Patterico's Pontifications

Ding.

Patterico (feda6b) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:09 pm

Patterico, did you notice the notorious “jharp” trolling Jerilyn’s comment section?

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:14 pm

The first comment on that TalkLeft posting is by our old friend, jharp. And, as is his wont, it is typically silly.

Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:18 pm

Argh! SPQR beat me to it.

Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:20 pm

hehe 😉

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:23 pm

jharp is still trying to find the discipline to get his ducks in a row, and his …t together.

AD-RtR/OS! (2bb434) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:25 pm

“Patterico, did you notice the notorious “jharp” trolling Jerilyn’s comment section?”

SPQR – He has not gotten any more intelligent with the passage of time.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:30 pm

“Evidence Zimmerman Had No Intent to Deceive”

I see evidence that they didn’t want to spend their money on bail, which is why they attempted (clumsily) to conceal what they had from the court.

Needless to say, neither Judge Lester nor the prosecutors were entralled at this activity, which no doubt explains why Mr. Zimmerman’s bond was revoked and why Ms. Zimmerman is looking at perjury charges.

“O’Mara has said in the past that the Zimmerman’s didn’t fully appreciate that the money belonged to them”

They appreciated it enough to use the money for living expenses, to pay off old personal debts and to move it into and out of their personal accounts. Or, so the prosecutors claim.

I don’t think I’m buying that argument.

Dave Surls (e97413) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:31 pm

George and Shellie Zimmerman didn’t think of the money raised by the website as their money, but money earmarked for legal fees, living expenses while waiting for trial and creditors. O’Mara has said in the past that the Zimmerman’s didn’t fully appreciate that the money belonged to them.

This is quite obvious from the transcript. Any fair reading of the complete transcript leads to that conclusion. But of course, since it is so obvious, the prosecution edited it to make it fit the charge better.

Angela Corey and her minions are going to be toast when this is all done.

Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:32 pm

I don’t think I’m buying that argument.

Comment by Dave Surls — 6/14/2012 @ 8:31 pm

When I wrote that any fair reading of the complete transcript would lead to the conclusion, Dave, I was thinking of you and Angela “let’s edit the transcript so it works better for us” Corey.

You two really should be an item.

Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:34 pm

The agents may also testify to how compliant Zimmerman was while released on bond, but I doubt that’s the reason they are being called. I think they are being called to support that Zimmerman didn’t think the money raised from the website was available for bond, as was evident from the difficulty they had paying the $15,000, and that $10,000. is still owed to them for the first bond.

Yes, there’s a call in which Shellie tells George that’s what the money is for, and he says he’ll think about it, but there’s no indication from that transcript whether he agreed that’s what the money was for. He could have been agreeing to think about whether it could be used for that purpose, and since he ultimately only used $5,000.00 of it, it’s more likely he didn’t agree that is what the money was for. He said on his website the money raised would be used for legal expenses and living expenses.

Again, these conclusions are quite obvious from the transcripts of the court proceedings and the recorded phone calls.

But Dave Surls still thinks the fact that the Zimmermans used the money for the purposes they said they would is evidence they were deceitful.

On planet Surls-Corey, doing what you tell the world you’re going to do = lying. Or at least, that’s what they’re trying to convince the world.

It somehow fits with their very odd view of legal and ethical standards. Those apply to other people, not to them, and they get to make up what those legal and ethical standards are. Not professional organizations such as the ABA and certainly not legislatures. Or higher court precedents.

Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 8:41 pm

Power corrupts, absolute power …. hope she gets disbarred too.

Bill (aeda60) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:05 pm

“But Dave Surls still thinks the fact that the Zimmermans used the money for the purposes they said they would is evidence they were deceitful.”

Not so.

Actually deceit is established by the fact that Ms. Zimmerman was asked if she and Georgie had any money, and that she denied they did, while under oath. That claim is one reason why she’s been charged with perjury.

Her intent to decieve appears to be verified by various financial transactions carried out by Ms. Zimmerman both before and after the bond hearing.

Or, so the prosecution alleges.

Dave Surls (e97413) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:07 pm

I see evidence that they didn’t want to spend their money on bail, which is why they attempted (clumsily) to conceal what they had from the court.

— Does the court have the right to tell them what they must spend their money on? Does the court get to decide whether or not bail money must be counted as part of the accused’s legal defense fund? Does the court actually get to say “this much for bail, and hopefully you’ll have enough left over to pay your lawyers”?

Icy (95c5f7) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:11 pm

Does the court have the right to tell them what they must spend their money on? Does the court get to decide whether or not bail money must be counted as part of the accused’s legal defense fund?

More to the point, does the judge have the right to tell the donors of that money that the money can’t be used for the purpose it was donated?

If the judge orders that this money be used for something other than its intended purpose, a different purpose that had the donors known of it they wouldn’t have given the money, he is ordering that the state commit fraud.

Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:18 pm

Actually deceit is established by the fact that Ms. Zimmerman was asked if she and Georgie had any money, and that she denied they did, while under oath. That claim is one reason why she’s been charged with perjury.

I see Dave “let’s edit the transcript so it suits our purposes better” Surls is at it again.

The prosecutor asked if she had any money for the purpose of meeting bond. She said no. A truthful answer as she didn’t believe she did have the money for that purpose.

She couldn’t even convince her husband “that’s what it’s for.”

Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:21 pm

And you mentioned also that, in terms of your husband’s ability to make a bond amount, that you all have no money, is that correct?

Surls, all you can prove is that the Zimmermans had collected some money. And the web site demonstrates they told those who were donating the money that it would be used for two specific purposes.

Can you point to any evidence SZ believed that she had money for the purpose the prosecutor asked about, in that direct quote above?

No, you can’t. SZ may have thought the money should have been available for that purpose, and she tried to convince her husband that it ought to be used for that purpose.

But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in terms of evidence to show that SZ had any reason to believe that the money in question, no matter which account it was in at the time, was available to her for the purpose the prosecutor identified in his question.

But then, you’re not really interested in dealing with the evidence, i.e. the questions SZ was actually asked.

You must be a democrat. After Walker won in WI, the liberals were much more comfortable taking solace in the make-believe election that didn’t take place in which Obama beat Romney in the exit polling than the real election that had just taken place.

Just as you’re much more comfortable in accusing SZ of perjuring herself answering questions you’re only imagining she was asked. Not addressing her answers to the questions she actually was asked.

Kewl. Keep it up.

Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 9:33 pm

The reason O’Mara took so long to file this motion is that he’s been rapidly spending the money in the legal defense fund on legal defense costs — just as the donors intended.

Now he can go before the Court and say quite honestly that the money isn’t available for purposes of bail even if the Judge thinks it was available for bail a month ago when he wasn’t told about it.

He can’t now say that bail should be set in an amount that might have been correct a month ago — he’s got to set bail based, in part, on financial ability as it stands now.

I’m confident that O’Mara has spent a lot of the money on retaining experts, paying investigators, doing independent forensic analysis, and his own fees.

All that is legitimate, and the Court can’t second guess his decision to do so.

shipwreckedcrew (06750d) — 6/14/2012 @ 10:44 pm

Dave — let me ask you this:

If a trustee has legal title to $1,000,000 in an investment account which he is managing for the benefit of another person, how would that trustee answer the judge’s question if phrased the way it was asked of SZ?

shipwreckedcrew (06750d) — 6/14/2012 @ 10:47 pm

shipwreckedcrew, I have no doubt you’re right about everything you’ve said. I don’t imagine bringing this guy aboard the defense team came cheap.

And that’s just one legal expense we know about because O’Mara announced it to the press. I’m sure there were others.

Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 10:51 pm

This was the article I attempted to link to, but it didn’t work:

High-profile lawyer to join George Zimmerman defense

The Orlando Sentinel reports lead defense attorney Mark O’Mara plans to announce Friday that veteran Orlando attorney Donald R. West will join his team.

West, who specializes in murder cases, has handled some of the most high-profile cases in central Florida over the past two decades.

Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/14/2012 @ 10:54 pm

Actually deceit is established by the fact that Ms. Zimmerman was asked if she and Georgie had any money, and that she denied they did, while under oath.

Under oath, she told the prosecutors about the fund, and that she wasn’t sure of the amount in it. Under oath, she told them who did know. Under oath, the prosecutors declined to ask the person with the accurate information.

Then, under oath, the prosecution claimed she was concealing the amount from them. Under oath, the prosecution filed an edited and misleading transcript of her statements.

Under oath, the prosecution lied. She did not.

Rob Crawford (d8dade) — 6/15/2012 @ 1:05 am

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

And then…she lied.

Because, they did have money. Quite a bit actually.

And, that’s why George is sitting in jail right now, and Ms. Zimmerman is looking at perjury charges.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 1:52 am

‘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.”‘

Yeah, I reckon that’s pretty much the size of it all right.

But, don’t despair Zimmerman fans, Ms. Zimmerman could beat the rap. All her attorney has to do is convince a jury that’s she too stupid to know right from wrong.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:21 am

The evidence that they’re not trying to stiff anyone of money is that they’re trying to stiff their bail bondsman.

sheldon (77ac66) — 6/15/2012 @ 4:37 am

Yeah, I reckon that’s pretty much the size of it all right.

Who cares?

Gerald A (138c50) — 6/15/2012 @ 5:46 am

I think most criminal behavior is breaking a general compact with society like a person robbing a store. Other criminal behavior is breaking a direct moral obligation as well, the parent who mistreats a child instead of protecting the child’s welfare, etc.

It seems to me prosecutorial misconduct is in this second category, as the prosecutor has a responsibility, given by the public, to protect the innocent by prosecuting the guilty. Presumably, when one can’t do everything, time and effort should be spent on what is seen as most important to the public. I would think that complaints about crime and prison overcrowding would be incentive to “do the right thing”. It must be the political nature of the DA’s office and state AG’s that disrupt that.
I think that prosecutorial misconduct, especially when coincides with personal advancement, should be punished severely, like flogging in the public square (along with other current consequences).

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/15/2012 @ 6:52 am

If what goes around comes around, Mr. Surls may yet one day wake up to find hinmself as the main character in a Kafka story.

There are people who manage to successfully manipulate “the system” for their own good, then there are others who bumble along and victimized like a deer frozen from looking into oncoming headlights. Good drivers do not accelerate to make sure to smack the deer, neither should those who run the system.

Living by the Golden Rule does help make life golden for all.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/15/2012 @ 7:00 am

Apparently Dave has never heard of prosecutorial blackmail. This is desperation at its finest. And of course, in Surlsland, once you’ve been charged with a crime, you’re guilty guilty guilty.

Somehow, I’m under the impression that his attitude towards people accused of a crime changes dramatically when talking about Cory Maye instead of that skinhead Zimmerman.

Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/15/2012 @ 7:05 am

Steve57, who has a huge emotional investment in this case, is making a claim unmade by Talkleft or Patterico.

Both of them note George did not intentionally deceive the Court (in their opinion…I wonder how Patterico sees claims about motive and intention from defense attorneys in his day job.

Steve adds Mrs. Zimmerman and run away screaming about vindication and edited transcripts. No one claims Mrs. Z did not intentionally lie to the Court and George was not charged with perjury, in case you missed it.

timb (449046) — 6/15/2012 @ 7:21 am

“No one claims Mrs. Z did not intentionally lie to the Court”

timb – I think you missed many people and links claiming exactly that in the other thread.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/15/2012 @ 7:47 am

I think there should be a Federal Statute against “Nifong-ing”. I believe this case against Zimmerman to be another Nifong.

PCD (1d8b6d) — 6/15/2012 @ 8:36 am

No one claims Mrs. Z did not intentionally lie to the Court

No one”?
“No one”?

Milhouse (312124) — 6/15/2012 @ 8:36 am

“If what goes around comes around, Mr. Surls may yet one day wake up to find hinmself as the main character in a Kafka story.” From your lips to God’s ear. Irony; what I want for breakfast.

Gulermo (621247) — 6/15/2012 @ 8:55 am

sheldon sure is making a name for himself around here . . .

Now he’s said something dumb in two different threads.

Icy (b3c882) — 6/15/2012 @ 9:17 am

No one claims Mrs. Z did not intentionally lie to the Court and George was not charged with perjury, in case you missed it.

— imbtay umbday!

Icy (b3c882) — 6/15/2012 @ 9:23 am

____________________________________________

Mr. Surls may yet one day wake up to find hinmself as the main character in a Kafka story

It would be fitting if his current neighborhood, which he boasts is so free of crime he doesn’t have to lock his doors, began to change demographically. Change in a way so that types similar to Trayvon Martin became quite common all around him. But then any attempts by him to vote with his feet — by moving — were deterred by a crashing housing market, leaving him marooned, always having to worry about whether his house was properly and well secured, and forever observing wannabe-gansta-high-fiving teenagers meandering around the perimeter of his property.

Mark (880753) — 6/15/2012 @ 10:00 am

According to a comment by Jeralyn on Talk Left Shellie Zimmerman arrested thread…

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/12/193621/590

in one of the recoroded conversations in the jail, quoted in the affidavit., George and Shellie Zimmerman said, in part:

* 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.

There is probably an error in the transcript. The figures 15 and 50 should almost certainly be the same,

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/15/2012 @ 10:17 am

This is the part where the prosecutor drops the mic.

sheldon (77ac66) — 6/15/2012 @ 10:28 am

“…in Surlsland, once you’ve been charged with a crime, you’re guilty guilty guilty.”

I like to evaluate these things on a case by case basis.

And, of course, if a jury finds Ms. Zimmerman not guilty (assuming the case even makes it to trial), then she’s not guilty in the eyes of the law.

But, it sure looks like she’s guilty of perjury, and maybe some other things. The feds might be interested in why she’s moving money around in the fashion that the prosecution claims she did.

They take a mighty dim view of folks who engage in structuring.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 10:35 am

I take a mighty dim view of prosecutorial misconduct. Angela Corey’s initial affidavit of charges was an egregious example of PM as detailed by Alan Dershowitz, her subsequent attempts to silence Dershowitz are equally egregious, and editing the transcript to revoke Zimmerman’s bail is the third strike.

Angela Corey is attempting to suspend Zimmerman’s civil rights and to sacrifice him on the cross of racial bigotry.

ropelight (9a05a4) — 6/15/2012 @ 11:35 am

But, it sure looks like she’s guilty of perjury, and maybe some other things.

— So now she’s guilty of at least TWO crimes?! You just can’t help yourself, can you.

Icy (b3c882) — 6/15/2012 @ 12:02 pm

Luckily he can’t call her a skinhead.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/15/2012 @ 12:07 pm

I like this discussion much better that the usual ‘sock puppet Friday’.

Andy (b63f79) — 6/15/2012 @ 12:16 pm

“Angela Corey is attempting to suspend Zimmerman’s civil rights…”

Sure she is. Everyone is entitled to arbitrarily stalk and kill totally innocent black kids.

Shame on Ms. Corey for interfering with Georgie Porgy’s God-given right to stalk and kill.

Same for Shellie Z. Everyone has a right to lie under oath. It’s a free speech issue.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 12:18 pm

Surls, other than stupid invective and dishonesty about the actual testimony, is there any point to your little tantrums?

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/15/2012 @ 12:19 pm

“Luckily he can’t call her a skinhead.”

That woud be dishonest. She obviously isn’t a skinhead (unless she’s going to KKK meetings on the sly, or she’s wearing a wig).

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 12:24 pm

“So now she’s guilty of at least TWO crimes?!”

Could be. Structuring is against the law. And, the feds just might take a look at the transactions she was alleged to have made, just to make sure they’re on the up and up.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 12:32 pm

That woud be dishonest. She obviously isn’t a skinhead (unless she’s going to KKK meetings on the sly, or she’s wearing a wig).

Comment by Dave Surls — 6/15/2012 @ 12:24 pm

This kind of reinforces the idea that you have been using skinhead in the pejorative, as opposed to your claim that it is just a description of his haircut.

JD (95e569) — 6/15/2012 @ 12:39 pm

30.

Steve57, who has a huge emotional investment in this case, is making a claim unmade by Talkleft or Patterico.

Both of them note George did not intentionally deceive the Court (in their opinion…I wonder how Patterico sees claims about motive and intention from defense attorneys in his day job.

Steve adds Mrs. Zimmerman and run away screaming about vindication and edited transcripts. No one claims Mrs. Z did not intentionally lie to the Court and George was not charged with perjury, in case you missed it.

Comment by timb — 6/15/2012 @ 7:21 am

I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but I enjoy the incoherence of the “Zimmermans are guilty” crowd more than any other aspect of this.

Steve57 (c441a6) — 6/15/2012 @ 1:04 pm

Well, Steve57, no one here expects any coherence out of timb.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/15/2012 @ 1:16 pm

“Both of them note George did not intentionally deceive the Court (in their opinion…”

Too bad for the Zimmermans that the court doesn’t agree with that assessment.

As Judge Lester made quite clear when he revoked the skinhead killer’s bond.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/15/2012 @ 2:06 pm

Surls, your comment @12:18pm sounds almost exactly like that bat-shit crazy caterwauling black congresswoman who wears pink cowboy hats and yelps in a stilted squeaky voice.

ropelight (9a05a4) — 6/15/2012 @ 4:13 pm

As Judge Lester made quite clear when he revoked the skinhead killer’s bond.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/15/2012 @ 2:06 pm

I guess Mr. Surls would not qualify as a juror.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/15/2012 @ 6:36 pm

Trayvon was a skinhead, too.

Ghost (6f9de7) — 6/15/2012 @ 9:36 pm

Am I the only one who thinks David Surls reminds them of the prosecutor in To Kill a Mockingbird. Pretty much every argument he makes is the equivalent of the prosecutor’s comeback when Gregory Peck proves could not have hit the girl the way the prosecutor’s claims. No doubt he hopes that Zimmerman can be shot “while trying to escape” as well.

Fear The Same (188afa) — 6/15/2012 @ 10:17 pm

“I guess Mr. Surls would not qualify as a juror.”

Obviously not. First of all, I don’t live in Florida. Second of all, I’ve heard too much about the case, and have already pretty much made up my mind in regard to Mr. Zimmerman’s guilt, even before the trial has begun. Generally speaking they don’t want jurors that are in that position.

The same is true for Zimmerman-lovers, but I doubt if you would be honest enough to admit it(since you singled me out for the honor of being an unsuitable juror, without noting the same about yourself, or the members of your little posse).

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 12:48 am

First of all, I don’t live in Florida.
— Thank the Lord for small miracles.

Second of all, I’ve heard too much about the case,
— Exactly. You’ve heard so many people say that he’s guilty you could not possibly be an impartial juror. Good catch, there!

and have already pretty much made up my mind in regard to Mr. Zimmerman’s guilt,
— Yeah. Let me tell you something: you have “pretty much” made up your mind on Zimmerman’s guilt the same way that I have “pretty much” made up my mind to vote for Mitt Romney over Obama.

even before the trial has begun.
— Humility does not become you. You made up your mind on the day you first heard the story.

Generally speaking they don’t want jurors that are in that position.
— Generally speaking, they’re not supposed to want prosecutors that file excessive charges unsupported by the evidence either. But here we are.

The same is true for Zimmerman-lovers,
— Well, it would be rude not to love our hero!

but I doubt if you would be honest enough to admit it
— Really . . . one of US claimed that s/he could be an impartial member of that jury? When was that?

since you singled me out for the honor of being an unsuitable juror, without noting the same about yourself
— So now you’re complaining that we agree on your unsuitability to be a juror? How very Kimberlinesque of you.

or the members of your little posse).
— Is that a reference to a lynch mob on horseback? like the KKK posse in D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”? Someone should call Reverend Al and let him know that his race bait has been gobbled up.

Icy (b3c882) — 6/16/2012 @ 2:45 am

As Judge Lester made quite clear when he revoked the skinhead killer’s bond.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/15/2012 @ 2:06 pm

Trayvon was a skinhead, too.
Comment by Ghost — 6/15/2012 @ 9:36 pm

— Oh! Well, this explains our confusion, at last. Dave isn’t calling Z a skinhead that kills; he’s calling him the killer OF a skinhead. Gee, Dave, I wish you had just explained this to us in the first place! Think of all the wasted responses you’ve generated, simply by not being clear. Tsk tsk . . .

Icy (b3c882) — 6/16/2012 @ 2:54 am

“If a trustee has legal title to $1,000,000 in an investment account which he is managing for the benefit of another person, how would that trustee answer the judge’s question if phrased the way it was asked of SZ?”

I guess that depends on who the other person is. If it’s SZ then he better truthfully say that he’s managing an account with $1,000,000 worth of assets in it, on behalf of SZ.

What that has to do with this case is anybody’s guess.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/16/2012 @ 5:10 pm

6/14/2012

Evidence Zimmerman Had No Intent to Deceive

60 Responses to “Evidence Zimmerman Had No Intent to Deceive”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out