home

O'Mara Releases 6 Jail Calls, Seeks Reconsideration For Remainder

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:07:02 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Update: I've uploaded the transcripts and bank records here.

Mark O-Mara, attorney for George Zimmerman, has posted the full audiotapes of the six jail calls between Zimmerman and his wife on the website he maintains for the case.

He has also filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider its previous order and keep the remaining jail calls and a statement of W-9 private. W-9 will not be a witness for either party and her statement, which is inflammatory, is not admissible. The state has released the credit union bank records and transcripts of the six calls. I assume the media will publish these.

< George Zimmerman: Bank Surveillance and New Discovery | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    O'Mara Releases 6 Jail Calls, Seeks Reconsideration For Remainder | 151 comments (151 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Still haven't gone through all of them... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Kyreth on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:48:27 PM EST
    ...but a few things kinda stuck out at me.  One:  It doesn't sound good.  There's pretty detailed cooperation on both sides as to what to do with the money, so there's no feigning ignorance.  We did know this already though.

    But Jeralyn seems to be right on the nose about George's trust and fear, including of O'Mara.  At first, George seems a tad frustrated that O'Mara hasn't been able to give him any time (his first visit was long enough to get a signature in regards to recusing the judge), but opinions changed of him as the week goes on, to the point where Shelley said  how awesome he was and that she'd do anything O'Mara said.

    Bonnie and Clyde? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by IrishGerard on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:01:02 PM EST
    I dont think so. No evidence of collusion.

    Isn't more likely that GZ was attempting to avoid eavesdropping by fellow inmates and SZ was just going along with shorthand and not 'code'?
     He is whispering, after all.

    More important question; can any of these conversations be brought in to criminal proceedings against George Zimmerman?

    Is hiding money evidence of murder? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:11:21 PM EST
    -- More important question; can any of these conversations be brought in to criminal proceedings against George Zimmerman? --

    The state could try to bring in the conversations as evidence that Zimmerman is basically dishonest, and nothing he says can be believed.  The defense would argue that Zimmerman's attempts to hide the funds in April (although I don't really see clear evidence of an effort to hide the funds from the tax authorities) is not relevant to an inquiry into his state of mind on February 26th.  The judge would rule on the competing theories of relevance.

    Parent

    Isn't more likely that GZ was attempting to avoid (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by lore hahn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:03:43 PM EST
    In one of the calls he tells Shellie the cord is so long he can lie on his bed. So who is going to overhear him there?

    The end of the first call [04/12/12 if I remember correctly] is very interesting. He is speaking to her with a low suffering voice, then someone comes and brings him something, a meal or something? He responds with:

    Thank you sir, thank you sir.

    in an absolutely normal voice. Hmm?

    Question: If they were unsure if they could use the money for bonds, why does he tell her then how much she can use for the bond, just in case? And what were these activities good for, if not to conceal the money? Very, very peculiar story. Besides Shellie is only following his orders.

    Parent

    underpaid jail guards (none / 0) (#122)
    by Stan25 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:57:53 PM EST
    looking to sell a story, or worse.

    If the State intends to seek conviction on the bond issue and the tapes, as Dershowitz said, Angela Corey should be hiring a lawyer.

    Parent

    I do not trust Zimmerman's lawyer (none / 0) (#2)
    by Steve27 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    O'Mara is suspect to me. He is the only person benefiting from this long, drawn out process. He gets paid a lot of money and gets to show the judges and prosecutors he is someone they can trust.

    O'Mara must have known Zimmerman had a lot of money in the paypal account at the bail hearing. He knew the money was there because he was the one who was going to get it all.

    O'Mara (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    gets to bill a lot of money.  Will he be able to collect on all his actual costs?  Who knows?

    Parent
    why would O'Mara not get the paypal money? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve27 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:03:03 PM EST
    How would O'Mara not get paid? He controls the funds.

    The fact that all the Zimmerman people are not being critical of O'Mara makes me think everyone is in on a deal of some sort.


    Parent

    That doesn't mean (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    that will cover all of his costs and fees.

    Parent
    A trustee (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:09:06 PM EST
    controls the funds, not O'Mara. Check the website, he explains this.

    Parent
    I believe after the public disclosure as to (none / 0) (#7)
    by Tamta on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    the amount in the funds, somewhat soon after 4/25, O'Mara stated that he was no longer going to work pro-bono. I am still searching for that link in my reading list, but if someone has one that supports, or contradicts me, please post it.

    Parent
    4/25 (none / 0) (#8)
    by TheSeeker on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:15:13 PM EST
    In the just released credit union records, there's a check for over $120K from Zimmeran to O'Mara dated April 25.

    Parent
    I believe that check was payable to (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    "Mark M. O'Mara, PA on Behalf of George Zimmerman" - in other words, it's probably the balance of the monies transferred from PayPal to the credit union account, and written because George was relinquishing control over all of those funds.

    Parent
    That Looks Right (none / 0) (#19)
    by TheSeeker on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:38:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#11)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:24:05 PM EST
    that, like Donald West, who was recently brought on board also Pro Bono, they are both hoping to get paid.  I think that would depend on what is left in the account after all of the miscellaneous court fees, expert fees, transcription fees, etc.

    I believe just a few weeks ago that MOM stated that about $300.00 had been used from that account/fund. The implication being that he was not paid a retainer.  Or anything close to it.  I think he is still on a Pro Bono basis.  WHile it wasn't a detailed accounting, he did roughly account for the 204K that was in the fund.

    My lawyer needed to be paid straight up to take my case before hand.  Jeralyn has said as such too because in the event of a negative outcome at trial, a lawyer can't exactly get paid once their client is incarcerated.

    All IMO!

    Parent

    O'Mara has an ethical obligation to work for his (none / 0) (#14)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    client to the best of his abilities.  Go ahead and doubt him all you want.  

    Parent
    Just listened to the 2nd call from April 16, (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    picked at random and the only call I had time to listen to.

    From that call, GZ and SZ were both very aware that there was a lot of money coming in to his paypal account.

    During the call, they decided to transfer 20 "dollars" ($20,000 I assume) out of the pp account each day, and to pay down all their bills and credit cards (except 2, for some reason).

    Your raise a good point (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    Why would somebody intent on fleeing the country and living underground as a fugitive with their secret fortune and hidden passport bother paying bills before doing so?

    Parent
    LOL....I doubt the Sanford PD would find (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:53:25 PM EST
    me...but I would not bet against the credit card collection agencies.

    Parent
    That's not good for Ms. Zimmerman, (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:23:25 PM EST
    right?  

    Parent
    Avoiding 10K reporting (2.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TheSeeker on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:26:34 PM EST
    As I mentioned in the thread below, there are also a number of transfers of just under $10K, and the transcripts make it pretty clear there was a very calculated effort to do this to avoid reporting the transactions. This is a federal crime, I believe, and it could be big trouble for both Zimmermans.

    Parent
    they probably did not have to (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    report intra-bank transfers of more than $10k. So making them for less than $10k would not be a problem. The bank can report them as suspicious, but I don't think the Zimmerman's are obligated to file any form or that this is illegal.

    Please don't imply this again unless you have legal authority to support it.

    Parent

    I don't think anyone is saying that (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:26:57 PM EST
    intra-bank transfers of $10K or more would have to be reported, but that the conversations between the Zimmermans give an impression that it was a concern to them. That perhaps they were under the impression that transfers in excess of $10K would have to be reported, and that's why they were keeping them below that threshold.

    It's very hard to read these transcripts alongside Shellie Zimmerman's testimony from the initial bond hearing and be able to give her an unqualified benefit of the doubt.   It's pretty clear to me that they had a plan, had discussed it before he was arrested and taken into custody, and they are intent on working that plan.


    Parent

    I don't think they were worried about reporting (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jello333 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:44:35 AM EST
    Rather, I think they may have been worried that anything $10K and up would have a HOLD put on it while someone (the bank, the feds, whoever) checked it out. And maybe they worried that such a hold might be so long that they'd be without access to the money when they needed it.

    Parent
    If it's moving between accounts at (none / 0) (#134)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 09:46:13 AM EST
    the same bank, it's cash; checks deposited will have holds placed on them, and the PayPal transfers into the credit union account may have had holds placed on them, but the cash being transferred between accounts doesn't need to be "checked out."  

    Parent
    who is Gracie? (none / 0) (#161)
    by lore hahn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 05:18:31 PM EST
    Anne, not that it matters, but it feels initially George asked Gracie to do the transfers it feels. Shellie changes the subject to the lawyer, but George returns to the topic.

    SHELLIE: Yeah if he can't do it then I definitely can, yeah.

    first page Jeralyn's combined transcription files.

    Parent

    George's sister's name (none / 0) (#163)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:57:42 PM EST
    is Grace Zimmerman.  Grace and Susie are the same person in the calls.  

    Parent
    Hey, I've been wanting to say something (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Jello333 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:52:18 AM EST
    ... that's more of a general nature, where the phone calls are concerned. I realize some of what George & Shellie say sounds suspicious, but it's very hard for me to believe they were attempting to do anything that would be outright illegal. Why? Because they KNEW the calls were recorded. They were told that each and every time a new call began. I know they were both scared and confused about what was going on, but neither of them sounds so far gone that they'd just suddenly think, "I know, we'll talk quietly and use code language and then anyone who's listening in won't have a clue!"

    I think we should be working under the assumption that they knew full-well that anything they said was being recorded, and possibly reported back to the "authorities".

    Parent

    Intrabank Transfers (none / 0) (#81)
    by RustedView on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    I did a bit of quick research into the regs surrounding the Bank Secrecy Act

    RegsL 31 C.F.R. 103.22

    (b) Filing obligations--(1) Financial institutions other than casinos. Each financial institution other than a casino shall file a report of each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency or other payment or transfer, by, through, or to such financial institution which involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000, except as otherwise provided in this section...

    Reading (b), I don't know that there is a difference between inter and intra-bank transactions as far as the regs are concerned.

    31 C.F.R. 103.22(d) lists several exemptions from reporting.  Most, if not all, relate to whether such transactions are part of a regularly functioning business.

    FDIC guidance regarding money-laundering appears to classify the act (dividing the general pot to multiple people) as "layering" and a step in money-laundering.  (Let me be clear, I don't think that they engaged in such activity.  However, knowing that the activity is considered suspect makes me question that such activity would be exempted out of reporting from a statute that in many ways was designed to allow easy tracking of laundering.)

    31 C.F.R. 103.33(e)(6)(ii) may speak to the issue though: "Funds transfers where both the originator and the beneficiary are the same person and the originator's bank and the beneficiary's bank are the same bank." are exempt from reporting.

    Again, I don't think that they would fall within the exemption from reporting.  I don't know that the individual is required to file any form, my understanding of this act was that the reporting was all performed by the banks, acts to prevent the trigger that causes a bank to report are punishable under the Act, however.

    See also California Bankers Assn v. Schultz for a bit more discussion of the Act and implementing regs.

    Parent

    The PayPal Transfers. . . (none / 0) (#91)
    by TheSeeker on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:27:30 PM EST
    Are clearly not intrabank. I see that people are saying that PayPal has a $10,000 cap on individual transfers.

    I'm a non-practicing lawyer, not versed in these matters, but it seems to me that there are significant issues. And as I've said, the transcripts make it pretty clear that the Zimmermans were aware of potential problems for transactions of $10,000 and up, wanted to avoid those problems, and took steps to do so.

    This may not be relevant to the murder case, but it does seem to me that it will have implications at least with respect to the perjury charge and possibly the bond as well.

    Parent

    Warning! Speculation ahead (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Aunt Polgara on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 02:54:29 PM EST
    As a layperson myself, I think it likely that GZ & SZ had heard that there might be problems with transfers over $10,000, but not have any idea what those problems might be; and that's why they kept the transfers under that amount. It is also probably the reason they wanted to file for an income tax extension, not knowing how the money might affect their taxes. As far as they were concerned, they might have thought that it wasn't much different in principle than standing on the street corner begging for change.

    Concerning all the talk here about setting up a trust or a business to properly handle the money, does anyone here think that they had any idea in the world how to handle such a large amount of money? As far as I can see, they are pretty unsophistcated; and things happened so fast, they must have been absolutely overwhelmed. I know I certainly would be.

    Obviously, they needed competent help to deal with it all, and there was no time to get that help. If I were on the jury, I certainly would cut them some slack.

    Parent

    Any income tax filing extension would be for 2011 (none / 0) (#154)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 03:49:10 PM EST
    income.  They did not begin receiving funds from the website/PayPal until April 2012.  Taxes for 2012 are not due until April 15, 2013.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#156)
    by Aunt Polgara on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:34:35 PM EST
    I guess the income tax extension request was most likely because they hadn't had time to deal with it.

    Parent
    Perhaps so. In the call I listened to GZ (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:53:02 PM EST
    wanted the transfer amounts to be $10(,000) so if he was trying to avoid the filing of the required federal reports for $10,000 and higher transactions, he failed pretty miserably.

    Parent
    I don't have the transcripts in front of me. . . (none / 0) (#27)
    by TheSeeker on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:59:47 PM EST
    but IIRC, there are several points where Zimmerman says the amounts should be less than "$10", and the multiple $9,900 transactions suggest they knew just what they were doing.

    Parent
    As I said, all I listened to was the 2nd call (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    from April 16. In that call the amounts discussed were $10K: "[put] 10 in yours and 10 in Suzie's every day."

    Parent
    If you look closely. . . (none / 0) (#37)
    by TheSeeker on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:23:45 PM EST
    From 4/16:

    ZIMMERMAN: Transfer, for her to transfer
    SUSIE: Uh huh
    ZIMMERMAN: less than $10 into her account from mine.
    SUSIE: Okay, uh huh
    ZIMMERMAN: And then, two, is for her to log off and try to log back in using her credentialsbefore you leave there.
    SUSIE: Uh huh, okay (inaudible)
    ZIMMERMAN: And then, three, is to see if she can take $10 out today, another $10, less than$10 and put it. . .

    Many times when $10 is referenced, it's clarified with a "less than $10." Amazingly foolish. . .

    Parent

    Illegal? (none / 0) (#42)
    by friendofinnocence on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:30:04 PM EST
    What is illegal about transferring your own legally obtained money wherever you want in any amount you want?

    Parent
    Title 31 of the United States Code, section 5324, (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    Title 31 of the United States Code, section 5324, provides (in part):

        No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or record keeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the record keeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91-508-- [...] (3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.



    Parent
    I'm not saying he did anything wrong w/regard (none / 0) (#50)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    to transferring money, I'm just saying there is more to the issue...

    Parent
    Okay, so I often pay myself (none / 0) (#136)
    by Tamta on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:14:47 PM EST
    $9-$10,000 from another account in the same bank.
    Not daily mind you.

    Am I going to get in trouble?

    Parent

    Do you often ... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Yman on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:05:41 AM EST
    ... make multiple transactions of $9,990 and $9,999 in the same week/day?

    Might want to check with your lawyer.

    Parent

    Never! (none / 0) (#140)
    by Tamta on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 08:43:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Structuring is Illegal (none / 0) (#53)
    by Michael Masinter on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:54:31 PM EST
    The Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. 5313(a), requires a currency transaction report for transactions in excess of 10K, and 31 U.S.C. 5324 provides:

    No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or record keeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the record keeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91-508-- [...] (3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.

    Violations of 5324 are punishable by five years imprisonment.  

    For what it's worth, I'd be surprised to see a U.S. Attorney or grand jury charge Ms. Zimmerman with structuring; that would seem to be piling on.

    Parent

    PayPal and Structuring (none / 0) (#54)
    by Michael Masinter on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:03:00 PM EST
    I should have added that it is unclear whether the Bank Secrecy Act applies to the Paypal transactions.

    Parent
    The paypal transfers were to GZ's credit union (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:18:57 PM EST
    account, iirc. I assume financial institutions are required to file notice of $10K and greater transactions whether they are the sending or the receiving institution.

    Parent
    I believe "currency" is hard cash (none / 0) (#137)
    by MJW on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:27:48 PM EST
    As far as I can determine from looking at the somewhat confusing Chapter 31 money laundering statutes, they apply only to cash transactions, such as depositing or withdrawing cash.

    The reporting form associated with the law is called a "Currency Transaction Report."  It defines "currency" as, "The coin and paper money of the United States or any other country, which is circulated and customarily used and accepted as money."  It defines "Transaction in Currency" as, "The physical transfer of currency from one person to another. This does not include a transfer of funds by means of bank check, bank draft, wire transfer or other written order that does not involve the physical transfer of currency."

    I looked at a number of circuit cases involving 31 USC 5324, and they all involved cash transactions.  US v. Thompson makes specific point of this in rejecting an argument of vagueness.

    Parent

    Interesting catch. This would agree with you: (none / 0) (#141)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:48:02 AM EST
    Structuring.

    Parent
    As does this: (none / 0) (#142)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 09:52:50 AM EST
    2034 Sample Instruction--Elements of 31 U.S.C. §  5324(a)(3)

    In Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147 (1994), the Supreme Court held that "to give effect to the statutory 'willfulness' specification [in 31 U.S.C. § 5322], the government [must] prove [that the defendant] knew that the structuring he undertook was unlawful."

    In other words, the government must prove, as an element of its structuring case, that the defendant knew "not only of the bank's duty to report cash transactions in excess of $10,000, but also of his duty not to avoid triggering such a report."

    In a direct response to Ratzlaf, Congress amended 31 U.S.C. § 5324 by deleting the statutory "willfulness" requirement.

    Under this "Ratzlaf fix" it is only necessary to prove that the defendant acted for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements.

    This statute took effect on September 23, 1994. Pattern instructions have been published by the First (No. 4.28), Fifth (No. 2.99), Seventh, and Eleventh (No. 98) Circuits that reflect the 1994 corrective legislation.

    [My bold]

    Parent
    Was the fund raising a business? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Tamta on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:38:09 AM EST
    Snipped from link.
    BBM

    "There is no general prohibition against handling large amounts of currency and the filing of a CTR is required regardless of the reasons for the currency transaction unless a waiver has been filed which is common for business accounts that consistently deposit or withdraw large amounts of cash on a daily basis."

    Is the fundraising considered a 'business'?
    I wonder if any of these details were under way.
    Call 6 of released calls has Shellie talking about filing for exemption.

    Parent

    I don't think GZ set up a "business" (none / 0) (#144)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:56:33 AM EST
    to fundraise.

    And in Call 6 Shellie does talk about filing a tax extension (bottom of page 8), but I found no reference to an "exemption."

    Parent

    I must have misheard. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Tamta on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:05:15 PM EST
    I will re-listen.

    Parent
    Sounds like she's talking about filing an (none / 0) (#148)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    extension for filing their income taxes.  Mid-April is when taxes are due so the time-frame fits.

    Parent
    GZ Fundraising as business? (none / 0) (#145)
    by Tamta on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:04:41 PM EST
    fundraising

    Snipped
    BBM

    Step 1-Check
    Specialize in a niche. Determine which type of organizations you want to specialize in work with on fundraising.
    Step 2-Check
    Name the fundraising business.

    Step 3-?
    Write and put together a business plan.

    Step 4-?
    Register the business with the state.
    Step 5-?
    Register the business with the city or county.
    Step 6-Check.
    Secure a tax identification number with the Internal Revenue Service.
    Step 7-Check. They have phone and internet, the calls show.
    Install a business phone line and Internet service in your office.
    Step 8-Check
    Build a website.
    Step 9-? Seems like accnt was GZs personal, however there was not a lot of time between set up and arrest. Shellie files for exemption call 6. Are these maybe some of the things that MOM is discussing with Ken??
    Open a bank account. Take your business paperwork from the state, tax identification number from the IRS and a picture identification card to the bank to open a business checking account.
    Step 10-Check-PayPal
    Establish a credit card processor service.
    Step 11-Check. "Blog GZLegalCase'?
    Contact organizations to promote your services.

    There obviously was  a lot to do to make this fundraising legitimate, and there was little time to do all of these steps prior to the arrest. There could be some argument for that they were under way in doing this, and I wonder if MOMs amount of knowledge and contact with Ken could be based on his advisement as to preparing to make this completely legitimate legally.

    Just some thoughts.

    Parent

    Really don't think you need to set up (none / 0) (#150)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:36:55 PM EST
    a "business" in order to legally/legitimately raise funds for personal use...

    Parent
    I agree with you. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Tamta on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:51:13 PM EST
    However as a business,  it would seem to give them a justification  for the multiple, large transfers made on a daily basis for example.

    Parent
    Do they need justification? (none / 0) (#152)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 01:18:57 PM EST
     

    Parent
    Not necessarily, but it depends. (none / 0) (#155)
    by Tamta on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    I am not completely sure if in this discussion an answer has been created as to whether or not the Zimmerman's will be free from Federal scrutiny based upon their account activity, but correct me if I am wrong.

    The reason why I brought up the fundraising as business topic was to offer a framework that allows for interpreting their actions, (and O'Mara's to its limited extent as we saw in the call he was reported to have been in contact with 'Ken',)  in regard to their financial matters as steps in handling the business of the funds and fundraising in the most business like way that they were capable of doing within the limit of time and resources available to them due to the arrest and incarceration of George, and thus not with a specific intent to personally profit or intentionally evade the law.

    Parent

    Fair enough. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    ianal, but it seems to me that the $10K "legal/illegal" number is with regards to cash only, not electronic transfers like the ones the Zimmermans did, so the Z's did nothing illegal there.

    And the $10K number itself is reasonably explained by PayPal's own policies as discussed down thread, so it seems to me that the Z's are in the clear on this interweb-bred rumor of impropriety.

    Parent

    When my friend tried to transfer funds (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:38:39 PM EST
    from her business account in NJ to her business account in Africa, these restrictions held up the transfer and caused her lots of angst.  

    Parent
    Not suprising, as there is an international (none / 0) (#159)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    aspect to some of the laws.

    Here, I think, is what affects the Z's:

    Federal law requires financial institutions to report currency (cash or coin) transactions over $10,000 conducted by, or on behalf of, one person, as well as multiple currency transactions that aggregate to be over $10,000 in a single day. These transactions are reported on Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs).

    Although, could the argument could be made that a PayPal account should be considered the same as cash? If so, that would certainly change things...

    Parent

    And now that I think of it, (none / 0) (#160)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    it would not surprise me if PayPal's $10K number is a direct result of the Federal $10K requirement. Which would suggest that perhaps PayPal money is considered the same as cash by the Feds?

    Parent
    I think currency means currency (none / 0) (#162)
    by MJW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 07:22:39 PM EST
    The definitions of "currency" and "transaction in currency" for the CTR do not seem to me to in any way encompass PayPal transfers.  I also think that if the CTR reporting requirements did apply to PayPal transfers, then placing a $10K limit for the purpose of avoiding reporting might violate 31 USC 5324.

    BTW, there are special provisions (31 USC 5316) that apply to importing or exporting monetary instruments of more that $10K.  That may account for the problems encountered by Oculus's friend.  

    Parent

    Just in case that sounds nutty... (none / 0) (#164)
    by MJW on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 10:39:26 PM EST
    I also think that if the CTR reporting requirements did apply to PayPal transfers, then placing a $10K limit for the purpose of avoiding reporting might violate 31 USC 5324.

    In case it seems ridiculous to believe it might be illegal to place a $10K limit to avoid filing CTRs, consider US v. Sweeney, 611 F. 3d 459 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 2010. One of the convictions for violating 31 USC 5324 was the following:

    The indictment alleged thirteen counts of currency structuring. Count 8 alleged that the Sweeneys aided and abetted each other in illegally structuring the payment for a Chrysler Town and Country minivan. Steven Carbone, the dealership's finance manager, testified that he told the Sweeneys that he was required to file a currency transaction report for any cash transaction over $10,000. Mr. Sweeney responded, "Then let's not put $10,000 down." Mr. Sweeney gave Carbone $10,000 in cash, and Carbone immediately returned $100 of it to Mr. Sweeney. Mrs. Sweeney then wrote a check for the balance of $22,263.22.

    So the "structuring" was simply deciding not to make the down payment with an amount that exceeded the reporting threshold.

    Nutty but true.


    Parent

    After more googling I'm leaning toward (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 11:57:29 PM EST
    agreeing with you that the paypal transfers were not considered cash transactions in the eyes of the Feds, and he did not break any laws there.

    Parent
    I appreciate your help (none / 0) (#166)
    by MJW on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 12:12:46 AM EST
    in looking into this issue.  Especially that article you linked to in a previous comment that explained CTRs and structuring.

    Parent
    Does not look good for him. (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    Which 4/16 phone call was your transcript from? 3rd one? If so, sounds like he needed to clarify the $10K he discussed in the 2nd call J listed above that I listened to...

    Parent
    First call. . . (none / 0) (#46)
    by TheSeeker on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    At least that's the order on HuffPo.

    Parent
    From the transcripts I've seen (none / 0) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 06:51:13 PM EST
    it looks like he was referencing "under 10" transactions for the "practice" transfers after his wife got all his passwords, did what she needed to do with the paypal account, and opened up her and his sister's accounts.

    Makes sense to me that he wouldn't want to transfer large sums of money if he wasn't sure the transfer would work correctly.

    Parent

    If those were practice transfers... (none / 0) (#92)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:34:42 PM EST
    ...could "ten dollars" have actually meant $10.00, and not $10,000.00?

    I wouldn't want to conduct an experiment which left ten grand in limbo.

    Parent

    Not when you look at the (none / 0) (#103)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:32 PM EST
    calls next to the transfers; it's clear they weren't moving money ten dollars at time, but in amounts just under $10,000.

    Parent
    That is my view, yes. (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    While GZ was not discussing these financial matter directly to SZ (the woman he was talking to on the phone was some woman, not SZ, who I cannot identify) SZ was right there next to the woman and the woman was carefully repeating out loud everything GZ said such that SZ would hear and know what was going on.

    Parent
    Suzie, his sister (none / 0) (#18)
    by amateur on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:32:22 PM EST
    is probably the other woman you hear.  I've listened to them all and she is the only other one in the conversations.

    Parent
    Ah, yes, thanks, Shellie and Suzie. (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    You are right, GZ was talking directly to his wife, Shellie, who was repeating out loud so Suzie, GZ's sister, would hear what was going on.

    Parent
    Does anyone know if there are or will be written (none / 0) (#12)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:24:06 PM EST
    transcripts of the calls available?

    Keep checking on (none / 0) (#22)
    by Tamta on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    Scribd for PDFs of transcripts.
    It usually takes a day or so for them to appear.

    Parent
    would love to know who Ken is (none / 0) (#21)
    by amateur on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:41:38 PM EST
    He's the one making the transfers from PayPal (Peter Pan) to GZ's account and seems to be involved in their money moving strategy.  I'm also unsure of the motive behind all of the money moving.  It sounds like they are planning for going into hiding and wanted to be sure they had enough to live on.  I'm not convinced they were moving it to hide it just yet.

    It does not seem to me they are moving it (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 01:47:34 PM EST
    solely for the purposes of getting a lower bail.

    From the part of the transcript posted by someone else, it also looks like some of it was intended to be moved to GZ's sister's account. That is the clearest case of hiding it that I see.

    Parent

    Hiding for (none / 0) (#38)
    by Tamta on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:24:20 PM EST
    Security or protection not specifically evasion.

    Parent
    True, but how is her account more secure than (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:34:25 PM EST
    his own?

    Parent
    It appears (none / 0) (#105)
    by Tamta on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:51:56 PM EST
    that some of the account activity is explained by the need pay bills and settle accounts, and have one's mind put to rest by tending to those obligations. SOme of those transfers must have served that purpose, so that is security in one sense.

    In another sense, I was speculating if  GZ could have been concerned that he would lose access to that fund or the money by it being seized.

    These calls show him to be preoccupied with security and safety.

    Parent

    Is it not possible (none / 0) (#102)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:42:21 PM EST
    That George and Shellie or his parents were hiding out with his sister? Would it not be reasonable to pay their fair share of projected living expenses?

    Parent
    At the time of these conversations (none / 0) (#34)
    by Tamta on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:19:02 PM EST
    Zimmerman has a new attorney with which he appears to have had minimal contact, he seems to feel out of the loop, neither G or S seem to have a conceptual grasp of the situation, G may be concerned about the continued flow of donations for his case, there is the necessity to create and provide for an alternative life style for safety reasons, the looming legal fees, etc. I can see many motivations for the behavior I'm seeing in these calls, of which I haven't finished listening to. In regard to the passport, I haven't seen anything yet that leads me to see that he was not intending to be present for his trial and that they were conspiring to flee once G was released on bond.

    He may have been concerned that his accounts or assets would have been seized and that's why he arranged for the transfer from his account. That's a valid concern for an accused felon, who has come into this money by way of  his criminal charges.

    Gift cards? Maybe he was intending to use those when in hiding so as not to be traced.

    Money is a source of security to many.

    I'm still listening to the calls.

    Parent

    Perhaps those gift cards... (none / 0) (#125)
    by unitron on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 01:23:12 AM EST
    ...were for George to use in jail instead of cash.

    Having never been in jail down there I don't know what kind of system they might have, but I'm pretty sure inmates keeping cash on them doesn't work out well if other inmates know they have it.

    Parent

    I think for both (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by amateur on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:41:43 AM EST
    using while in jail and for both of them to use while in hiding.  Prepaid cards are not traceable and are safer than carrying cash.  He said something like "I feel safer with the gift cards" and he seems to be pretty heavily focused on safety.

    Parent
    I'm guessing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Kelwood on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    Just a guess, that hes the brother in law that Shellie says has the info on the account. During the bond hearing she never gives a name.

    Parent
    Robert Jr (none / 0) (#58)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:21:31 PM EST
    is the only other Zimmerman boy but maybe Ken is the husband of one of her sisters.

    Parent
    or a Zimmerman sister's husband (none / 0) (#60)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    Sorry, I'll stop chatting.

    Parent
    please put your links in html (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:53 PM EST
    format because long ones skew the site and I have to delete the entire comment.

    Use the link button at the top of the comment box or instructions below the box and preview before posting. Thanks.

    How does... (none / 0) (#31)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:59 PM EST
    ..."Well, I have one in a safety deposit box." turn into "I have one for you" or something like that which we were told earlier?

    Somebody gives very sloppy transcript.

    I'll have to listen to all of those calls if I ever finish with the lawn.

    And who's this Ken guy?

    They can't be on a first name basis with Judge Kenneth Lester, can they?

    And does Zimmerman keep his money in a bank or a credit union?

    Or is there any difference in Florida?

    For you comes after (none / 0) (#33)
    by amateur on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    ..."Well, I have one in a safety deposit box." turn into "I have one for you" or something like that which we were told earlier?

    If you listen, there's a pause in her sentence and she completes it with "for you" after GZ interjects.

    Parent

    Credit union (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kelwood on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    Insight credit union

    Parent
    Then how does... (none / 0) (#75)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 05:53:01 PM EST
    Then how does "...surveillance video of M&I Bank on Feb. 26, 2012." wind up as part of discovery?

    George Zimmerman: Bank Surveillance and New Discovery

    It's not on the way to either the 7-11 or Target.

    Or is M&I Bank an alternate name for the credit union?

    Parent

    That the question (none / 0) (#78)
    by Kelwood on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 06:40:58 PM EST
    His credit union doesn't have 24 hr ATMs. The ATMs are only available when the c union is open. Maybe that was the closest bank or the one with the lowest fee. Or it has nothing to do with Zimmerman. I'm not sure if there are times on the tape. If not maybe someone involved went their earlier.

    Parent
    My credit union SFFCU (none / 0) (#89)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:20:28 PM EST
    pays all ATM fees other banks may charge so I am free to use any ATM anytime. I don't know about Zimmerman's credit union's fee reimbursement policy.

    Parent
    Is lack of remorse an issue... (none / 0) (#40)
    by magster on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    ... that the prosecution can use against GZ?

    "Don't worry, cutie," said Shellie Zimmerman, who later added that her husband's website was crashing because of the amount of people logging in to show their support.

    "That feels good ... that there are people in America that care," George Zimmerman said. "That is awesome. I need to talk to O'Mara about getting the word out because those people need to start vocalizing themselves."

    "After this is all over, you're going to be able to just have a great life," Shellie Zimmerman said.

    "We will," George Zimmerman replied.  "I'm excited."

    ....

    While on the one hand, why would GZ feel remorse if TM tried to hurt him? On the other hand, being "excited" about the great life as if this whole incident was a nuissance seems like an opening for the "depraved mind" element.

    If a simple donnybrook... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:48:37 PM EST
    led to a homicide, I would hope remorse is a given.

    We're not talkin' about a guy who raped his sister or something, but an altercation based on suspicion that got out of hand quickly.

    Or put it this way...I get into it with a guy, he punches me, I punch him back and he somehow dies...I'd feel tremendous remorse.  Only a cold-hearted s.o.b. wouldn't.

    Parent

    But... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:29:16 PM EST
    ...in term of your guilt and the trial, how you feel after the fact is irrelevant. pretty defendants feel remorse... for getting caught. But more importantly, it's impossible to determine. That quote above proves nothing, it's a minute of a 2 month long period. The guy can feel remorse and still manage to have a positive outlook. For either to think their life is going to be better IMO is a bit of fantasy. This is an albatross even if he is acquitted. To me there is no doubt that he regrets that night, it's changed his life and so far, for the bad. And the banter he has with his wife leads me to believe the guy has feelings, and although I don't like what he did, I feel pretty confident that he is sorry for killing TM. But that is just my opinion. He's a nitwit, no doubt, but I have yet to read anything where he shows contempt for TM or his family including their lawyer, not something most pro-GZ people here can say. Beyond the first paragraph, the rest in meant for the post before kdog.

    Parent
    Is it irony if ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by magster on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:40:24 PM EST
    ... the only evidence presented at trial of GZ's "depraved mind" came from evidence that occurred after GZ was overcharged (namely his jailhouse conversations with Shelley)?

    Is it ineffective assistance of O'Mara to add to GZ's Miranda warnings that anything you say during a jail visitation with your family can and will be used against you in court?

    Parent

    Inigo Montoya (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cylinder on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:54:55 PM EST
    Is it irony if the only evidence presented at trial of GZ's "depraved mind" came from evidence that occurred after GZ was overcharged (namely his jailhouse conversations with Shelley)?

    IANAL

    Jailhouse encouragement really doesn't satisfy the statutory elements of depraved mind:

    An act is "imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind" if it is one that:

    1. A person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and

    2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and

    3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.


    Parent
    Arguably # 2 and 3 could be inferred from (none / 0) (#68)
    by magster on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:08:52 PM EST
    the quoted statements. And, I don't disagree with you. My first reaction to the portion of the transcript was I was offended. That other people probably had the same reaction as I did was probably why the excerpt was quoted in the diary I read it in ( meteor blades at DKos).

    So then, if that was my first reaction and probably the reaction intended by meteor blades when quoting that section, then is that a reaction a prosecutor would want from a jury? And since it worked on me, would it work on a juror, and is this something that needs to be considered when the prosecution offers some reduced charge and a stipulation to probation as a plea offer?

    Parent

    Gold Fever is a helluva drug.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    I can somewhat picture the Zimmerman's singing "Happy Days Are Here Again" after getting that first peep at the Paypal balance, money does crazy things to people....like turn remorse into gratefulness.

    Look at Tom Smykowski in "Office Space"...thinking getting disabled in a tractor trailer wreck was the best day of his life because it got him paid enough to focus on developing his "Jump to Conclusions" board game.  

    Parent

    Delaying total financial ruin (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lousy1 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:33:33 PM EST
    also might have be occaision for a hallelujah.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:26:45 AM EST
    I'm not going to base anything on Tom Smykowski since he's a made up character in a comedy.

    I think more like when my grandma died, I still managed to smile from time to time at the funeral after seeing some cousins I hadn't seen for a long time.  But I was still sad, and a smile certainly wasn't an indication of my state of mind.


    Parent

    For his wife (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Kelwood on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 06:43:53 PM EST
    Maybe he was just trying to seem optimistic for his wife's sake. So she isn't worried that he is sitting by himself, wallowing in despair.

    Parent
    It is my understanding the "depraved (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:09:07 PM EST
    mind" is an element of the criminal charge.  Doesn't matter if his mind was "depraved" later.  Well, maybe at sentencing if he is convicted.  

    Parent
    I haven't listened to the calls (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    So I don't know abiout the inflection and stuff, but maybe he was just reassuring his wife (and himself) that, since their lives were not going to be the same, it was going to be a time of great things.

    I also could be totally wrong.

    Parent

    Also seems like GZ's statement about ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by magster on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    ... supporters might show he sees this as a political or societal issue rather than an issue about his own particular personal incident.

    Parent
    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cylinder on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    On the other hand, being "excited" about the great life as if this whole incident was a nuissance seems like an opening for the "depraved mind" element.

    That's ridiculous.

    I mean, what is she supposed to say?

    Parent

    Well, it was GZ who said he'd be excited... (none / 0) (#52)
    by magster on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    ... and I can see an argument being made in closing "here's a guy who had such little regard for a human life that within weeks of having ended someone's life says he's excited, blah blah blah " . My only question is is this an avenue the prosecution may explore and is this something they'd be permitted to go into when they are put to their proof?

    Anticipating the prosecution's arguments and the defendant's weaknesses is something O'Mara needs to do. Should GZ consider a plea if his convos with Shelley hurt his case? This excerpt seems like a potential problem for GZ to me.

    Parent

    The shooting was 2 months prior.. (none / 0) (#124)
    by IrishGerard on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 10:24:52 PM EST
    ... to these phone conversations. I would say that 'being exited' two days after you shot someone could be construed as callous; but 2 months?

    Should GZ consider a plea if his convos with Shelley hurt his case?

    I'm sure the State is hoping that by discrediting the Zimmermans they could force george into a plea deal. After all, it's the only hope they have of saving face. But I think it's going to take more than all this subjective nonsense to scare O'mara.

    I do agree, however, that the Bond shenanigans may have hurt O'mara's chances for dismissal at SYG.

    Parent

    How the mind copes with adversity: (none / 0) (#84)
    by Stan25 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 06:55:46 PM EST
    I seem to remember studies on the ability of the human mind to turn the worst situations into believing they are beneficial.

    It is a common coping mechanism to deal with failure and loss. George is facing life in prison, does he sit down in his cell and cry all day? The human mind does everything possible to focus on any "positives," no matter how unrealistic they may be, as a coping mechanism.

    Parent

    Some posted here the other day (none / 0) (#47)
    by DizzyMissL on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 02:39:01 PM EST
    that Paypal has a 10K limit withdrawal.

    Re: Paypal (none / 0) (#59)
    by denny on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    Your withdrawal limit is the total amount of money you can withdraw from an unverified PayPal account. If your account is verified, you will NOT have a withdrawal limit anymore.

    To be Paypal verified all you need to do is resgister your bank account.

    Parent

    misleading? 10k per transaction limit for verified (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    If your account is Verified, there's no limit on the total amount of money you can send from your account. You can send up to $10,000 in a single transaction. (This amount can vary, though, depending on your currency.)

    If your account is Unverified, there's a limit on the total amount of money you can send from your account. To lift your sending limit, get Verified.

    link

    Parent

    did they (none / 0) (#64)
    by DizzyMissL on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    register their account?

    Parent
    PayPal's Policy (none / 0) (#70)
    by TheSeeker on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:19:51 PM EST
    It would appear that if they were making the number of transactions in the amounts specified, they'd have to be verified. From PayPal:

    When you first open a PayPal account, there is a limit on the amount of money you can send-usually $2,000 USD. Once you reach your limit, you'll need to add a bank account and become Verified in order to continue making transactions. You can view your sending limit here.

    Parent

    Phone Phreaks (none / 0) (#56)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    Anyone remember these proto hackers?
    I'm thinking somebody like them could guess Shellie's phone number just by listening to the tones. Now of course, we have technology for that sort of of thing. I hope she changes her number.

    I am moving this over here (none / 0) (#69)
    by Tamta on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    ShellieTestimony

    I thought it would be interesting to see this tran next to the call transcripts.

    Four transcripts (none / 0) (#74)
    by lore hahn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 05:34:22 PM EST
    Four transcripts

    Orlando Sentinel has only three

    Although I think there's a call or two (none / 0) (#77)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 06:25:15 PM EST
    I didn't find a transcript to it seems GZ was only talking about "less than 10" when they did the first experimental transfer after they got all his passwords and set up their own accounts, etc., etc.

    please do not post the transcripts in comments (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 06:43:46 PM EST
    Put a link to them in html format. They are too long for comments.

    Keep your comments related to the jail calls.

    Willis, your book-length comment speculating on "ken" was deleted. I have repeatedly told you your comments need to be reasonable in length and on topic.

    Why wasn't Zimmerman charged with obstruction? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Stan25 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 06:47:47 PM EST
    The State get Casey Anthony on perjury.

    Yet here, with a much weaker case, all the rumors about how Zimmerman's statements' "contradictions" will sink him, and Shellie Z's "perjury" you would think the State would have also charged George with the "slam-dunk" charges of perjury and obstruction charges. Yet it hasn't. Why is that?

    If the State doesn't have enough to charge Zimmerman with lying about his 'walk-through' statements then how does it refute his statements beyond reasonable doubt? That seems to be a big problem.

    Moreover, it is very likely the State had listened to the tapes before the bond hearing, in which case the hearing was simply an entrapment setup. Also, if the State had actually asked the brother-in-law about the "current" balances "right now" there would be no perjury charges.

    If a Zimmerman plan to thwart the Court at the bond hearing had real evidence, we would have seen obstruction charges against George. But we haven't.

    The defense still hasn't seen the phone tapes for the four days leading up to the hearing, leading me to believe there are exculpatory conversations in them about concern if the money could be directly be used for bond or if a more formal fund had to be set up.

    Doesn't one have to testify... (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:19:34 PM EST
    ...to commit perjury?

    Parent
    Any knowingly material false statement under oath (none / 0) (#104)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:50:10 PM EST
    There are plenty of opportunities other than testimony under examination for committing perjury.  Many applications for government bennies (like a license to leave and re-enter the country - passport; or a license to exercise a constitutional right to bear arms) and mandatory reporting of income are statements sworn true under penalty of perjury.

    George isn't up for a perjury rap, yet. He might be by the time the state of Florida is done with him.  Shellie is under a perjury rap because she testified under oath during the April 20 bail hearing, and the state alleges she knowingly made materially false statements.

    Parent

    Thanks. Which of those possibilities... (none / 0) (#108)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:04:09 PM EST
    ...might apply to Zimmerman?

    Parent
    The banana isn't ripe, John has a long mustache (none / 0) (#111)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:10:30 PM EST
    We haven't seen Zimmerman's statements to police.  Not sure those would technically be perjury (assuming, of course, he knowingly lied), they could be false statements to investigators.

    His testimony in court has been very limited.  I don't see any opportunity to charge him with perjury in those statement, but I lack the expertise that Corey has.

    Parent

    I said obstruction [of justice] (none / 0) (#119)
    by Stan25 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:46:23 PM EST
    for the bond issue and perjury for the statements Zimmerman gave to the police about the shooting.

    Zimmerman does not have to have testified to be charged with obstruction of justice concerning the bond issue.

    Parent

    meant "false statements" not perjury (none / 0) (#120)
    by Stan25 on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:51:19 PM EST
    I said perjury for the statements to the police. I should have said making false statements, which was what Casey Anthony was convicted on.

    Parent
    If that kind of off the cuff humor is upsetting (none / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:11:49 PM EST
    to you, you would not like to hang around any of my friends...

    Bias magnified under the microscope (none / 0) (#90)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 07:23:25 PM EST
    To the extent there is a question about Zimmerman's sense of remorse, I think there is a substantial body of evidence, running contrary to the theory I think you imply (that Zimmerman is disparaging of Martin or lacks remorse for the outcome) about the meaning of a laugh following the "hoodie" remark.

    In his shoes, I'd almost certainly make some remarks that either were outright unfavorable, or could be taken that way.  Some would be directed against Crump, Sharpton, and the press; all of whom seem to imply that Zimmerman's suspicion was totally unfounded, in part because it was derived from Martin's attire.  "The hoodie" as an emblem of innocence, hell yes, I'll wear that.

    Nice to know (none / 0) (#131)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:34:47 AM EST
    I have no idea if Zimmerman feels genuine remorse, but his comments and conduct outside of public view are far more probative than self-serving apologies in front of the cameras or public statements.  But I'll give that opinion the weight it deserves.

    BTW - No one is claiming that a hoodie is an "emblem of innocence".  OTOH, your interpretation of what you believe they "seem to imply" is amusing.

    Parent

    Zimmerman Bank Records (none / 0) (#95)
    by Dilbert By Day on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:11:39 PM EST
    Link

    Why didn't they black out (none / 0) (#110)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    the name and address of the check to Shellie Zimmerman for $1000 dollars shown on the last page?

    The state is making this unfortunate woman a target for those Zimmerman haters who already issued death threats against others associated with the defense.

    Parent

    They've all moved (none / 0) (#113)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:13:08 PM EST
    The address the state is publishing is stale anyway.  Not only has Shellie relocated, so have her parents.

    Florida is quite hostile to the Zimmerman family.  If my name was Zimmerman, and I lived in Florida, I might move to another state just because the taint of George is nearly radioactive.

    Parent

    Not Shellie's address (none / 0) (#114)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:15:45 PM EST
    It is the address of a possible donor. Corey is punishing this woman for donating to Zimmerman's defense.

    Parent
    Mighty proud of herself, it appears (none / 0) (#116)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:31:04 PM EST
    Ohhh, I should have realized that the name on the check to Zimmerman, was somebody other than Zimmerman.  Duh.

    [Disparaging remark about Corey self-censored]

    Parent

    Sounds like a laugh? (none / 0) (#97)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:29:39 PM EST
    are you sure you did not hear what 'sounds like' a racial slur as well? Better drag out those expert analysts again!

    Orlando Sentinel (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 07:16:57 AM EST
    describes it as a "chortle". As in " 'Well, I have my hoodie', he chortled"

    Ah, the media, making their own judgement calls again.

    Parent

    Redbrow, you are... (none / 0) (#101)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:39:59 PM EST
    ...fabulous!

    Don't ever shave!

    Parent

    Yep - no "experts" needed for ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 08:24:55 AM EST
    ... this one - just two ears.

    Parent
    well looks like (none / 0) (#106)
    by spectator on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:52:48 PM EST
     a whole lotta nothing, next.

    Nothing but (none / 0) (#107)
    by Dilbert By Day on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 08:58:21 PM EST
    unrelenting nines.

    Parent
    Number nine, number nine, number nine (none / 0) (#109)
    by cboldt on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:06:56 PM EST
    The point of the $10,000 threshold is to trigger scrutiny.  Looks to me that either that trigger worked, or something else is in play to cause close scrutiny.

    Now, once the scrutiny is in place, the government is able to make allegations of criminal activity relating to the funds.  Usually, this is in the form of ill-gotten funds.  Drug sales, theft and fencing, extortion, skimming, etc.

    In this case, from what I understand, therealgeorgezimmerman website almost certainly ran afoul of Florida Statute 496.413 Contributions solicited for or accepted on behalf of a named individual.  Corey ought to get right on that.  Violation is a third degree felony.

    Parent

    Paypal transactions are limited (none / 0) (#112)
    by Redbrow on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:12:23 PM EST
    to up to $10,000 in a single transaction.
    see my post up thread for the link to paypal.

    Parent
    10k limit Doesn't Apply to credit union xfers (none / 0) (#117)
    by willisnewton on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:33:11 PM EST
    It may be that ken was limited in amounts he could move from pay Pal account to GZs credit union account but those are not Shellie's actions.  

    She was tasked with moving funds from one credit union account to others at the same institution.  

    Parent

    I'm not sure that was a joke or a laugh (none / 0) (#118)
    by unitron on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:35 PM EST
    Sounded more like a cough or accidentally banging the phone against something, and the hoodie remark comes in the context of talking about getting out of jail and away from public view without getting shot.

    Earlier, he even shows interest in bulletproof vests all around, not just for him but the others who'll be there as well, including O'Mara.

    I agree the 'hoodie comment' (none / 0) (#138)
    by Tamta on Tue Jun 19, 2012 at 11:52:18 PM EST
    was in the context of escaping detection for the purpose of protection, as Shellie said before "You could just get down on the floor".

    Parent
    A joke (none / 0) (#149)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:09:05 PM EST
    in bad taste and a reference to the profiling accusations which I assume are annoying GZ.. His apology was similar in that it referred to the mantras of certain people. "TM was 17 and unarmed."

    Parent
    transcripts and bank records (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:51:53 PM EST
    I've uploaded the transcripts and bank records, they are in a new post here.

    Ken is the brother in law (none / 0) (#147)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 12:06:01 PM EST
    and O'Mara was talking to Ken? Did O'Mara know more about the money than he cared to admit?

    O'Mara Releases 6 Jail Calls, Seeks Reconsideration For Remainder | 151 comments (151 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment