If you mean you're different than me because you admitted to making a mistake when it's proven, then you're lying again as I have admitted making mistakes as well.
Not usually. Because usually, you want to argue it.
Reported in the News once, but never repeated.
Later never mentioned as being used for such, when a detail of what the funds were used for came out.
Well that's certainly easy to prove if you're telling the truth ... you claimed the details of the funds' usage was released which didn't include the $5,000 for bond. Post a link to the details of how the funds were spent that omits that $5,000 and I will not only believe you are telling the truth, I will apologize for calling your claim BS and a desperate denial.
Unbelievable.
You already know this an you want to argue it.
And I care not about any such apology from you because I would see it as disingenuous.
This is not the report I sited previously. The original one was O'Mara saying what the funds were used for.
But being as this came after the second hearing, it will suffice.
Strangly it is also missing. And there are many other reports which quote Magill.
Published: June 29, 2012
...
Rather than squander the $205,000 he received in donations, Mr. Zimmerman used a portion of it to pay bills and debts. Mr. Zimmerman has been unemployed since shortly after the shooting.
Mr. Magill testified that $24,000 was spent to pay credit card debts and two auto loans and to pay back the bulk of $4,500 Mr. Zimmerman borrowed from his mother. A portion of the money was spent on living expenses. The $130,000 that was transferred out of the PayPal account on April 20 was all accounted for, Mr. Magill said.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/us/florida-judge-to-rule-on-zimmermans-bid-for-release.html
More BS. You may be discussing whether or not it's an asset but that's only because that's not what she perjured herself over.
Seems you are eager to debate what she didn't lie about but you're refusing to debate what she did lie about. :lamo
She was asked if it's true that they had no money to make bond and she agreed that was true -- even though she knew that had a 6 figure bank account which she said could be used towards bond ... and then was used towards Zimmerman's bond.
G'head, keep arguing about whether it's an asset or not while running away from what she lied about.
You really aren't getting it are you?
Whether or not she believes it can be used does not matter to whether or not she believes it needs to be reported.
For some reason you just can not grasp that.
And they very well may have been told that it didn't need it to be reported.
Ignorance is not an excuse but that isn't even necessary because it is obvious they knew it should have been reported.
Wrong!
The law says they have to know what they are saying is untrue.
If they believed it didn't need to be reported, they didn't lie.
For the 5000th time, his own damn lawyer admits he lied about the money.
For the 5000th time, you have been asked to provided such.
An actual statement by his lawyer saying he lied. Not your interpretation of what he said.
Your failure to do so, says you are lying.
Not to mention the fact they knew it should have been reported which is why they spoke in code and why GZ instructed her to do transfers every day up to the day of the bond hearing.
You are making assumption that are not supported by the evidence.
In addition, on one conversation they were talking about the possible bond amount and the donations and Shellie said "Well, that's what it's there for." It's also hilarious you guys still try to defend her even even though she point blank said under oath they would have to "scrape" for bail money while having access to about $200k.
Meaningless to actual belief of whether or not it needed to be reported.
