) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:05 pm*perjury
nk (875f57) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:06 pmneedis not a crime*Never lie to the judge, but nobody is perfect. If you do “misspeak”, though, correct it.
nk (875f57) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:08 pm“Is it the purpose of bail to break an entire family financially so that they have no resources to hire an attorney or even live day to day?”
Upfront? Depends on the prosecutors discretion.
Next phase? Is the judge a political whore?
Whatever happened to the: “The previous attorneys advised on setting up the Paypal account and even now I have no idea if what the internet says I have is actually real…” defense?
SteveG (831214) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:15 pmDidn’t O’Mara update the information, at the next hearing.
narciso (494474) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:17 pmMilhouse, what I know about the Fernandez case consists entirely of the head of the Jacksonville NAACP’s complaints about it.
In general, the Jacksonville NAACP’s beef with Corey is she charges too many juveniles as adults, and we all know who the NAACP believes is disparately impacted by these prosecutions. Or just prosecution in general. They’ve been quite vocal about how Corey railroads kids, and that these kids are predominantly black.
The bottom line is all she had to do to get back in the NAACP’s good graces is indict Zimmerman. And it’s becoming quite obvious that all she’s interested in is the politics of the case, not the facts or the law.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:19 pmor simpler
“I’ve never had a Paypal account before and am obviously not up to speed on how it works”
SteveG (831214) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:23 pmZimmerman may be less than up to this level of pressure; his wife too…
But does that make him less bondable?
SteveG (831214) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:27 pmSurely charging someone as a negotiating tactic with a crime you do not intend to prosecute is only allowed if you could prosecute the crime, and your intention of dropping it is a mere exercise of discretion. Not if you don’t believe the person has committed the crime, or you know you can’t prove it.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:30 pmYes. Zimmerman’s original bond hearing was on the 20th of April, and defense and the prosecution discussed this mystery PayPal account that no one could possibly know about except if they watch the news, read the local papers, or pay attention to anything at all on the internet. Because this account was advertised to the world.
And in truth, O’Mara updated the court with this information prior to the hearing, after Zimmerman spontaneously informed O’Mara about the account.
Somehow I’m not seeing the attempt to conceal anything from the court here. Spontaneously informing someone of an account who then informed the court doesn’t fit my definition of concealment.
And at the hearing not even the judge, Lester, could determine if he had the authority to modify GZ’s bond arrangement based upon this fund, because he wasn’t sure what purposes that money could be put to.
But non-lawyer Zimmerman was supposed to have a perfect grasp of such intricacies.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:33 pmI meant to say that the defense and prosecution discussed this account before the judge at a hearing on the 27th.
So the hearing in question was one week after the bond hearing, and O’Mara informed the court of this account days before the hearing.
Or less than a week after the original bond hearing.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:37 pm“But non-lawyer Zimmerman was supposed to have a perfect grasp of such intricacies.”
Steve57 – Surls has it, why shouldn’t Zimmerman?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:39 pmSurls has the advantage of not letting the facts get in the way of his grasp of the situation.
If you ignore the facts, and the timeline, and substitute your own fantasies then nothing is really that intricate, is it?
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:44 pmComment by SteveG — 6/13/2012 @ 8:15 pm
Uh-uh. The attorney and the client can agree that the cash bond refund or part of it will go to the attorney at the end of the trial. Even without a written retainer agreement, the judge will award the attorney’s fees, based on a reasonable rate in that jurisdiction, and his costs, upon completion of the trial, from the cash refund.
nk (875f57) — 6/13/2012 @ 8:54 pmComment #148 is flatly defamatory.
I would like to see it removed from this website.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 12:52 am“No wonder Surls is so fond of her work.”
Indeed I am. She’s prosecuted hundreds of cases, and dozens of murder cases, and she’s put a whole lot of bad guys in jail.
I don’t think much of most of what our governments do, but I do approve of them locking up bad guys, and Corey is a whiz at that.
That’s why I like the owner of this blog, even if he is a government employeee. Because he does that for a living too. Good for him.
Yeah, I think Angela Corey is a good person.
Dershowitz, OTOH (who we’ve mentioned in passing), is pond scum. He tries to help murderers and other criminals beat the rap (if the criminals in question have tons of dough) through various sorts of legal chicanery, he’s a hard core leftist, he sues people for defamation at the drop of a hat, then cries like a whiny little baby if someone merely (allegedly) complains about his (possibly) defamatory statements. Can’t stand the guy.
Your heroes are dirtbags like Georgie Porgy and Dershowitz.
I’ll go with Angela Corey over them any day of the week. She’s for sure more of a heroine then they are heroes.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 1:47 am“In the case of an editorial in the Florida Times Union that attracted her ire, she sent a threatening letter on official state letterhead stationary to make the accusation of libel:”
I don’t see any threat in that letter, just a complaint that she’s being treated unfairly. Seems perfectly legitimate to me.
As far as I can tell she’s never threatened anyone with a defamation suit…which is more than I can say for the whiny little Harvard professor, who’s initiated a couple of defamation suits, if memory serves (and my memory is excellent).
Still waiting for some actual evidence that Corey threatened to sue Harvard….and hearsay from Alan Dershowitz, hypocrite extrordinaire doesn’t count
Maybe she did…but I don’t see any evidence that she did.
And, if she threatened to sue Dershowitz, I wouldn’t blame her a bit.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 2:17 amSF: They could claim that she knew very well more or less what amount of money was in it, as SHE HAD DISCUSSED THAT IN CODE WITH HER HUSBAND.
(Although they may not have attempted any clear charge that something or other was perjury.)
Comment by Milhouse — 6/13/2012 @ 8:00 pm
Did she? I thought she discussed how much her brother-in-law had transferred from that account into hers, not how much was in it.
It was all the same money, wasn’t it? Actually,
if that’s only part of the money, that still would give her some estimate. At least if it was something like $150 or $150,000.
The conversation actually was vague as to what it pertained to.
The truth of the matter is that, at most, Shellie was hoping the question of how much was in the fund would not be explored too much. And she was probably also following the usual type of advice from a lawyer not to volunteer anything and to only answer what she definitely knew.
It might be that because they were so much geared up against Zimmerman the prosecution was genuinely surprised by the scale of the fund, and therefore they didn’t really try to get hard facts – not even make a modest attempt to get the information because they thought it was a relatively small amount. And it could be that Shellie hoped it would work out that way.
But still, they never really asked good questions of her. They didn’t ask “Can you tell us if it over $1,000, if is it over $5,000, less than $50,000” etc. That may be because they may not have been aware of any direct involvement on her part so actually asking her was only because she might know something and happened to be on the witness stand. They didn’t think the answer was too important because they thought the size of the fund was low.
Being a bit cagy perhaps (and cautious) and hoping the questioner won’t go into something too much and hoping they won’t realize something is not the same thing as perjury.
When the judge found out the approximate size of the fund he did not act outraged. The prosecution had to make this into a cause to revoke bail, and later, a crime. This reaction was not natural.
What really happened seems to be that first, the Zimmermans were not sure that the money could legally be used for bail. Although they actually intended to use it for that, they thought this might not be legal! The terms under which the money was raised said that George would make the final decision as to how to use it, so really there isn’t any question of financial fraud. In the end, George’s family was attempting to post bail for him, but he dissuaded them. $5,000 from the fund was used and a $10,000 note issued to a bail bondsman.
But this is besides the point.
Sammy Finkelman (9c245c) — 6/14/2012 @ 3:34 amShellie Zimmerman did volunteer that they could get the information from her brother-in-law rather than give any kind of an estimate at all, but that may be because she knew they wouldn’t bother, and volunteering this fended off any more detailed questions of her that she would not be able to truthfully evade. And so she avoided them finding out the scale of the fund.
Is that perjury?
Sammy Finkelman (9c245c) — 6/14/2012 @ 3:39 am“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.”
Nah, that ain’t perjury.
They don’t have any dough…except for the tens of thousands of dollars she’s moving from account to account…according to the prosecution.
Out of George Zimmerman’s account before the bail hearing…and then back into his account after the bail hearing.
What a bunch of maroons.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 3:53 amI see Surls is back to the “your heroes” BS.
JD (95e569) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:26 am(and my memory is excellent).
So you choose to misrepresent the history and facts?
JD (95e569) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:31 am221.I see Surls is back to the “your heroes” BS.
Comment by JD — 6/14/2012 @ 5:26 am
JD, I don’t think he ever left it, it’s just that one can confabulate only so much in each individual post.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:37 amNot thinking Corey will skate in the long run:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/shocker-prosecution-selective-edits-transcript-used-to-indict-zimmermans-wife-for-perjury/
Not that the Zs will get the Bigs behind them, its just this is all so badly done. Governor?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:33 amDave, explain the “perjury” if the money they had was not, to her knowlege, available for that purpose?
And she directedd the court to the person who could accurately inform the court.
Of course, Corey hid that part. Ellided it without ellipsis, as if it were never spoken.
sarahW (b0e533) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:57 amSurls “proves” things the same way that Corey does. By omitting facts.
If only we had a word for that in english …
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:17 amI’ll go with Angela Corey over them any day of the week. She’s for sure more of a heroine then they are heroes.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/14/2012 @ 1:47 am
— It seems like a dream, she’s got Dave hypnotized
Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:20 am#148 follows from #147, and is a direct and appropriate response to #119. In that context it is not defamatory.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:46 am“So you choose to misrepresent the history and facts?”
On the contrary, Dershowitz has, in fact, initiated defamation lawsuits in the past. I didn’t misrepresent anything.
‘Dave, explain the “perjury”…’
It’s quite simple. She stated, under oath, that they didn’t have any money, when in fact they had $200,000 (or so), available for any purpose they chose…including paying off their old debts. Or, at least that’s what the prosecutors are claiming.
“George Zimmerman received $204,000 in donations to his legal fund, his lawyer said Thursday, a disclosure that could land the neighborhood watch volunteer back in jail.”
“Attorney Mark O’Mara told CNN that he didn’t learn of the donations until Wednesday when he was shutting down the website that Zimmerman had created earlier this year to raise money for his defense. “He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts, and I asked him what he was talking about,” O’Mara explained.”
“The large amount of cash is noteworthy because O’Mara had previously described Zimmerman as “indigent for costs” at his bond hearing earlier this month…”–Slate
Apparently O’Mara doesn’t scan the internet, or traditional media much, or he would have known about their mini-fortune, before the bond hearing.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:52 amAnybody else notice that Dave seems to have a problem with “ethnic” white people?
Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:55 amWas it? How on earth should she know? What basis would she have for stating this, under oath?
On the contrary, money transferred out of the account was no longer in it, was it? And money transferred out is no indication at all of how much remains. In any case, she was under no obligation to guess, and it would have been foolish of her to attempt it. She offered to get them the correct number, and they weren’t interested. End of story. And George was certainly under no obligation to chime in.
As I said, this reminds me of the case in Texas where someone was required to make a guess at how much money he and his wife were carrying, guessed wrong, and the government stole the money. As the court said, he should have been offered the chance to count the money, and told that travelers’ cheques count, before filling in the form. Here too, if the judge wanted to know how much money was in the fund he should have had her call her brother-in-law, and explicitly told them which money had to be disclosed. Neither Zimmerman had any obligation to guess.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:00 amOf course it isn’t. Perjury is a specific statement that is material, and that the speaker knows to be false. There can never be such a thing as perjury by omission. It is not a witness’s job to enlighten the court. A witness has to answer all proper questions truthfully and say no more.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:03 amActually I think the mention of her brother-in-law came in response to a question.
If there is a claim of a lie maybe it could be based on concealing the fact she had withdrawn money from the fund, and that that money should have been included among her “assets”
They had concealed that from their lawyer, also. Later, when Mark O’Meara said that George Zimmerman should lower his Internet presence (why? fear of a gag order?) and close that website, George Zimmerman asked but what should he do with the money. That was the first Mark O’Meara knew about the amounts of money raised.
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:06 amAnd you’re deliberately ignoring the fact that that was other people’s money that they had given to help the Zimmermans, not to harm them. It would be monstrous to take that money into account and extort a higher bond from them. It would be theft by the court from all the donors; they didn’t give their hard-earned money in order to enrich some bail bondsman. Even if Mrs Z didn’t know it, the court had no business inquiring into the fund, and therefore even if she’d knowingly lied about it, which she didn’t, it would not have been material. (Knowledge of materiality is not an element of perjury — and that cuts both ways. Knowingly lying about something while mistakenly thinking it isn’t material is perjury; therefore knowingly lying about something while mistakenly thinking it is material is not perjury.)
Milhouse (312124) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:10 amZimmerman’s omissions are perjury … but Corey’s are not?
That’s the kind of logic that Surls offers.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:11 amehr prosecution was under the impression that no money had been withdrawn from the account.
Statements of her assets were probably put together and filed with the court by Mark O’Meara. The accusation could be that the money taken out of the fund should have been counted. What is the accusation?
Sammy Finkelman (8a20da) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:11 amShould it have? None of us can answer that, so how can she be expected to? And concealing anything is not perjury.
No they didn’t. He didn’t ask, and it didn’t occur to them to tell him until the matter came up. If they were concealing it from him why would they then tell him?
Milhouse (312124) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:13 amWhy is she responsible for the prosecution’s impressions?
Legal questions about what should or should not have been included in an account prepared by her lawyer don’t create perjury. It’s not her job to answer those questions, or to help anyone else answer them. The definition of perjury is a specific statement that is false, and that she knows is false, and that is material. The judge must read out to the jury the actual words that were perjured. What are those words? The prosecutor’s affidavit doesn’t say.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:17 am“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.”
That’s perjury.
They did have money. Around $200,000 worth, and they rather obviously were trying to hide it. True, they did an abysmal job, but at least they tried.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:22 amSurls, so you endorse the practice of selective omission from transcripts?
If only there was a word for that in english …
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:28 am_________________________________________________
Anybody else notice that Dave seems to have a problem with “ethnic” white people?
Whether he does or doesn’t, the mindset of people like him is worth remembering because he reflects X percentage of the public. Quite a few of him exist in dyed-in-the-wool liberal areas in general, urban America in particular. That’s why some of the most irresponsible, flaky juries in society can be found there, and ambulance-chasing lawyers salivate at that reality.
He’s one reason why more than ever before I understand the concept of and need to “vote with one’s feet.” When there are too many people in a community who have about as much common sense as a slug, it can become very risky living in such a place and trying to wade through the challenges (and perils) of socio-economic dysfunction, crime included. In effect, a person is on his (or her) own, because he’ll be surrounded by fools who will have as much sympathy — emotionally and politically — for the lawbreaker as for the victim.
So the need to vote with one’s feet and the moving van becomes more understandable and appropriate. The necessity to live in a neighborhood where from the outset one preferably doesn’t have to even lock his front door at night.
Of course, civil-rights activists and social do-gooders — no to mention “poverty pimps” — then will feel indignant about the polarized or segregated nature of society. But in a way that’s a good thing, because otherwise such activists won’t have as much in their life to feel relevant and whole about. But an awareness of tough, basic reality in the 21st century means they also deserve to be increasingly avoided, ignored or labeled as clowns.
Mark (4500b8) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:32 am“Surls, so you endorse the practice of selective omission from transcripts?”
Yes, as a matter of fact I have quit beating my wife.
Nitwit.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 11:43 amWhoo hoo! That leaves more time for buggering the goats!
Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 11:48 amSurls, evidently you actually haven’t.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 11:49 amNo, it isn’t. Again, as long as you ignore the facts and the timeline, nothing is intricate.
When I said the Zimmermans set up the website and account for themselves, it could have easily been George’s brother. In fact, it almost certainly was his brother as the website only went active 2 days before GZ was arrested and put in jail.
Of course, the prosecutor didn’t know who had set up this website, hence he asked about the website that had been set up either by GZ or by someone on his behalf.
And in between the bond hearing and charging SZ they apparently didn’t try to find out. Or if they did, they hid it from the judge along with all the other information they’ve been concealing from the judge because it destroys their case.
In any event, there is nothing about who set up and operated the website and PayPal account on GZ’s behalf in the charging documents. Even though in the transcript SZ clearly identified the person operating the PayPal account on GZ’s behalf, and offered to put them in touch with him.
These investigators for the prosecutors office could be bothered to check with the bank. They couldn’t be bothered to get in touch with GZ’s brother, or if they had they couldn’t be bothered to include anything about it in their affidavit.
Essentially, the prosecution avoided finding out about certain facts, and asked deliberately vague questions. (Again, who does “you all,” refer to? SZ and GZ? SZ and GZ’s parents who were in the room at the time of the hearing? Or all of the above and some other person or persons unknown who may have set up a website and PayPal account on GZ’s behalf? And if the latter, how in the hell could any sane human being consider these donations into a PayPal account set up and operated by a third party part of SZ’s assets?).
Of course, they avoided finding answers to certain questions and asked deliberately vague questions all so like-minded people who don’t care about the facts or their shoddy work can breezily declare SZ guilty of a crime they can’t prove.
Way to go Surls.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 11:50 am‘Essentially, the prosecution avoided finding out about certain facts, and asked deliberately vague questions. (Again, who does “you all,” refer to?…’
You all is Mr. and Ms. Zimmerman, obviously, and according to the prosecutors Ms. Zimmerman was moving tens of thousands of dollars in and out of accounts with her and Mr. Zimmerman’s name on said accounts…at the same time she’s claiming they had no money.
“Your Affiant has reviewed numerous recorded jail phone calls between Shellie Zimmerman and George Zimmerman made before April 20, 2012, wherein the two of them discuss his financial circumstances and the transferring of money from George
Zimmerman’s account to the accounts of Zimmerman and George Zimmerman’s sister…”
“…The credit union records further revealed that Shellie Zimmerman withdrew $18,000, in amounts of $9,000 two times, on April 16, 2012 from her account at the credit union…”
“…The Insight Credit Union records for George Zimmerman’s sister’s account reveal
that more than $47,000 was transferred from George Zimmerman’s account to his
sister’s account from April16, 2012 to April17, 2012…”
“…The Insight Credit Union records also reveal that on April 24, 2012, after George Zimmerman was released from jail on bond, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $85,500 from her account back to George Zimmerman’s account. On June 6, 2012, your Affiant met with an assistant branch manager of Insight Credit Union. The assistant branch manager explained that she met with Shellie
Zimmerman, who she knew as a customer, on April 16, 2012 at the Insight Credit Union branch located in Seminole County, Florida. During that meeting, the assistant branch manager assisted Shellie Zimmerman in transferring control of George Zimmerman’s account to Shellie Zimmerman.”
Sure looks like perjury to me.
Though I suppose the prosecutor’s office could be lying about all this. But, I’ll bet they have bank statements and depositions to back it up.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 12:23 pm“Way to go Surls.”
Thank you.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 12:26 pmShe didn’t threaten to sue Dershowitz. She threatened to file a complaint with the bar against Dershowitz. Which is a violation of the state of Florida’s rules of professional ethics. If she believes Dershowitz committed an ethical violation, she can only report it. She can’t threaten to report it merely to get him to stop his criticism of her or to gain an advantage in a threatened civil action against Harvard over his criticism.
But then, you don’t ever have a problem with Corey’s unprofessionalism and unethical behavior, do you?
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 12:33 pmIt is clear to me that if people with the ethics of Angela Corey were in charge of prosecuting Scott Peterson, today he would be cheating on his second wife.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/14/2012 @ 12:47 pmOf course it does, Dave. Because you’re not interested in the facts. At the April 27th hearing Judge Lester refused to make what he called a “snap decision” about raising GZ’s bail when refusing the request of the prosecution to do so. He told the prosecution he didn’t know if he had jurisdiction over the monies collected via the PayPal account.
He also said he needed to know who set it up, who operated it, and how much money was in the account.
All three factors which the prosecution left out of the documents charging SZ with perjury. But as they were factors which would enable the judge to decide if these donations should have been considered assets relevant to the bond amount, they were also relevant to whether or not SZ considered these funds “her money.”
Which is why I mentioned them. And I suspect why you ignored them. Because SZ didn’t knowingly lie about this money if she didn’t consider it hers. Which is a reasonable belief based upon the fact that the judge didn’t even know if the money was hers.
If he had to study the matter following the April 27th hearing to make that determination, there is no way in hell’s creation you can claim that SZ or GZ could have known the status of this money a week prior. No matter where it was at the time of the bond hearing. Because even if someone, almost certainly GZ’s brother (we can’t know that with certainty as the prosecution deliberately avoids the issue, but that in itself is a sign it was GZ’s brother) had transferred the money to the Zimmermans’ bank accounts it was still money collected via donation at the website. Money the judge didn’t know if he had jurisdiction over.
Just keep ignoring the timeline, Dave. It makes you look real sharp. All your claim that SZ committed perjury amounts to is that the legal non-professionals should have been of the same opinion about the legal status of money donated to an account controlled by a third party that it took weeks for a judge to arrive at after he became aware of the account.
But it’s an obvious fact, which like the timeline you’re also ignoring, that there’s no way anyone can lie about money that they don’t know whether or not belongs to them by saying words to the effect “I don’t know.” And if the legal professionals don’t know either, then that’s also the truth. And the truth isn’t perjury. Much as you’re blinded by your desire to see GZ and SZ railroaded in a kangaroo court.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 1:00 pmActually, what the internet says you have, you don’t really have. And if you were up to speed about how PayPal works, SteveG, then you’d know that PayPal can sieze, freeze, or put holds on transfers of funds if it has questions about the account holder, or any aspect of the money. They simply don’t just transfer the money, no questions asked.
PayPal has specific application procedures. To solicit donations, the procedure is to set up a business account first, then select “non-profit” as the business type. PayPal requires IRS and banking information to confirm your status as a non-profit. Of course, if the Zimmermans didn’t set this up as a non-profit they’d still have to go through an application procedure, and there’d be other IRS forms they’d have to fill out before PayPal would transfer the funds (so much for the BS claim they were trying to conceal the amount from the government).
The bottom line is that if PayPal suspects that any of this was done incorrectly, or they have questions about how you’re soliciting the money, they don’t give it to you.
It’s not yours until they do. So it doesn’t matter how much money is “in the website,” as the prosecutor put it. If it’s in the website, it doesn’t belong to the operator of the account, GZ’s brother, let alone SZ. And if you’re asked if that PayPal account is something you can liquidate in a reasonably timely manner, the only correct answer is “I don’t know” or “I’m not sure.”
Because there is no way for you to know if PayPal will allow you to do so.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 1:23 pm“She didn’t threaten to sue Dershowitz. She threatened to file a complaint with the bar against Dershowitz.”
Prove it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:02 pmWhy, Surls? You’ve never proven your claims.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:05 pmAs was done to ‘Cully Stimson’ for pointing corporate complicity with the Gitmo bar.
narciso (494474) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:18 pm“Of course it does, Dave. Because you’re not interested in the facts.”
It looks like it’s a fact that Mr. and Ms. Zimmerman had a couple of hundred thousand dollars (less what they’d already spent), yet Ms. Zimmerman claimed, under oath, that they had no money.
We call that: lying under oath.
I’m ignoring the rest of your babble, because it’s totally irrelevant to the issue.
She’s either lying about them having many tens of thousands of dollars, or she isn’t.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:24 pmSurls, its already been shown that you, and Corey, have brazenly misrepresented what she said.
If only we had a word in english for what you do …
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:27 pm“Surls, its already been shown that you, and Corey, have brazenly misrepresented what she said.”
I must have been dozing through that part.
“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.”
It sure looks like they had quite a bit of money. It also looks like they conspired to hide that money by moving it around from account to account prior to and after the bond hearing.
Of course, things aren’t always what they seem…but this doesn’t look too good on its face. It looks bad enough that the prosector decided to charge Ms. Zimmerman with perjury and Mr. Zimmerman’s bail was revoked by Judge Lester.
These are not promising developments from the POV of the Zimmerman family.
“Much as you’re blinded by your desire to see GZ and SZ railroaded in a kangaroo court.”
No, I’m in favor of trying them in front of a jury of their peers, under standard rules for a criminal trial…as per usual.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:38 pmSince its been pointed out to you where in the transcript Ms. Zimmerman mentioned who had the information on the amount of money raised, you were not dozing – instead you were intentionally omitting.
Look here, I found a word in english for your conduct after all, Surls, its called lying.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:41 pmYou mean that money collected via donation that Judge Lester wasn’t even sure he had jurisdiction over.
He didn’t know if that was SZ’s money for purposes of setting bail.
But you claim SZ should have known.
That’s absolutely daft on your part. To claim she was “hiding” money that was collected via website donations, a website she never denied existed, was perfectly willing to talk about under oath, and offered to get the person who was responsible for the website on the phone so they could ask him.
Of course, you continue to gloss over the multitude of facts that don’t support your unsupportable contentions. You’d make a fine FL prosecutor, Dave.
If it’s normal practice for FL prosecutors to consistently violate standards of professional ethics.
Such as omit from the charging documents the fact that self-defense was an issue, as GZ claimed from the start, and there was evidence to support that claim.
Or omit portions of a court transcript charging someone with perjury for saying “I don’t know” when the follow-up questions are answered with “we can find out with a phone call; should I call?”
As in, failing to pursue the leads provided by SZ’s own testimony, deceitfully redacted from the charging affidavit, that she didn’t control the PayPal account in question but instead GZ’s brother did.
But as you’ve demonstrated on countless occasions, you have no problem with unethical, dishonest, unprofessional, and quite possibly illegal behavior when it’s done in pursuit of railroading someone you want to see screwed by the criminal justice system.
Drivel. Is that your word for someone laying out the facts that prove you’re cut from the same cloth as this power-mad prosecutor?
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:43 pmI pointed out in a earlier thread, how Fitz threatened to block the publication of a book by Peter Lance, that cast his anti terror prosecutions
narciso (494474) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:44 pmin a bad light.
Some of the transcript that Surls and Cory want to hide:
What’s the bold part? The part that the prosecutor deleted from the transcript when making the charge of perjury. In a sworn affidavit.
That’s the kind of perjury that Surls approves of – the kind done by Angela Corey.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:47 pm“Look here, I found a word in english for your conduct after all, Surls, its called lying.”
Not so. I’m just looking at one part of what Ms. Zimmerman said that looks like perjury to me.
“What’s the bold part?”
I would imagine that those are statements she made that the prosecution didn’t think was perjorious, so they didn’t include them.
Apparently they think that she did know how much money had been obtained, and she’s lying about that as well.
At least, that would be my guess.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:11 pm“That’s the kind of perjury that Surls approves of –”
I don’t approve of any kind of perjury, because it makes it harder to get at the truth.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:13 pmIt’s worse than that for poor David Surls and his inane assertion that SZ is guilty of perjury.
Precedent is entirely against him. Even evasive or non-responsive answers do not constitute perjury. An answer of “not that I’m aware of” to a question like this one, asked of SZ by BDL:
is not perjury. Because there are several bases SZ could have truthfully answered that way. Such as, the money isn’t available to make bond. It isn’t hers and GZ believes it hasn’t been collected to be used for that purpose. As can be easily seen from these recorded “coded” conversations:
Clearly, SZ failed to persuade GZ that this money, which she didn’t consider hers, was collected for the purpose of paying bond.
It doesn’t matter if SZ read to much into this prosecutor’s question; it doesn’t matter if she read too little into the prosecutors question. It doesn’t matter if she was trying to be evasive. It doesn’t matter if she made the offer to call GZ’s brother believing they wouldn’t take her up on it.
None of that constitutes perjury. And all the precedent points to one conclusion; if an attorney could have arrived at his intended objective with a couple of additional questions, the witness is not guilty of perjury. The attorney is guilty of lazy, sloppy lawyering.
Instead of asking for a general estimate, he could have thrown out different dollar amounts. “Has the website collected more than $10K to date” for instance, and depending upon SZ’s answer she may have committed perjury.
Then they could point to specific statements that SZ made under oath that not only weren’t true, but that SZ had reason to believe weren’t true. But they didn’t ask those questions, and if you read the charging documents they do not point to a single, solitary statement as being untrue in any respect.
On the other hand, BDL might have gotten the information he wanted out of SZ. But he was too witless to ask the questions that would have elicited the specific information he appears to have wanted.
And that isn’t the witness’ fault, nor are her answers perjury if she believed they were true.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:30 pmAnd you would have to guess, as nothing in the charging documents identifies any particular statement as a verifiable lie.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:32 pmFailed excuse Surls, because the prosecutions affidavit deceptively failed to note the edit entirely. You are approving of perjury in the your pathetic attempt to excuse the prosecuto’s conduct.
SPQR (b93549) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:35 pm“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?”
“is not perjury.”
Yeah, it’s the answer that appears to be perjury, not the question.
Of course, that would be up to a jury to decide, if the case ever comes to trial.
She stated that they didn’t have any money…only it looks like they had quite a bit (they just wanted to spend it on other things…like paying off their credit cards), or so it appears.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:36 pm“Clearly, SZ failed to persuade GZ that this money, which she didn’t consider hers, was collected for the purpose of paying bond.”
Yeah, I’m sure they’d rather spend the money on cheeseburgers for George or buying stuff at Sam’s Club (or whatever it’s called), but that’s kind of beside the point.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:39 pmThey left the bolded parts out not because they weren’t perjurous.
They prove SZ’s testimony as a whole wasn’t perjurous.
It proves that SZ’s testimony was merely cautious, perhaps to the point of being misleading. But misleading testimony isn’t perjury. And the redacted testimony shows that the prosecution had the opportunity to find out the truth, the information it was seeking, but chose not to.
That is the fault of the prosecution. If he was mislead by SZ’s testimony and chose not to pursue the truth, when she told him who knew the truth and it was only a phone call away, then he’s an idiot.
But then, this prosecutor’s office has demonstrated it’s full of idiots if they think GZ and SZ were speaking in “code.”
GZ’s been charged with second degree murder. Please identify yourself if you’re stupid enough to believe they’re actually only talking about $50.00, $15.00, or $100.00? Because this prosecutor either believes that or is misrepresenting what she should know, if she has two braincells to rub together, to be the truth (again, definitely a violation of her professional ethics if the latter, and evidence she lacks the professional competence to be a prosecutor if it’s the former).
Surls, admit it; you were deceived by that wily “code” the Zimmermans were using, weren’t you.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:45 pm“Failed excuse Surls…”
LOL.
There’s not much point in includng statements she made that were true, since they aren’t perjury.
She doesn’t get extra credit for making some statements that are true, and there’s no reason to list those statements in the document charging her with perjury.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:46 pm‘Surls, admit it; you were deceived by that wily “code” the Zimmermans were using, weren’t you.’
Somewhat amazed that they thought they could get away with trying to hide that money from the eyes of the court.
But, I have a feeling George and his wife aren’t exactly the sharpest pencils in the box.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:49 pmNo, Dave, when you’re accusing someone of perjury that’s entirely the point. It doesn’t matter if you believe the answer wasn’t true. It matters if the witness under oath had reason to believe her answer wasn’t true.
The state of mind of the person answering the question is entirely the issue when it comes to the essential element of the crime of perjury; the person believed the answer wasn’t true.
Your conjecture is beside the point.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 6:50 pmYou mean there’s not much point in including statements that prove a witness’ testimony wasn’t perjured. If the goal is to screw someone over on a false charge of perjury.
Fixed it for you, Dave.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:00 pm“No, Dave, when you’re accusing someone of perjury that’s entirely the point.”
No, it isn’t the point.
The point is whether or not she was telling the truth when she claimed they had no money…and, it looks like she was lying through her teeth, when she claimed they didn’t in reponse to a question.
They’d raised a couple of hundred grand, spent it on various personal expenses, put the money into accounts under their own names, tried to hide that money by moving it from account to account, before and after the bond hearing…and they got caught red-handed lying about having the money.
At least that’s what it looks like.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:00 pm“You mean there’s not much point in including statements that prove a witness’ testimony wasn’t perjured.”
No, I meant exactly what I said.
There’s no point in listing statements she made that aren’t perjury, only the ones that are perjury.
She doesn’t get extra credit for making some true statements.
“Q: Who would know that?”
“A: That would be my brother-in-law.”
No point in including that in a document charging her with perjury…’cause it doesn’t appear to be perjury.
You keep working on it, Steve. It’ll percolate into your brain one of these days.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:04 pmShe doesn’t get extra credit for making some true statements.
— None of us do.
Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:13 pmSurls, you are intentionally pretending not to understand that the prosecutor omitted, without noting the edit, the statements by her that acknowledged the website fundraising and pointed to who had the information that you claim she was committing perjury about.
That is the kind of deception on your part that has resulted in your complete and total loss of credibility here.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:15 pmThere’s another challenge for you, Surls. Find anyone here who thinks you have credibility.
One person.
It should be interesting. I’ll wait …
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:18 pmSurly must be having the same male menopause issues I’m prone to, obstinate to a fault.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:19 pm“Surls, you are intentionally pretending not to understand…”
I understand that the Affidavit of Probable cause lists a number of statements made by Ms. Zimmerman that appear to be perjury (according to the Prosecutors), and omits statements that don’t appear to be perjury.
That’s the way I’d do it.
There’s no point in listing statements in the affidavit that appear to be true.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:30 pmSurls, you would quote the transcript without noting that there were omissions in the quotes?
Well, you’ve confirmed my opinion of your integrity.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:32 pmBy the way, how is that search for someone here who thinks you have any credibility going?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:33 pmI understand that the Affidavit of Probable cause lists a number of statements made by Ms. Zimmerman that appear to be perjury
— Uh, are you positing that they aren’t even really married, now?
There’s no point in listing statements in the affidavit that appear to be true.
Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:36 pm— Woe be to the next commenter that alleges something was ‘taken out of context’!
“Surls, you would quote the transcript without noting that there were omissions in the quotes?”
I believe I just said what I would do.
I would list ONLY the statements she made that I thought were perjurious (and the questions asked that elicited those statements, of course).
I wouldn’t bother listing statements that she made that I thought were true.
What would be the point?
It’s not like I’m going to prosecute her for making true statements.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:39 pmI don’t even believe he’s stopped beating his wife.
htom (412a17) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:43 pmSurls says he would present an edited transcript, without noting the edits.
I’ve seen attorneys brought up on contempt of court charges for that.
But Surls says he would do it.
What more is there to say?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 7:59 pmHmmmm, I’m going to go out on a limb and scratch htom off the possibles in a list of people who think Surls has credibility …
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:00 pmGreat Dave, then you’d be willing to violate the ABA’s code of ethics, which the state of Florida’s adopted, and mislead the court by only presenting partial facts that appear to support the false charge. Not the entire truth as it wouldn’t support your case.
So, you’re admitting you’re much worse than the Zimmermans.
Thanks, it’s what we’ve been alleging about throughout.
Nice to see you’re onboard with our conclusions.
Essentially, by giving only an incomplete transcript of the questions asked of SZ, as the complete transcript would demonstrate she was not attempting to hide the truth about how much money was in the PayPal account in question, the state is admitting it was attempting to set a perjury trap.
It wasn’t interested in getting at the truth about that account. It only asked about the account to attempt to elicit answers it could later portray as perjurous.
An act the courts have called “abhorrent to justice.”
And Dave Surls is fine with that.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:04 pmSurls lost all credibility with me the very first time he called Zimmerman “a skinhead”.
Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:10 pmNothing. Not about Surls. But by editing the transcript it certainly appears to me that the state is demonstrating it wasn’t interested in getting at the truth.
Because the complete transcript shows they could have easily gotten the information they wanted. SZ didn’t provide that information personally, but told them how they could easily get it. They chose not to.
The failure to ask basic follow up questions, or to phrase their questions to elicit the information they appeared to have been seeking, and the failure to investigate any of this afterwards, demonstrates that getting to the facts wasn’t the point of the questioning.
They only asked sufficient questions, and later investigated only sufficiently, to support their obvious objective. To frame SZ for perjury. And they had to edit the transcript to do it.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:24 pmSPQR — that’s a very sturdy limb!
htom (412a17) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:42 pm“Surls says he would present an edited transcript, without noting the edits.”
I would presume that the court is aware that they aren’t presenting a complete transcript of the bond hearing.
Only statements made by Ms. Zimmerman that are actually perjurious, plus evidence that supports the prosecution”s accusation of perjury.
“It wasn’t interested in getting at the truth about that account. It only asked about the account to attempt to elicit answers it could later portray as perjurous.”
They asked her if she and Georgie had any money…and she claimed they didn’t.
Only…they did.
Dave Surls (e97413) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:44 pmIs Florida getting something for all this money spent on all this witch hunting?
Dustin (330eed) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:48 pm“I’ve seen attorneys brought up on contempt of court charges for that.”
Well, why don’t you shoot off an e-mail to the court and demand that they cite the prosecutors for contempt?
Maybe the court will instruct the prosecution to resubmit the affidavit, so that it notes that the statements they’re presenting aren’t the entire transcript of the bond hearing, and to insert three periods where appropriate.
I wouldn’t count on that happening…but, you never know.
Dave Surls (e97413) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:50 pm“But by editing the transcript it certainly appears to me that the state is demonstrating it wasn’t interested in getting at the truth.”
It shows me that they’re only interested in looking at statements that are actually perjurious.
But, then again I’m not a brain dead, Zimmerman-loving, fanatic.
Dave Surls (e97413) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:57 pmWhich only proves that the answer was incorrect. And even then, the judge only determined that the answer was incorrect after weeks of study. He didn’t know whether or not the donations collected by the website could be used to set bond, or used for bond, when he was informed of the PayPal account.
Keep telling the world you’re not interested in whether or not SZ’s answer even came close to the elements of perjury. I don’t mind.
By the way, here’s the SCOTUS telling you that you’re full of crap in Bronston v US, 409 US 352 (1973). And why:
All the prosecution has demonstrated, in its vague probable cause affidavit, is “perjury by implication.” SZ was moving money around. Somehow, this implies she considered that money available for bond, when the prosecutor BDL asked if “you all had no money” for that specific purpose.
I know it just burns you, Dave, that Corey can’t use the judicial system to screw over the Zimmermans by using edited transcripts and pretending she only has to prove some of the elements to gain a conviction.
But all SZ has to do is testify that she didn’t think she had that money for the purpose she was asked, and there is nothing to the charge of perjury. Because Corey can’t just prove that weeks later Lester determined she did have that money for that purpose. Corey has to prove SZ believed her answer wasn’t true at the time she gave it.
And it can’t be done.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:08 pmOh, by the way, not only does that affidavit prove that the prosecutors can’t actually successfully prosecute SZ for the crime they’re accusing her of. An ethical violation all its own.
It proves that the prosecutors aren’t competent to do their jobs, as defined by the SCOTUS. Again:
I’d say it bodes ill for the prosecution that they’re admitting they’re too inept to “flush out the whole truth with the tools of adversary examination.”
I’m sure you’d say differently, Dave, but you’ve demonstrated that professionalism isn’t high on your list of attributes you want or need to see in a prosecutor.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:14 pm_____________________________________________
But, I have a feeling George and his wife aren’t exactly the sharpest pencils in the box.
You’re right. They were foolish to have been as patient as they were living in a neighborhood experiencing a growing number of burglaries, apparently involving mainly (or only) suspects who fit a profile generally similar to that of Trayvon Martin. They should have moved to a community similar to yours, where people can brag about not having to lock their doors at night and worry about suspicious teenagers (eg, the types who get expelled from school the way that Trayvon Martin did) loitering around.
George and his wife, after all, were registered Democrats, and so their naivete and tolerance for tolerance’s sake can be excused. What your excuse is can only be guessed.
Mark (880753) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:18 pmIs Florida getting something for all this money spent on all this witch hunting?
Comment by Dustin — 6/14/2012 @ 8:48 pm
— Well, it has thrust Angela Corey into the national spotlight, so Yes . . . they found one.
Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:18 pmBut, then again I’m
nota brain dead, Zimmerman-lovinghating, fanatic.— FTFY
Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:22 pmOkay, let’s sharpen up our pencils, boys & girls, a-a-and computate:
Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:35 pmThe Zimmerman’s, two registered Democrats;
Angela Corey, registered Republican;
Multiply by the Charlie Crist squish factor;
Divide by the Al Sharpton white-Hispanics-aren’t-real-minorities-because-they-have-it-too-easy hypothesis;
Take it to the Nth power because Trayvon was black;
Answer: either nil or infinity
If you weren’t a brain dead Zimmerman hater you’d be capable of seeing that they left in a number of SZ’s responses that clearly weren’t perjerous in the affidavit of probable cause.
Such as:
Clearly not perjurous. But they included it in the charging documents.
Clearly not perjurous; the other family members confirmed this. Undoubtedly, O’Mara discussed this with them as a group when he discussed his plan to declare GZ indigent with them.
So were the prosecutors aware of the website. Clearly not a perjurous statement.
All in all, since they only included 4 of SZ’s responses to O’Mara, and 6 to De La Rionda, a high percentage of those statements were not perjurous.
So your contention that the prosecution was interested “(o)nly statements made by Ms. Zimmerman that are actually perjurious” is demonstrably false.
That’s the problem with a false narrative that must be supported by edited transcripts, Dave. The incompetents in Angela Corey’s office didn’t edit the transcript carefully enough to support your preferred but obviously untrue assertion.
They were interested only in editing out parts of the transcript, within the portions they presented with no hint that they had done so, that disproved their contention that SZ perjured herself to deceive the court. They left in other, neutral non-perjurous statements. They only edited out the statements that disproved their allegations.
There is absolutely zero reason for you to presume that. You already know which judge is going to be assigned to the case?
It won’t be Lester, the only judge who would have any reason to be aware that the portions of the transcript have been edited. Especially as the prosecutors gave no indication that they had edited it.
Judge Lester might be a witness in a case in which SZ is charged with deliberately misleading him, but he can’t be a judge in that case.
Assuming, of course, his standard of professional ethics are higher than yours, Dave. As in, he’s aware there is a standard of ethics he’s supposed to live up to, in this case the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, and he intends to abide by that code of professional ethics.
These are foreign concepts to people like you and Corey, Dave, I know. But try to conceive of the concept.
So, what court do you imagine would be magically aware that the portions of those transcripts that appear to be complete from first question to final answer, aren’t? That intermediate questions have been edited out, with no indication that’s been done?
The answer, of course, is none. You have zero basis to make your claim.
As per usual.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 11:50 pmThat would be 4, not 6, to De La Rionda.
And 3 out of the total of 8, nearly half of SZ’s statements in response to questions from the defense and prosecution, were obviously not perjurous. You wouldn’t even have to know anything about the case, such as her answer to O’Mara when he asked her about a conversation he personally had with her, weren’t perjurous.
So much for your baseless contention that the prosecution was only interested
So much for your baseless, easily refuted statement that they edited the transcript to include only statements that were perjurous.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 11:55 pmI hate the optical mouse on my laptop. Sometimes it spontaneously cuts, and sometimes it spontaneously pastes.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 11:57 pm“(O’Mara) I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband declared indigent for cost, have I not?”
“(SZ) Yes, you have.”
Yeah, it shows that they intended to claim the Zimmerman’s had no money.
Only they did.
A lot.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:01 amI know this is tough for you Zimmerman-lovers to grasp, but the only statements they’re going to include in their affidavit of probablre cause are statements that make a case for perjury charges.
They’re not going to reprint the entirety of the bond hearing just to make you happy.
Consider it stipulated that not everything Ms. Zimmerman said at the bond hearing was a lie.
But, some of it was.
Or so, the prosecution claims.
To quote myself, the affidavit is going to include…
“Only statements made by Ms. Zimmerman that are actually perjurious, plus evidence that supports the prosecution”s accusation of perjury.”
Sorry if you don’t like that…but, that’s the way it’s going to be.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:06 am_____________________________________________
I know this is tough for you Zimmerman-lovers to grasp
And I guess that, in turn, makes you a Trayvon-Martin lover. Sitting there in a house located in a community apparently far, far removed from the types that Zimmerman and his neighbors were being confronted by on an increasingly frequent basis. You residing in a place where, as you mentioned not long ago, doors never have to be locked.
No wonder that makes the points expressed here so hard for you to grasp. And so easy to talk the talk when you don’t have to walk the walk—along with a real estate agent and moving van too.
Mark (880753) — 6/15/2012 @ 8:41 amSurls, you know very well that the issue isn’t omitting neutral parts of the transcript, it’s omitting parts that show the quoted parts not to be perjury. It’s Dowdifying, only without even the ellipsis that Dowd used. It’s what NBC was caught doing repeatedly to Zimmerman’s 911 call, and for which they had to fire some people.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/15/2012 @ 8:55 am“You residing in a place where, as you mentioned not long ago, doors never have to be locked.”
Beats the hell out of living smack dab in the middle of the ghetto, or in the flatlands of Bezerkley.
“Surls, you know very well that the issue isn’t omitting neutral parts of the transcript…”
Like I said, they’re only going to include perjurious statements and evidence that supports a case for perjury.
“It’s Dowdifying…”
Baloney.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 11:00 amOf course he knows, Milhouse. As I said, there’s no honest way to make them look guilty.
So they have to resort to dishonest means.
Don’t expect Surls to admit they selectively edited the transcript not to eliminate merely non-perjurous statements, but to eliminate statements that disprove the charge of perjury.
Surls does the same thing when he edits the transcript in order to pretend De La Rionda just asked if they had money.
Pretending he didn’t ask if they had money for the purpose of “Mr. Zimmerman’s ability to make a bond amount,” which was the actual question SZ answered. The one she answered honestly based upon what she believed to be true at the time.
Not even Judge Lester could immediately determine if they could use that money for that purpose. He called it a “snap judgement” at the time and refused to make it.
Surls pretends it’s reasonable SZ should have been able to make that same snap judgement while testifying.
These people have to do a lot of pretending to arrive at the conclusion SZ perjured herself.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 1:18 pmNo, it’s factually true. They had that discussion. And factually true statements are never perjury.
And it goes to show nothing. You really should read Bronston v. US. In which the SCOTUS declared you to be full of bovine excrement waaaaaay back in 1973, Dave:
In this case, Dave, the answer was true and complete on its face as well as responsive.
Face it, Dave. Petty tyrants like you, who would read the laws as if they say what you wish they would say rather than what they do say have already tried to make these idiotic arguments.
And they were derisively laughed out of court as the affronts to the Constitution and to justice that they were.
You to, Dave.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 1:29 pmPresenting some of the Q&A, omitting parts, and not indicating that there was missing answers that in fact made her testimony truthful is fraud on the court.
And Surls approves.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/15/2012 @ 1:32 pmAnd he will continue to approve as this prosecutor continues her outlawry, either continuing to file malicious and demonstrably false charges against just the Zimmermans, or if this bogus perjury charge is the start of another patter then also against witnesses that testify on GZ’s behalf.
And Surls will think that’s a great plan. Sure it’s illegal and unethical. But just like the Japanese figured when they decided to experiment with biological and chemical weapons on human guinea pigs in China during WWII, if these weapons they’d like to use on their enemies are illegal, it must be because they’re enormously effective.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 1:47 pmResponse to the latest babble from the Zimmerman-lovers:
And yet, their your heroine sits…facing perjury charges.
And, just wait ’til they bring the skinhead killer’s role in all this up at his murder trial.
It’s going to do wonders for his credibility.
‘In bringing a motion to have Zimmerman’s bond revoked lead prosecutor Bernie De la Rionda complained “This court was led to believe they didn’t have a single penny. It was misleading and I don’t know what words to use other than it was a blatant lie.”‘
‘The judge agreed and ordered Zimmerman returned to jail where he has been since turning himself in on June 3. He didn’t perjure himself, but Lester said he knew his wife was lying.’
‘”Does your client get to sit there like a potted plant and lead the court down the primrose path? That’s the issue,” Lester said in revoking Zimmerman’s bond. “He can’t sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond based upon those material falsehoods.”‘
Smooth move, Georgie boy. Nothing like having a judge accuse you of being a party to presenting material falsehoods in a legal proceeding.
What idiots these Zimmermans be.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:01 pm“their your heroine sits”
Make that “there”.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:02 pm“Face it, Dave. Petty tyrants like you…”
LOL.
What idiots these Zimmerman-lovers be.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:02 pmSo, you’re saying that you have a problem with the accused exercising his right to remain silent.
Because GZ absolutely gets to sit there like a potted plant.
As I said, Dave, you’re an affront to the Constitution.
It’s always good when you pipe up and demonstrate it.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:08 pmResponse to the latest babble from the Zimmerman-lovers:
Good Allah
JD (95e569) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:14 pm“So, you’re saying that you have a problem with the accused exercising his right to remain silent.”
Not at all. But, I do have a problem with him and his old lady conspiring to commit perjury and/or obstruct justice.
“As I said, Dave, you’re an affront to the Constitution.”
Not so. I’m all for following the Constitution to the letter…in this case, anyway.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:18 pmAnd misleading testimony isn’t perjury. Even intentionally misleading testimony isn’t perjury.
The SCOTUS has already ruled on that. But in this case there is no evidence that SZ intentionally mislead anyone. None whatsoever.
Which is why the prosecution edited out the exculpatory parts of the transcript. SZ’s testimony was not only not intentionally misleading, not only not unintentionally misleading, it wasn’t misleading by any stretch of the imagination. She lead this embarrassing excuse for a prosecutor to the truth.
Hence the editing of the transcript. In order to create the false impression that SZ’s testimony was misleading, the prosecutors had to edit out the statements she made that demonstrate her testimony was the exact opposite of misleading.
And what’s with these judges who never heard of the Constitution? Aaron Walker gets one who is unaware such a thing as the first amendment exists. Now GZ gets one to whom the fifth amendment will come as a complete surprise.
(Dave Surls cheers!)
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:20 pmMore charges that can’t be supported by the evidence. I wouldn’t be surprised if this Corey creature files them in bad faith. As she’s done with the others.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:23 pmSurls is outraged that Zimmerman commits perjury and applauds the prosecutor doing so to “prove” it.
That’s Surls logic.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:23 pm318-no substance, biff
tye (4c1603) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:28 pmSurls is outraged over a mere allegation against the Zimmermans.
The irony? It can easily be demonstrated that SZ’s answers were true and complete based upon what she believed at the time.
On the other hand Corey and her team have charged both of the Zimmermans using affidavits that were not true and complete, and they knew they weren’t true and complete at the time.
Anybody else would be going to jail for this. The moral? If you’re going to lie to the judge, make sure you work for the same government employer that he does. Then you can get away with testilying.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:34 pm“More charges that can’t be supported by the evidence.”
And, yet their your heroine sits…charged with perjury.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:38 pmThere, there, there.
Can’t keep my their/there/they’re straight today.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:39 pmAs I said earlier, I wouldn’t be surprised if this outlaw prosecutor continues to violate the law and her code of professional ethics and files more criminal charges in bad faith. Criminal charges she knows the evidence doesn’t support.
There are people actually being harassed in this case, but it’s being perpetrated against them under color of authority.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:43 pmThe cloest she may come to perjury is this:
Q. I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband George
declared indigent for cost, have I not?
A. Yes, you have.
Q. And is – – are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?
A. Uhrn, not- – not that I’m aware of.
Yet they had discussed:
* Call # 18579780 @ 1632:
George Zimmerman: If the bond is $50, pay the 15.
If it’s more than 15, just pay 10% to the bondsman.
Shellie Zimmerman: You don’t want me to pay $100?
George Zimmerman: Hell no.
Shellie Zimmerman: All right just think about it.
However – it is not her money, and George had said to the contributors he qwould make the decsiions as to how the money would be used.
So it’s not her financial meands.
While the government did not know money had already been withdrawn from it, they did know about the fund – and did not pursuethe question.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:43 pm“It can easily be demonstrated that SZ’s answers were true and complete based upon what she believed at the time.”
None are so blind as those who WILL not see.
“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.”
Oh baby, you are in so much trouble.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:48 pmAnd, yet their your heroine sits…charged with perjury.
Surls has thrown any pretense of good faith out the window.
JD (95e569) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:48 pm“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.”
Wrong answer.
“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. Well, we have a couple of hundred grand or so, but we want to use that to buy cheeseburgers for George and myself, pay off our old debts, etc. and we really don’t wish to piss all our money away on frippery like bail, which is why me and George are acting like we’re indigent and why we’re moving money from account to account in order to decieve the court and make it look like we’re flat broke.
Right (truthful) answer.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:57 pmThere’s one other question that may have brought her within spitting distance of perjury:
But as you point out, Sammy, to her knowledge it’s not her money. George makes the decisions about how it should be used, and he decided not for bail. As the conversation snippet you quoted demonstrates.
So her answer to this prosecutors vague multi-part question was true and complete on its face.
In terms of her husband’s ability to make bail, she had no money. The other two in the room, GZ’s mom and dad, had no money. Whoever else the prosecutor meant by “you all” in this context could be anyone’s guess. But it’s not SZ’s job to guess.
Essentially the only reason SZ is being charged with perjury is because the prosecutors are really bad at questioning witnesses. But being an incompetent questioner does not make the witness a perjurer.
No matter how badly Dave Surls wishes that were true.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:58 pmThere’s got to be a medical term for your form of lunacy, Dave. Why don’t you quit spouting nonsense for a while, see a doctor, and find out what it is.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 3:00 pmThanks for reminding me of the term. Projection. It’s more of a psychiatric term, Dave. Now we’ve narrowed down what sort of doctor you need to see.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 3:02 pm“But being an incompetent questioner does not make the witness a perjurer.”
“No matter how badly Dave Surls wishes that were true.”
I hate to keep beating on a dead horse, but…
And, yet there your heroine sits…charged with perjury.
Go figure.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 3:04 pmProjection, by the way, isn’t the proper term for you form of lunacy, Mr. Surls. Projection is a symptom that can be associated with a variety of forms of lunacy.
Your psychiatrist will be able to determine which form you’re suffering from. Just show him your comments on this thread.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 3:05 pmEasy to figure, Dave. She’s been charged in an incompetently written affidavit with a crime that the evidence can’t support by the same incompetents who incompetently questioned her in the first place.
Their bad lawyering lead to more bad lawyering. Not hard to figure.
Apparently it’s really hard for you to figure out she’s not in jail, though.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 3:09 pm“Easy to figure, Dave.”
This is true.
She engages in perjury.
She gets charged with perjury.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 3:23 pm“lunacy”
Zimmerman-ophilia
A mental disorder that causes sufferers to compulsively defend stalkers, murderers and perjurers.
A frequent symptom in those afflicted is paranoia, manififested by vivid hallucinations of prosecutorial misconduct or even imaginary criminal acts. Delusions of persecution by legal authorities are common amongst Zimmerman-ophiliacs.
Those suffering from the disease also have a tendency to believe that anyone who disagrees with them must be a liar, insane, a criminal (of one sort or another), etc.
This disorder tends to be associated with other mental disorders such as extreme stupidity or KKK style racism.
Unfortunately, there is no known treatment or cure at this time.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 3:55 pmCorey’s been charged with perjury? Great news.
That must be who you’re talking about, Dave. After all, Corey is the only “she” connected with this case who is verifiably, indisputably guilty of lying by omission to the court by submitting affidavits under penalty of perjury that she knows are not true and complete.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 4:02 pmDefinitely show that one to your shrink, Dave. Definitely.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 4:03 pmWTF ?!
JD (95e569) — 6/15/2012 @ 4:03 pmOn firmer and more significant ground;
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2012/06/david-and-i-will-be-on-armed-american.html
narciso (494474) — 6/15/2012 @ 4:35 pm“Definitely show that one to your shrink, Dave.”
Well, I’m not under psychiatric care, so I can’t do that.
And there’s no point in showing it to your shrink (if you have one), because, like I said…there ain’t no cure for what ails you and other Zimmerman-ophiliacs.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 4:37 pm“waaahhhhhhh! Don’t call me names! You’re all so mean to me, an you’re all racists! And you love those lying Jews, Zimmerman and Dershowitz! Waaahhhhh!” -Dave Surls
You’re going way past pathetic, Dave.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/15/2012 @ 5:02 pmNot pathetic enough to resort to using falsified quotes to try to make a point.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 5:49 pmWe leave that to you and Corey.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/15/2012 @ 6:43 pm344.“Definitely show that one to your shrink, Dave.”
Well, I’m not under psychiatric care, so I can’t do that.
And there’s no point in showing it to your shrink (if you have one), because, like I said…there ain’t no cure for what ails you and other Zimmerman-ophiliacs.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/15/2012 @ 4:37 pm
Projection is a hallmark of liberals, Dave. You may be further gone than we have thought.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/15/2012 @ 6:55 pmYour bs wasn’t worth quoting accurately.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/15/2012 @ 7:01 pmAnd Brett Kimberlin! Don’t forget Brett Kimberlin, who briefly was able to have Aaron Walker jailed based upon an affidavit filled with lies:
Kimberlin Harassment Update: Kimberlin’s Latest Documented Lies Told Under Oath
Just like Florida State Attorney Angela Corey! Who shares a similar disdain for the facts and the law.
Since Dave Surls is such a fan of people who employ this tactic of jailing people based upon sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury that proceed to misrepresent the facts, he must find this Kimberlin fellow equally admirable.
But anyhoo, that needs to be the standard answer to Surls smug observation that “yet, there she sits…charged with perjury.”
Yes, Dave. Lots of people get charged with crimes because the people who’d like to put them in jail are willing to swear to the truth of false affidavits to do it.
We’ve been discussing such cases for quite some time on this very blog. Like many other aspects of objective reality, apparently you’ve either failed to notice or refused to acknowledge that fact.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 7:02 pmThis is an administration that has put automatic weapons and worse, in the hands of the Sinaloa cartel, turning Mexico, into an even greater blood
narciso (494474) — 6/15/2012 @ 7:14 pmbath, then they were capable before, and yet they
steer all of our attention, to an accidental although justified shooting,
narciso, nobody’s claiming that GZ shot TM accidentally. He shot him deliberately. But you are correct. It was justified. Self-defense is a lawful reason to use deadly force, and George Zimmerman has been claiming self-defense from the start.
Of course, you’d never know that if all you read were the criminal information and the probable cause affidavit charging GZ with the crime of murder. Nowhere did Angela Corey include the fact that GZ claimed self-defense, as she was obligated to do by Florida law and the ABA code of prosecutorial ethics. You’d just know that he made a statement to the police admitting to shooting TM. You’d never know he also stated why he shot TM: self-defense.
Because this prosecutor does not present give the court true and complete information even under the penalty of perjurty when it will hurt her pursuit of an indictment and a conviction. She’s the poster child for “unethical.”
One wonders how she can claim that anyone else should give true and complete information if it would only hurt their desire not to see an indictment or conviction. Rather, one would wonder if it were strange that such an unethical lawyer weren’t also a hypocrite.
She’s Florida’s version of Elliot Spitzer; just like he patronized whores while convicting others of patronizing whores, Corey perjures herself while convicting others of perjury.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 7:52 pmMore a Southern fried Fitz, we’ll leave that other speculation for another day, but when the video, audio, print evidence is edited multiple times, to make a fair trial impossible, and the press are party to such a travesty, it makes one wonder,
narciso (494474) — 6/15/2012 @ 8:02 pmLet’s see, what’s the latest utterly dishonest, craziness coming from the I Love George Zimmerman crowd.
There’s so much to choose from, let’s go with the most egregious example…
“Since Dave Surls is such a fan of people who employ this tactic of jailing people based upon sworn affidavits under penalty of perjury that proceed to misrepresent the facts, he must find this Kimberlin fellow equally admirable.”
Now, I’m an admirer of Brett Kimberlin. Hard to imagine anything more absurd or insane then that allegation.
Keep the lies and insanity coming, kids.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:54 amAnd yet, their your heroine sits…facing perjury charges.
— Being charged IS nine-tenths of a conviction, or something like that.
And, just wait ’til they bring the skinhead killer’s role in all this up at his murder trial. It’s going to do wonders for his credibility.
— Yeah, you be sure to post that part of the trial transcript on the day “they” bring it up; okay, Sparky?
Not at all. But, I do have a problem with him and his old lady conspiring to commit perjury and/or obstruct justice.
— Really. So now they’re ‘obstructing justice’ are they? Pray tell, how are they doing that, Dave?
I hate to keep beating on a dead horse, but …
— Are you sure? Because you’re pretty damn good at it.
This disorder tends to be associated with other mental disorders such as extreme stupidity or KKK style racism.
Icy (b3c882) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:27 am— Remember, kids, no matter how loudly we protest that we are supporting the right of self-defense, our Dave will continue to allege that we only support Z because he killed a black kid.
You admire the tactic he used; you think it is just wonderful.
By your standard of honesty, which is more a standard of dishonesty, I could have been charged with murder in the death of my grandmother.
I was alone in the house with her, and I have to admit I was giving her drugs. A short while later she died. Which is the precise level of detail used in the probable cause affidavit against Zimmerman when describing the actual events (although they admittedly were much more imaginative when fabricating details about nefarious motives the could assign to him).
Of course, to make it appear like murder then like Angela Corey you’d leave out the “mitigating” statements or admissions, as she did in Zimmerman’s case. Such as my grandmother was nearly 100 years old, she had been released from the hospital because there was nothing more they could do for her and she wanted to die at home, and the drugs I were giving her were her prescription pain killers in the precise dosages as prescribed.
But, hey, Dave, according to your standard of “ethics” a prosecutor may selectively use only the facts, such as edit my own admissions, to support the criminal charge.
So what do you find so irksome about Kimberlin anyway, in this instance? Not his history, just his use of false and misleading affidavits to jail people?
I have no doubt that someone like you who believes in the creative use of facts to manufacture support for criminal charges could also come up with some creative explanation for the difference you see in Corey’s use of probable cause affidavits and Kimberlin’s.
Entertain us with your tap dance as you defend Corey but not Kimberlin.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 10:01 amIt seems that Dave believes that there are no innocent people in jail. Once you’re charged, you’re guilty. Like Aaron Walker.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 10:19 amWhy even have a trial? The prosecutor has charged him, he’s obviously guilty.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 10:20 amI doubt Dave Surls will comment here anymore, because he can’t overcome the hurdle of his own hypocrisy.
Consider:
He demanded that his comment be removed as slanderous. One wonders why? By the standards evidenced by this prosecutor he so admires, as an investigator I could swear to this in an affidavit. And that prosecutor could swear that, if true, it would constitute the offense and have him jailed. And, if I adopt Dave Surls standard of justice, it’d be just fine with me for the state to use its unlimited resources to put him through an expensive, ruinous trial to let a jury sort out whether or not he did something for which I have absolutely no evidence.
But, as the prosecutor’s investigator Gilbreath testified under oath as to why he stated assertions against GZ, unsupported by any evidence, as if they were facts I can simply admit there’s no evidence pointing to the truth of the allegation but on the other hand I have no reason to think they’re not true either.
I could even truthfully characterize parts of his own statements. “Dave Surls admitted he was at the playground and was touching the child.” In fact, Dave Surls “admitted” he heard a mother screaming for help and ran to the playground where he saw a child had badly cut her foot on a broken bottle hidden in the sand and performed first aid.
But, hey, it’s fine with him if I only include the portion of the admission that supports the charge. The parts that make him look guilty.
Which is what Corey’s doing, and he’s cool with it.
And if Corey is doing as I suspect, simply bringing numerous unsupportable charges against the Zimmermans to extort a guilty plea to a lesser offense just to make the harassment stop, I really can’t see why he’d have an issue with Kimberlin using lawfare for the same purpose.
[Dave Surls is not a child molester to
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 11:16 ammy knowledge and I am aware of absolutely no evidence — zero — that he is. The commenter here is making a point with hyperbole but it needs to be clear that his comment is not
to be taken literally. — Ed.]
“I doubt Dave Surls will comment here anymore”
Wrong again.
“He demanded that his comment be removed as slanderous. One wonders why?”
The statement is defamatory, that’s why…and I don’t want some yahoo reading this website and getting the wrong idea, seeing as how I post under my own name.
If people want to engage in personal attacks against me, you better limit yourself to insults or attacks that are purely a matter of opinion.
Unless, you’re hankering to get sued for defamation.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 11:37 amSurls, ROFL.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/16/2012 @ 11:41 amOh, man, I think I cracked a rib laughing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/16/2012 @ 11:42 amAnd, I didn’t demand anything, I politely asked that the comment be removed. Since it hasn’t been, I guess I’ll have to contact Pat Frey and ask him to remove it.
Pain in the ass.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 11:51 am______________________________________________
Remember, kids, no matter how loudly we protest that we are supporting the right of self-defense, our Dave will continue to allege that we only support Z because he killed a black kid.
Meanwhile, Dave sits smugly and contentedly in a house located in a neighborhood where it’s quite likely — since he is afforded the luxury of never having to keep his doors and windows always locked — the demographic diversity doesn’t exactly include lot of Trayvon-Martin types.
The two-faced nature of such people is not too different from those like Barack and Michelle Obama, who embrace and rally around public schools, resent the implementation of vouchers that compete with them, yet who in both Chicago and DC choose to send their own precious children to private academies.
Mark (7154e5) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:14 pmNo, I’m correct. Irrational, unwarranted threats aren’t comments. As a matter of fact, you’re doing exactly what Kimberlin did; threaten to sue people to shut down their freedom of expression by pretending statements of expression are something their not.
In Kimberlin’s case, deliberately mischaracterizing non-threatening comments as if they were death threats directed at him.
In your case, mischaracterizing hypotheticals that I clearly state have no basis in actual fact as if I’m defaming you.
Brett Kimberlin couldn’t have said it better. We did limit ourselves to matters of pure opinion. Our opinion is that if someone mischaracterized your statements as well as the evidence in order to concoct a criminal charge, you’d have a problem with it.
Our opinion is obviously correct.
I didn’t actually think you’d emulate Brett Kimberlin and deliberately mischaracterize such opinions as if they were “attacks,” but now I am of that opinion. As I believe many others are now as well.
So, again, what is it you don’t find admirable about Kimberlin?
Ahh, the heady scent of threat of lawfare to shut down people exercising their first amendment rights.
I am obviously using a hypothetical to expose your hypocritical stance.
When someone swears to an affidavit that contains assertion of facts that are unsupported by evidence you don’t have a problem with it. Even when there is evidence that contradicts that assertion, you have no problem with the fact that the affiant swears under penalty of perjury to the exact opposite.
Such as this statement in the probable cause affidavit against GZ.
Of course, nothing in that final sentence was true. In fact, the evidence reinforces Zimmerman’s story he was in fact not following Martin but returning to his truck. He did not disregard the dispatcher, as when the dispatcher told him they didn’t need him “to do that,” he said “OK.”
But that’s left out, not doubt because in your view evidence that shows GZ didn’t disregard the dispatcher is immaterial.
And there is no evidence that GZ continued to follow Martin or that Martin was attempting to return to his home.
In fact, the investigator who signed this affidavit, Gilbreath, admitted under oath that he had no evidence that would contradict GZ’s version of events. A version of events, by the way, that isn’t even hinted at in his affidavit. But on the other hand, he had no reason to believe that the version of events as he only imagined they might have happened wasn’t true either.
Based upon your position on Corey’s use of the facts any investigator could disregard any physical evidence, in particular evidence of injury, that might support one side’s versions of events.
Indeed, according to you as a prosecutor or as the prosecutor’s investigator I wouldn’t even have to acknowledge there were two sides. I can simply give one side’s version of events, and selectively quote or characterize your statements to make it appear that you didn’t give a different version of events but admitted to the essential elements of the crime.
If I’m questioned, like investigator Gilbreath I can simply say I have no reason to believe my unsupported assertions aren’t true.
What’s your problem with that? It’s fine with you when prosecutors do it to other people, so why not you?
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:18 pm“…of his own hypocrisy.”
No, I’m pretty much always against defamation. Zimmerman supporters appear to be against it, only if the person being defamed is on their side.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:22 pmSurls, yet another in a long line of your fabricated attacks on those who disagree with you. One of the many reasons no one takes you seriously here any longer.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:25 pm“No, I’m correct.”
No, you were not correct. I am still commenting here.
“Ahh, the heady scent of threat of lawfare to shut down people exercising their first amendment rights.”
You have no right whatsoever to falsely claim that you have evidence that I’ve engaged in a criminal act.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:27 pm____________________________________________
One of the many reasons no one takes you seriously here any longer.
It like arguing with the folks who believed — and continue to believe — that OJ Simpson was totally innocent of double homicide, and “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”
Mark (7154e5) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:35 pmWhat do you mean by “pretty much always against defamation?”
You have a problem with people engaging in hypotheticals about you, but you don’t have a problem with an investigator engaging in hypotheticals against GZ in order to support a second degree murder charge.
And I’m having trouble with understanding why that is.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:40 pm“Surls, yet another in a long line of your fabricated attacks on those who disagree with you.”
On the contrary, Clarence Darrow.
Someone made an absolutely vile and defamatory comment about me, and not one Zimmerman-lover protested or said it was out of line. Indeed you appear to find it amusing.
I stand by my statement. You folks are only against defamation when the person being defamed is on your side.
You’re the hypocrites…not me.
I don’t approve of defamation, period, even if I absolutely loathe the person being defamed.
About a year ago, I made the following remark in regard to Shirley Sherrod’s defamation lawsuit against Andrew Breitbart.
’96.“Care to bet on the outcome of that lawsuit…”’
‘I wouldn’t bet. Sherrod has some serious heavyweight lawyers behind her (Kirkland & Ellis), and Breitbart said at least one thing he shouldn’t have said.’
‘I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes right about now.’
‘Comment by Dave Surls — 4/24/2011 @ 9:27 pm’
Much as I despise Shirley Sherrod, it looked to me that Andrew Breitbart made a statement about her that was defamatory, and unlike you people, I am not a hypocrite.
If it’s defamation, then it’s defamation, no matter who’s being defamed.
And, the remark we’re discussing, made about me, is totally out of line, and defamatory.
And, once again, I’m going to politely request that Pat Frey remove that comment and the other comment where it is quoted.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:43 pmAgain with the Kimberlin gambit? Do you actually think you can rewrite history to suit your unsupported, unsupportable allegations.
Me, earlier:
I am NOT accusing you of a criminal act. But your hyperventilating over-reaction to the original post did get me to wonder. Why don’t you have a problem with people indulging in baseless allegations, that they admit they have no evidence to support, in an affidavit under penalty of perjury when they actually are alleging a criminal act.
I mean, you’re so oversensitive to it under circumstances that no sane person could possibly take seriously. Yet you admire it when it’s done under the most serious of circumstances.
The only difference is if it’s done to you on the internet as opposed to someone else under the color of authority.
I can only attribute it to hypocrisy.
I will take your continued threats of lawsuits as evidence my opinion of you is correct.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:49 pmIs repeatedly calling other commenters here “You Zimmerman fans” defamatory when it’s not true? Is it out of line, Dave?
elissa (f56a61) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:51 pmWhat I find amusing is your reaction. Personally, I’d be aghast if someone swore to such an allegation in an affidavit against you.
Especially if they admitted under oath that they had no evidence to prove it was true.
As Gilbreath admitted under oath when O’Mara tried to get him to swear to the truth of what was in his affidavit.
And Gilbreath wouldn’t swear to the truth of what was in his affidavit. Just that he had no reason to believe they were untrue, either.
In other words, he couldn’t prove a positive statement. But no one had disproven a negative, either. Which is of course impossible.
Now, had an investigator done the same thing to you in a judicial proceeding, I’d be crying foul. Yet you’re not only not crying foul, you’re asserting that the only reason anyone might have a problem with this tactic in a court of law is that they must be a “Zimmerman lover.”
As opposed to, I don’t know, a lover of justice and fair play.
Yet at the same time you’re demanding a higher standard of justice for yourself on an internet discussion thread.
Now, that’s funny.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 1:00 pm_______________________________________________
“You Zimmerman fans”
Actually, he has used the phrase of “Zimmerman lovers,” which — because of the nature of the word “lover” — has a more sleazy, derogatory sound about it. For whatever reason, Dave Surls is so emotionally tied to Zimmerman being the devil incarnate, that, in effect — and in turn — Martin therefore has to be a choir boy and class valedictorian. Even so, I’d never have wanted to label Dave a “Trayvon lover,” which does conjure up grotesque images of things like, say, that ex-coach from Penn State.
Mark (7154e5) — 6/16/2012 @ 1:13 pmDave Surls,
I have appended the following to both instances of the hyperbolic comment to which you objected:
[Dave Surls is not a child molester to
my knowledge and I am aware of absolutely no evidence — zero — that he is. The commenter here is making a point with hyperbole but it needs to be clear that his comment is not
to be taken literally. — Ed.]
I hope that addresses your concern.
Patterico (df747d) — 6/16/2012 @ 1:15 pmI think it’s hilarious that the self-admitted wife-beater is complaining so much about others defaming him.
htom (412a17) — 6/16/2012 @ 1:36 pmPatterico,
Just to be clear, I have never stated or implied I believe Surls guilty of any criminal act.
I am amused though that he holds prosecutors (no offense, but there are Elliot Spitzers in this world as well as prosecutors with integrity) to a lower standard of truth than he does anonymous commenters obviously engaging in hypotheticals to illustrate the point about his double standard.
And then he accuses people who aren’t upset enough by the hypothetical to adhere to his double standard of being “hypocrites.”
That’s like the icing on the layer cake of hypocrisy he’s cooked up on this thread.
Which is the only thing I believe Surls guilty of, hypocrisy, and that isn’t criminal.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 1:43 pm“Is repeatedly calling other commenters here “You Zimmerman fans” defamatory when it’s not true?”
No, it isn’t.
For one thing, there’s nothing wrong with being a Zimmerman fan, if that’s what you want to be. It’s not likely to damage your reputation.
For another thing, you would have a hard time proving or disproving the statement. It’s a matter of pure opinion.
For a third thing, the statement you presented isn’t addressed to a specific person, or even a specific group of persons.
Try to sue for defamation on the basis of that statement, and you’ll get laughed out of court.
“But your hyperventilating over-reaction to the original post did get me to wonder.”
All I did is point out that the statement was defamatory and request that it be removed.
Wonder whatever you like, if that sort of behavior continues, I might very well take legal action to put a stop to it.
If people are going to go around saying that they have evidence that points to a specific (and particluar) criminal act on my part, you damn well better be able to prove it.
“I will take your continued threats of lawsuits as evidence my opinion of you is correct.”
If your opinion is that I might sue for defamation if people are defaming me, then your opinion is correct.
I might very well do that.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 1:44 pm“…specific (and particluar) criminal act…”
That should read:
…specific (and particularly vile) criminal act…
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 1:46 pm=if that’s what you want to be. ==
Aye, there’s the rub.
elissa (f56a61) — 6/16/2012 @ 1:47 pmNo, my opinion of you is that when you’ve painted yourself into a corner and realize you’ve discredited yourself and lost the argument, you threaten to sue.
I notice you’ve commented on everything and anything other than the topic of this thread.
So, why is it you hold prosecutors to a lower standard of truth when they submit affidavits to a court of law than you do comments on a discussion thread?
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 1:49 pm“Dave Surls,”
“I have appended the following to both instances of the hyperbolic comment to which you objected:”
Pat, I appreciate you addressing the issue as I requested. However I would prefer that the two posts where that appears are simply removed from the site.
The comment contributes nothing of value to the discussion. It appears to constitute libel per se under California law, and I think we both know that if I chose to take legal action and file suit against the person who made the remark, that I would have an excellent chance of prevaling.
The fact that the comment may have been meant as hyperbole isn’t likely to be relevant, since I’m not a public figure (at least not as far as I know).
Why not simply remove the comments?
What purpose does it serve to leave them on a website where anyone with an internet connection can see them?
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 2:18 pmEducational.
It’s instructive to see how some people’s minds work.
When someone criticizes her, she’ll threaten a lawsuit. On state letterhead no less.
The code of professional ethics requires that a prosecutor not allow his or her professional judgement be influenced by personal, political, financial, etc., considerations.
A state attorney who sends a letter on state letterhead to threaten a paper with a libel suit over criticism of her personally is by definition incapable of making that distinction.
Which brings us to you, Dave. You are incapable of seeing any sort of threat when a state attorney sends a letter to a newspaper saying that a journalist has “crossed the line” and committed libel, in exactly those terms. In fact it mentions libel or libelous conduct twice in the first paragraph.
But you? You just can’t see a threat.
On the other hand, when you see defamation in a comment that everyone agrees has no basis in fact and is not any sort of accusation.
But you insist on seeing it from a perspective that has no basis in reality.
That, my friend is hypocritical self-indulgence.
Any of the rest of us would laugh it off. Not you. You threaten to sue.
like Angela Corey you have a bizarre, outsized regard for yourself that is completely at odds with how you think others should be treated.
No wonder you admire her.
Which reminds me, what is it you don’t find admirable about Brett Kimberlin and his own outsized sense of self-importance you don’t like again?
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 2:39 pmI meant to say:
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 2:40 pm“I am NOT accusing you of a criminal act…”
I never said you did.
But, go ahead and have fun tilting at strawmen, if that’s what floats your boat.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 2:41 pm“But you? You just can’t see a threat.”
That’s because there is no threat in that letter.
Simply a complaint.
She didn’t threaten to do anything. At least I didn’t notice any threat when I read the letter.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 2:45 pmYour strawman accusation is in itself a strawman of your own creation.
Because, no doubt, you don’t want to address the substantive issue.
Why is it ok for a prosecutor to submit an affidavit accusing someone of a crime that is so full of half-truths and mischaracterizations that it’s misleading past the point of dishonesty?
But a hyperbolic statement about you that absolutely no one could take seriously is out of bounds?
Why do you have lower standard of truth for a statement under penalty of perjury meant to actually accuse someone else of an actual crime, than an unserious comment that isn’t even an accusation but meant to illustrate a point (which it apparently did, quite aptly) on an internet discussion thread when it’s about you?
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 2:54 pm“Which reminds me, what is it you don’t find admirable about Brett Kimberlin…”
Just go read the many comments I’ve made on this site over the last couple of years about Kimberlin, and it will become readily apparent.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 2:55 pmWhen a state attorney sends a letter on official state letterhead throwing around terms like “libel” or “libelous” there is always a threat because a state attorney has the power of his or her office to do something about it.
Just as when a representative or Senator sends a letter on official letterhead asking for a donation for one of their favored charities from someone in an industry that he or she regulates via committee asking for a donation.
Normal, objective people are capable of seeing that. It is unethical. If Angela Corey wants to take personal offense against something a paper prints about her, fine. It is unethical for her to use official state letterhead stationery to do so.
You really can’t see that?
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 2:59 pmEarlier you were quick on the draw with your post about Shirley Sherrod. Why don’t you do similarly and link, or at least point me to, your post in which you decried Brett Kimberlin’s threats to sue people or to accuse them of crimes in order to get them to stop talking about him.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:03 pm“…an affidavit accusing someone of a crime that is so full of half-truths and mischaracterizations that it’s misleading past the point of dishonesty?”
No, it isn’t. They have a prima facie case for perjury, and Ms. Zimmerman will be lucky indeed if she doesn’t go to jail.
She’ll also be lucky if she doesn’t get investigated by the feds and charged under the structuring statute, given the nature of the financial transactions she was engaged in.
That assumes, of course, that the prosecution isn’t mistaken in what they’re claiming about said transactions, and I suspect they are not mistaken. I’m quite confident that they have the banking records and statements made by bank officers (if they don’t, then they really should be brought up on misconduct charges and booted out the door).
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:06 pm…I don’t approve of defamation, period…
Dave Surls
Mr. Surls painted himself into a corner long ago. Whether he sees it that way, whether he thinks he has lost or won, or whatever else he is thinking, I have no clue.
Mr. Z was a citizen apparently trying to be a good neighbor, wisely or unwisely is up for debate, when he had an encounter that ended up in the death of a young man.
Apparently, he now becomes a “public figure”, and instead of being given space by the public to deal with the issues before him, John Q. Public in the form of Mr. Surls, is happy to label him as a “skinhead”. Mr. Surls, in my opinion a “real donkey” (obviously an opinion and not a statement of fact, I don’t think he has hoofs) will try to weasel and say well, he has short hair, etc., etc. and he meant nothing else, when almost any fool realizes that to blame someone for murder because they have “short hair” is pretty ridiculous.
So , Mr. Surls has eagerly defamed Mr. Z in spirit too many times to count, and he also defames those who appeal to reason on Mr. Z’s behalf by responding with ad hominum attacks and plugging his ears (or his brains?).
I imagine the purpose it serves to leave them there is that it is unpleasant when one’s hypocritical ranting for weeks upon weeks is argued against with hyperbole, just as it is unpleasant for a person innocent until proven guilty to be called a “skinhead” with all of the negative connotations in play, perhaps simply because he likes his hair short in a hot climate. I’ve been told many people do.
A more reasonable person could have made the argument that he thinks Z committed a crime and looks forward to the details coming out in a way that all could have accepted. This has been said many, many, times. It has been the argumentative and arrogant nature of your ranting instead of discussing in good faith that has garnered all of the attention and dislike.
As far as public figures go, I wonder how many condemning statements of criminal guilt in a highly public forum it takes to become a public figure. Who is John Doe? Oh, he is that guy always commenting on “X” blog that Z is guilty because he is a skinhead, he has made his claim an average of 37 times on each of 18 threads dealing with the topic. That’s over 600 times he has made this claim to the whole world through the internet.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:12 pm“When a state attorney sends a letter on official state letterhead throwing around terms like “libel” or “libelous” there is always a threat…”
I read it. She didn’t threaten to do ANYTHING.
All she did was complain.
I have no idea if her complaint is valid or not, because I don’t what the letter is in response to, but I do know that she made no threats in that letter.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:13 pm“Why don’t you do similarly and link, or at least point me to, your post in which you decried Brett Kimberlin’s threats to sue people or to accuse them of crimes in order to get them to stop talking about him.”
No, I’m not going to do that.
I’ve made dozens, probably hundreds of comments about Brett Kimberlin just on this site, and I doubt if you could find any that aren’t harshly critical of Brett Kimberlin.
The idea that I’m an admirer of Brett Kimberlin is fatuos nonsense, as is most everything that comes out of the addled minds of George Zimmerman fans.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:17 pm“Who is John Doe? Oh, he is that guy always commenting on “X” blog that Z is guilty because he is a skinhead…”
Well, if John Doe said that, then John Doe is an idiot.
Having a buzzcut doesn’t make you guilty of anything.
Neither does walking down the street while black.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:23 pmMr. Surls, are you being purposefully obtuse, or are you in the habit of getting letters from state attorney generals complaining of your behavior so often that you have become accustomed to it, or do you have a true cognitive difficulty on the autism spectrum that interfers with your ability to perceive various social cues (in which case you are owed many apologies), or is there some other reason that you do not feel “threatened” in a sense when an unhappy state AG writes you a letter with words like “libel” in it?
If the assitant to the assistant DA of lower podunk wrote me a letter about anything I would feel threatened, especially if lower podunk was in MD, Fla, or CA outside of P’s jurisdiction. To some of us it has become clear that one doesn’t necessarily need to commit a crime to end up in “The Trial” while others lie to Congress and pick up their federal paycheck.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:26 pmI rest my case.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:27 pm#397
I read the letter. There are no threats in the letter.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:39 pmWell, you call us “Zimmerman-lovers” so that would make you a “Trayvon-lover,” and he was only 17, so…
That right there is more “evidence” than you’ve provided for Zimmerman stalking Martin.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:41 pmRats, I wanted to make comment #400.
(Re #’s 397 and 399; Picture Bugs Bunny looking out into the audience of PP readers):
Well, It appears he didn’t answer my question…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/16/2012 @ 3:46 pmor did he?
‘Well, you call us “Zimmerman-lovers” so that would make you a “Trayvon-lover,”’
If you say so.
So, what’s your point?
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 4:02 pm“It has been the argumentative and arrogant nature of your ranting instead of discussing in good faith…”
As to that, it wasn’t me who started in with the personal attacks.
I limited my comments to the Zimmerman case itself, right up until one poster started making it personal, and other posters started chiming in.
And, I can show you exactly where it started way back on March 25 when we first began to discuss the case.
Y’all want to put things on that basis, fine by me. I can sling insults with the best of them. And, I don’t mind a bit if people hurl them at me. Just have a care not to make comments about me that are actually defamatory, because I might just do something about that.
It isn’t my “arrogance” that you object to or the way I’m arguing. It’s the fact I’m not on your guys’ side on this issue that you all find objectionable.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 4:21 pmDave,
Drop the martyr act. I hold opposing views to many of the people here, and we have debates. You took one or two comments from the resident flame throwers and decided “everyone who agrees with them is equally douchy.”
You’ve been a thin-skinned little crybaby since. When people try to have honest debates with you, you Angela Corey the quotes (leaving out significant parts that don’t help your case) and answer with ad hominem attacks.
Two people insulted you, and you in turn, insult everyone involved. You’re no martyr. You’re an insolent fool.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 4:59 pm“You took one or two comments from the resident flame throwers…”
Yup…and, that’s as much as I’m going to take.
You want to engage in personal attacks, instead of arguing the issues, I’m more than happy to oblige, by repaying you in your own coin.
And, I’m not going to cry a bit about a post like yours…I’m just going to respond in kind. Insult me as much as you please, just have a care about making statements that are really and truly defamatory.
You can call me a crybaby, thin-skinned or whatever, until you’re blue in the face, for all I care, just don’t be surprised if I sling an insult or two back your way by way of an answer.
I’m a firm believer in fighting fire with fire (within limits).
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 5:28 pmSee? You left out the important part. You attacked everyone. Not just the two who attacked you.
But go on, righteous warrior. Sing you martyr song louder.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 5:36 pmMany people attempted an honest debate with you. You called us racist Zimmerman lovers who are happy that a young black man is dead.
But everyone is just mean to you.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 5:38 pm“See?”
I see just fine. Do you?
You start insulting me, then I’m likely to insult you right back.
Get it?
“You attacked everyone.”
No more so then people on your side of the fence have. There’s been a virtually endless series of deragatory remarks made on this site, and elsewhere, about the class of people who think that George Zimmerman is guilty of murder and/or ought to be tried for murder.
I’d list them all, but there’s only so much bandwidth in the world.
And, if you have a problem with arguing by insult, why don’t you take it up with people who started in with the personal attacks?
I’ll tell you why.
It’s because they’re on your side, and I’m not.
And, that’s o.k. with me too. Go ahead and play the hypocrite.
Makes no nevermind to me.
Just don’t start claiming you have evidence that I have engaged in a foul and criminal act…I might get a little sticky about that one.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 5:55 pmIt’s the fact I’m not on your guys’ side on this issue that you all find objectionable.
Nope, just the manner in which you have chosen to do so.
JD (318f81) — 6/16/2012 @ 6:11 pmI didn’t take it up with them because I thought you were a big boy who could take care of himself. Also, I’m not a moderator here.
You didn’t keep your insults to the insulting parties. You baselessly attacked everyone, and then you cry about martyrdom because we’re all calling you on your shlt.
Either put on your big girl panties, or grow a pair.
As for your bs about evidence of a crime, I said I had presented more evidence than you. I presented no evidence, but you habitually omit evidence, and zero is more than a negative, ergo, I’ve presented more evidence that you like kids than you’ve presented of Zimmerman stalking Martin.
Such a martyr.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 6:21 pm“I didn’t take it up with them because…”
…you’re a big, fat ol’ hypocrite.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 7:01 pmYou keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 7:10 pm“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Sure I do. You have a problem with arguing by insult…unless the insults are directed at me or other folks who don’t think much of the colorful antics of the Zimmermans.
Here’s the very first thread where we talked about this case.
https://patterico.com/2012/03/25/new-black-panthers-we-want-george-zimmerman-dead-or-alive/
You’ll notice that I limited my remarks to the case itself, I was polite and respectful, and made nary a negative remark about other posters (though I did call Obama an idiot).
I, in turn, was subjected to several personal attacks and insults (which I ignored).
But, I’m only going to put up with that crap for so long…then I’m going to start insulting people back.
I’m not crying about it…I’m just saying.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 7:46 pmWas that back when you were suggesting he criminally used the 911 system?
JD (318f81) — 6/16/2012 @ 7:57 pm“Was that back when you were suggesting he criminally used the 911 system?”
Yup. Turns out that that was incorrect, and that numerous media reports that it was a 911 call were not right.
He called it on a regular line, which is not illegal (per se).
And, I’m more than willing to say that he did not misuse the 911 system…that time.
If I say something that turns out not to be correct, I’m more than happy to admit it.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 8:01 pmHow about noting that many/most of us who do not agree with you are not Zinnerman lovers or fans, or whTever other nonsense you spew? That is wrong, yet you continually do so.
JD (318f81) — 6/16/2012 @ 8:09 pmI read over 300 of those comments and saw one person call you a moron and ask if you were high. Everyone else just disagreed with you. Hell, a few were even defending you.
Such a martyr. Everyone is just so mean to you.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 8:23 pmHow about noting how wrong you were about the definition of stalking?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 8:25 pm“Dave Surls, I find that you substitute your speculation in this case for facts. Its not among your good qualities.”
“Comment by SPQR — 3/25/2012 @ 5:15 pm”
“You sound like one of those idiotic liberal judges…”
“Comment by Mark — 3/26/2012 @ 8:45 am”
“But the reality is that your no doubt astute medical expertise aside…”
“Comment by SPQR — 3/26/2012 @ 4:59 pm”
“If someone feels exactly the opposite, that’s their business…but, I don’t I don’t know what your background is, but I sincerely hope you are neither a prosecutor or a judge. That would just be scary…”
“Comment by Jay H Curtis — 3/26/2012 @ 6:19 pm”
“Are you f*cking HIGH???…”
“…You really have become a complete moron…”
“Comment by Scott Jacobs — 3/26/2012 @ 6:29 pm”
“yes, I realize Surls is invested in Zimmerman’s guilt and dead boy’s martyrdom…”
“Comment by Calypso Louis Farrakhan — 3/26/2012 @ 6:36 pm”
“296.Painted Jaguar: Did Mr. Surls at #282 write what he wrote? Because if so, this poor little Jaguar brain tells me:
1. he has not been paying attention, if he has even read anything on this thread
2. his face protected fists from hitting the floor at least one too many times.”
“Comment by Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) — 3/26/2012 @ 6:57 pm”
So, how much ad hominem baloney and how many insults am I supposed to swallow, before I’m allowed to do the same?
Just out of curiosity.
I never said a harsh word about ANY poster, until AFTER I was repeatedly insulted.
And, that’s a fact.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 8:52 pm“How about noting how wrong you were about the definition of stalking?”
How about not?
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 8:54 pmIf I say something that turns out not to be correct, I’m more than happy to admit it.
Not on this topic.
JD (318f81) — 6/16/2012 @ 8:54 pmPainted Jaguar:
Mr. Surls, thank you for including my vile and disgusting attack of your character, sir.
It had been pointed out to you several times that your opinion on Mr. Z’s guilt was dependent upon various press reports that were questionable. You persisted in characterizing Z’s behavior as stalking and went by the narrative that Z had confronted M leading to the immediate interaction that ended in M’s death. Press reports for these “facts” were contrived and filled with unwarranted assumptions/opinions.
You argued that being beat up and having one’s head banged on the ground really wasn’t very dangerous. I stand by the main idea expressed by my previous statement, it is not reasonable to minimize the danger from an assault as described. You were the one who first discussed your being involved in bar-room brawls.
One thing you said:
247.“elissa – Is skittles a code word or something?”
It’s candy. According to the reports I’ve seen, that’s what the kid had on him when he was shot.
A bag of candy, a can of ice tea, a cellphone….
Comment by Dave Surls — 3/26/2012 @ 4:43 pm
DRJ had tried to tell you that you were claiming certainty about things that there was not enough info on to make such dogmatic staements, you brushed her off. This is just one example of you commenting as if you have all important information about the case when you are actually quite mistaken.
I believe the most forceful name calling was after you claimed that you saw nothing that suggested the NBPP was promoting extra-judicial behavior in relation to Z- this in a thread where the original topic was the NBPP putting out a bounty.
Painted Jaguar (a sock puppet) (3d3f72) — 6/16/2012 @ 9:23 pmI’d have to say purposefully obtuse, MD. Anybody can write a letter to the editor. But when the letter comes from a state attorney on official letterhead, that’s a none too subtle message. One wouldn’t have to make a threat too explicitly to get the message across.
Surls, you’re missing your calling. You’d make a great mafia lawyer. You’d actually be able to act like you really believed your clients.
It might occur to a less obtuse man why, if she’s merely complaining about how she was treated, she conducted her personal correspondence on official letterhead.
But, no, Dave, not to you.
I could see you on the cross, questioning the restaurant owner who accused your client of making threats against his family because he refused to pay protection money.
“Mr. So and so, isn’t it true that my client Enzo ‘the icepick’ Falcone didn’t actually make any threats against anybody when he came to your restaurant for lunch? That he merely asked how your wife was feeling (following the heart attack she suffered when someone shot out the living room windows) and how your daughter (by name) was doing at school (naming the out of state college the daughter the daughter attends).”
Nope. No threat there. Just like you can examine those words in that letter and just not be able to discern a threat. There’s just no threat explicitly spelled out in that letter. You know, the one on the official letterhead stationery that reminds recipients she prosecutes people for a living.
Nope, just no hint of a threat there.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 9:37 pm“Mr. Surls, thank you for including my vile and disgusting attack of your character, sir.”
Well, I don’t know that I would go so far as to call it vile and disgusting, but it was definitely directed at me personally, instead of towards my arguments.
And, if you folks are going to play that way, then you have no bitching rights when I do the same.
“I believe the most forceful name calling was after you claimed that you saw nothing that suggested the NBPP was promoting extra-judicial behavior…”
Well, that isn’t what I said.
“…I don’t see anyone calling for extra-judicial punishment for Zimmerman.”
“Just a trial under the ordinary rules, and punishment, if he’s convicted.”
“At least that’s all I’ve heard, even from the NBPP. Although, I’m sure I haven’t heard from every loon on the planet, so I imagine some people probably are suggesting that he be lynched.”
That’s what I said.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 9:37 pmIt was pretty sad seeing someone delight in calling George “skinhead” when George has bounties on him because of smears that he’s a racist killer. It was pathetic seeing that defended with ‘his hair is short’ trolling.
I agree with Dave that name calling is not necessary, and I hope he looks at this example as something that reflects badly. The smears against George have done nothing good.
Dustin (330eed) — 6/16/2012 @ 9:56 pmSurls, you really ought to quit wasting bandwidth. No one cares what you said.
Anyone who’s willing to say that a letter on official stationery from a state prosecutor complaining about “libelous” treatment of her by a columnist who has “crossed the line” isn’t a threat or an attempt at intimidation is capable of saying anything.
So a list of what you’ve said, at this point, is superfluous.
Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/16/2012 @ 9:57 pmWhen you choose to interpret the definition of words like “stalking” like this: “As far as I’m concerned taking two steps meets the standard of “repeatedly” following, if the other requirements are met. Take one step, you’re following. Take two steps, you’re repeatedly following,” you can rest assured someone is going to ask if you’re f**king high.
That and the moron thing were the only insults in your thread. Saying one hopes you’re not a lawyer or a judge is directly related to your argument, and that you choose to include that as an ad hominem against you shows how much you’re desperately playing that martyr card.
So why did you leave out all of those who defended you? I thought all us Zimmerman lovers just sat back and watched the barrage of insults whollop you something fierce?
Like Corey, you omit what makes your point invalid. Kinda like how you’ve always maintained that Zimmerman was stalking even though he obeyed the dispatcher and stopped following. That part doesn’t fit your narrative, so you simply never acknowledge it and continue to assert that Zimmerman was stalking.
When you say things that make you look like an ass, and someone says “that makes you look like an ass,” it’s not a personal attack. It’s an attack on your argument.
Quit fishing for victim hood. You gave it as good as you got it. Stop bitching about how mean we are and grow a pair.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 10:20 pmYou are lying, Surls. You started insulting people who disagreed with you very early on in the Zimmerman threads. You were making innuendo about people who were concluding that there wasn’t a case about Zimmerman by implying that those who disagreed with you were motivated by racism, approved of vigilantism and more.
You were repeatedly challenged to show factual basis for your claims and your invective and your response was more insults.
Your belief that you were insulted first is as laughable as the rest of your bizarre behavior in the various Zimmerman threads.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/16/2012 @ 10:20 pmYes, you said all this in a thread about the NBPP offering a reward for Zimmerman, dead or alive.
I’m sorry, at this point, I’m gonna have to ask it: are you f**king high? And where are you getting your weed, because it is obviously way stronger than mine?
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/16/2012 @ 10:26 pm_______________________________________________
Your belief that you were insulted first is as laughable as the rest of your bizarre behavior in the various Zimmerman threads.
It’s possible his leftwing wife has addled his brain. But quite seriously, observing people similar to him — and they’re out there — should undermine anyone’s confidence in the basic objectivity and common sense of large swaths of the human species.
Not being aware of that is a major reason someone like Aaron Walker walked into a courtroom in Maryland not long ago and didn’t realize he’d encounter a character named Judge Cornelius Vaughey.
Mark (7154e5) — 6/16/2012 @ 11:41 pmNo, you wouldn’t. The comment (#148) does not allege that you are a child molester; it merely says “all the evidence I have available points to” that risible conclusion. And it comes as a direct response to your claim (#119) that “all the evidence points to” Zimmerman having caused the physical confrontation. Comment #148 is not about you at all, it’s about reasoning from zero evidence. It shows that such reasoning can lead to any conclusion one likes, however unreasonable. Therefore it’s not defamatory, and were you to sue you’d lose.
Milhouse (312124) — 6/17/2012 @ 12:11 am“Yes, you said all this in a thread about the NBPP offering a reward for Zimmerman, dead or alive.”
And, you misstated what I said.
As per usual with Zimmerman-lovers.
“I believe the most forceful name calling was after you claimed that you saw nothing that suggested the NBPP was promoting extra-judicial behavior…”
I didn’t say that. And, no matter how many times you claim I did…it won’t make it so.
And it has nothing to do with what I was saying earlier, which was: you all didn’t start attacking me personally because of my bad behavior.
You guys started with the personal attacks, not me, as the thread clearly shows.
And, you all did that because you didn’t like the fact that I don’t share your belief that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, not because I was being “arrogant” or nasty or anything else.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/17/2012 @ 12:11 am“You are lying, Surls. You started insulting people who disagreed with you very early on in the Zimmerman threads.”
No, you’re the liar (big surprise, you’re the biggest liar on this site…not counting lefties).
And, the first thread clearly shows who started in with the ad hom attacks and insults…and, it sure wasn’t me.
I never said a single bad thing about any poster…not even you.
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/17/2012 @ 12:17 am“I agree with Dave that name calling is not necessary…”
I didn’t exactly say that, Dustin. I just said if people are going to start using ad hom arguments against me, or insulting me, then I’m coming right back at them.
What’s wrong with that?
Fair is fair.
You’ll notice I haven’t said anything bad about you. That’s because you’re usually pretty polite (except for that unhinged crack).
True?
Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/17/2012 @ 12:27 amWow Dave. Your reading comprehension sucks. I included the quote you were responding to, and you think I’m trying to quote you. As for the rest of your martyr song, one person attacked you personally with an ad hom attack. If you’ll notice, that guy isn’t a regular here. He called you a moron and asked if you were high. Then Machinist and a couple others stepped in and defended you.
So I suppose that kind of destroys your whole “you all started it!” 6 year old argument. All the other super mean hurty things people were saying to you were disagreements.
Almost as if your problem isn’t the name calling, but disagreement.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/17/2012 @ 7:09 amAnd, you all did that because you didn’t like the fact that I don’t share your belief that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, not because I was being “arrogant” or nasty or anything else.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/17/2012 @ 12:11 am
For the umpteenth time, no.
You may continue to believe this until your dieing day, no matter how distant in the future.
No.
Is this your opinion, or a statement of fact?
If you answer that it is an opinion, you will have to admit being in agreement with me on at least one point. And since we know one can’t sue for libel, slander, or whatever over an opinion, that will be two things we agree on.
However, if you decide to give an oppositional response and claim your statement is one of fact, we will be in disagreement on that…
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/17/2012 @ 2:47 pmbut, if you verify it is a statement of fact, is it up to you to prove it is true, or the plaintiff to prove it is false in a defamation case?
Well, I don’t know that I would go so far as to call it vile and disgusting, but it was definitely directed at me personally, instead of towards my arguments….
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/16/2012 @ 9:37 pm
Painted Jaguar replies, “what arguments?” You mean that Z is racist based on news reports of quotes that were edited? That Z must have provoked the confrontation because he was “stalking” M as characterized by a news report without any known basis in fact? That Z was supposedly flagrantly abusing the 911 system? That M was a cute young “choir boy” who never got into trouble? That M was only going to the store for “ice tea and candy” when his twitter history shows he was aware of the combo of that specific drink and Skittles candy combined with cough syrup (codeine preferred to DM) was a known street drug? Or that pictures supposedly revealed Z to have no “siginificant” injuries? Or that Z was charged therefore he must be guilty of something
You mean those arguments?
Yes, none of my comments were directed at those arguments because they have all been shown to be erroneous.
Yes, “fighting fire with fire” is not something that can be complained about. In fact, call me a savage beast if you will and it will be true, just don’t challenge my eloquence, or I will need to tell my mummy, ever so patient and kind (though I think even she would have trouble being patient with you or your arguments).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/17/2012 @ 3:07 pmSurls still can’t quote accurately. Yet another example of his dishonesty.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/17/2012 @ 3:25 pmDave Surls and Charles Carreon …
Has anyone seen them both in the same room at the same time?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/17/2012 @ 7:12 pm