Audio: George Zimmerman’s Jailhouse Phone Calls

joko104 · Jun 25, 2012

whysoserious said:
Are you saying they didn't lie and are you also calling this a conspiracy? Considering Zimmerman seems to have the backing of the republican party - funding wise, I don't think you can claim he doesn't have a defense lawyer. That's his own fault.

Backing of the Republican Party? You aren't really familiar much with the case, are you?

Obama used the DOJ to threaten the Republican Governor and other Florida Republican officials with a civil rights violation charge if Zimmerman wasn't prosecuted and convicted, thus calling the Florida Republican officials racists who allow black children to be murdered.

In response, they folded. The Republican governor of Florida and the Republican Attorney General did something virtually never done. They used their power to intervene and fire the local authorities taking total control of the case. Former Republican Governor Jeb Bush also came out against Zimmerman. With all this, literally local law enforcement personal wrote and made statements 100% diametrically opposite what they had stated prior to THE REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS of Florida going after Zimmerman all ways possible.

The Judge is a Republican elected Judge. The prosecutor is a Republican. She was appointed as a replacement by actions by the Republican Governor and Republican Attorney General. Everyone directly involved in the prosecution is a Republican. Since you completely agree, I presume you are a Republican too - at least for this case.

Excon · Jun 25, 2012

joko104 said:
Otherwise they would have done what is done in essentially every criminal case everywhere in the country - had a grand jury decide whether or not to indict.

Not every state uses a Grand Jury to determine criminal prosecution.

sharon said:
They have the two of them cold for deceit.. for deceiving the court and their own lawyer..

lol
That has yet to be determined.

Simon W. Moon said:
Did you know that GZ DID use some of that money to pay for part of his bond?

Told ya that there're those who're making the case that using the donations for bond constitutes fraud.

That was said once.
And hasn't been repeated when discussing the funds.
Do you know if the lawyer was mistaken when he said it?

And, "bond" may not fall under the definition of legal defense.

whysoserious · Jun 25, 2012

joko104 said:
Backing of the Republican Party? You aren't really familiar much with the case, are you?

Obama used the DOJ to threaten the Republican Governor and other Florida Republican officials with a civil rights violation charge if Zimmerman wasn't prosecuted and convicted, thus calling the Florida Republican officials racists who allow black children to be murdered.

In response, they folded. The Republican governor of Florida and the Republican Attorney General did something virtually never done. They used their power to intervene and fire the local authorities taking total control of the case. Former Republican Governor Jeb Bush also came out against Zimmerman. With all this, literally local law enforcement personal wrote and made statements 100% diametrically opposite what they had stated prior to THE REPUBLICAN OFFICIALS of Florida going after Zimmerman all ways possible.

The Judge is a Republican elected Judge. The prosecutor is a Republican. She was appointed as a replacement by actions by the Republican Governor and Republican Attorney General. Everyone directly involved in the prosecution is a Republican. Since you completely agree, I presume you are a Republican too - at least for this case.

I'm not sure that any of that is even true. Can you back any of those statements up? All I was saying is that droves of republicans have donated money to Zimmerman and you want to turn this into some 9/11 scale conspiracy theory. Get real, guy.

In the future, if you are going to make claims, you should probably cite your sources.

Darroll said:
This thread is like beating a dead horse.
It's self defense.

You cracked the case, Columbo. Great job.

joko104 · Jun 25, 2012

whysoserious said:
I'm not sure that any of that is even true. Can you back any of those statements up? All I was saying is that droves of republicans have donated money to Zimmerman and you want to turn this into some 9/11 scale conspiracy theory. Get real, guy.

In the future, if you are going to make claims, you should probably cite your sources.

.

The conspiracy/extortion claim is arguable. But the rest? Document what? That those officials are Republicans or their involvement in and/or comments about the case?

whysoserious · Jun 25, 2012

joko104 said:
The conspiracy/extortion claim is arguable. But the rest? Document what? That those officials are Republicans or their involvement in and/or comments about the case?

Prove it. Prove that there is a conspiracy going on. Prove that Zimmerman isn't getting a fair trial. Prove that someone was fired and it forced charges to be filed. Prove that Obama is directly involved in forcing a murder trial. Prove it all - besides the prosecutor and/or judge being a republican because it's irrelevant.

Simon W. Moon · Jun 25, 2012

joko104 said:
But that doesn't work. Because after that hearing the attorneys could have explained that bail money could be considered part of legal defense.
It isn't just a question of "Fraud," but of lying. The attorneys could have explained to the Zimmermans after the hearing that while it would mean they had lied to people who donated money, technically it isn't fraud and technically bond is part of defense.
Since they solicitation website did not say "bail" or "bond," it could be interpreted so using it would be to have lied to those donors. At least until fully explained to the Zimmermans.

That's why I was trying to ask someone who knows someone who gave money. I seriously doubt that any donor feels that bond is an expense that shouldn't be covered with the money.
Tbh, I don't understand how someone could even conceive of a case where bond was not one of the expenses which donors expected their money to go to.
I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that there could be fraud involved.
It's just not something which makes any sense to me.
Obviously, ymmv.
One difference is that I don't care if GZ is sent to prison or if he walks.
You seem to have chosen a preference when it comes to outcomes of the trial.

joko104 said:
Let's see, can a judge require a person tell how much money for bond they can raise by lying?

Can a court require your to disclose assets?

joko104 said:
More importantly, the Defense should argue that using the money for bond is a CIVIL fraud (ie breach of contract), but not criminal fraud. A court can not require or expect a person to commit civil fraud against people to pay for a criminal bond, can it?
Using the money for bail was a civil fraud. Since Zimmerman assured he would use the money only for living expenses or legal defense, anyone who contributed money could sue for civil fraud.

I have not seen any evidence that donors did not expect bond to be a part of the legal expenses.
Not seen any evidence that it's unreasonable for donors to count bond as a legal expense.
I am just not ready to jump on the bond-is-not-a-legal-expense bandwagon yet.

I need to see some evidence which is strong enough to overcome my common sense.

Simon W. Moon · Jun 25, 2012

joko104 said:
At no time was he asked how much money was in the Paypal account or had came from the Paypal account, although they knew it existed.
The DA could have asked, "Mr Zimmerman, Mrs Zimmerman, how much money is in you Paypal account? How much of that money did you transfer to bank accounts?"

Can you link to the transcript again? I lost it somewhere.
But, iIrc, Mr.s Z was asked if she had an estimate of the money that there was. Isn't that significantly the same as asking how much money there was?
Or are the data sought with each of the questions radically different?

joko104 said:
The question was how much money is available to post bond.

I'd have to double check the questions. I think the questions were about the assets available to them. Then, subsequently, judge would about which assets were appropriate to consider in setting bond.
But I am full of wild, far-out wacky ideas like that.

Simon W. Moon · Jun 25, 2012

Excon said:
That was said once.
And hasn't been repeated when discussing the funds.

How often should it have come up?
It's a very non-controversial thing that happened matter of course. Why would it ever come up again?
It's not like the "donations used for bond = fraud" concept is a legitimate one that has any traction outside of the int4rwebz.

Excon said:
Do you know if the lawyer was mistaken when he said it?

I have not seen any indication that he was mistaken.

Excon said:
And, "bond" may not fall under the definition of legal defense.

I suppose that it may not. But there doesn't seem to be any reason to suppose that bond does not fall under one or both of the categories "legal expenses" or "living expenses."
The only indication that bond may not fall under one of those categories are the posts of you and joko.
Not very strong evidence imho. ymmv.

Excon · Jun 25, 2012

Simon W. Moon said:
How often should it have come up?

What the monies were used for came up again and there was no mention of it being used for bond.

That is the point!

Simon W. Moon said:
I have not seen any indication that he was mistaken.

Except that when the funds were discussed again, he never said a portion went for bond. So he may have been mistaken the first time.

Simon W. Moon said:
I suppose that it may not. But there doesn't seem to be any reason to suppose that bond does not fall under one or both of the categories "legal expenses" or "living expenses."

That would be stretching the definitions.

joko104 · Jun 25, 2012

The prosecutor (and everyone) knew about the Paypal account.
Did the prosecutor ask "how much money is in the Paypal account and how much have you transferred out of it?
Did the prosecutor ask "how much money is in your bank accounts?"

Or did the prosecutor deliberately abstractly ask "what assets do YOU have?" and how much money do YOU have to use for bond?: and only general questions to that effect.

joko104 · Jun 25, 2012

Under Paypal rules that all agree to, Paypal can suspend and cancel any account this is engaged in deceptive or fraudulent activity - and my also seize and hold the funds for up to 90 days. If Paypal decided using the money for bond - when the website specifically promised it would be used for living expenses and legal defense only - Zimmerman's raising of living expenses and legal defense would be ended and permanently. That is a unilateral decision by Paypal.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/terms-outside#receiving_payments