You should ask Sundance
I would not presume to speak for him nor explain his position.


George won... so as it turned out you could say MOM did a good job. However, WEST was at least a big part of that, and there WERE some shortcoming from MOM... in particular since this thread Topic is Shellie's Alleged perjury.... as noted, MOM was involved with the whole PayPal/Passport debacle and as such may well be somebody that Shellie's lawyer, Kelly B Sims, references

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Had MOM gone after the persecution in the same manner they went about destroying George, the ensuing crap would have been nipped in the bud early on. I include West in that as well. I liked West, and felt MOM did do a good job of getting George aquitted, but more should have been done to counter the lies vomitted daily by the persecution. It should have been a full blown war there, rather than the scheme team (including cupcake & fruit) having the run of the propaganda factory. In fact, it should be that way now! Maybe if they had done more to expose the scheme (loudly), then the charges against Shellie would have already been dropped.

You may very well have a valid point there. I always did think the defense team was too soft on those who were persecuting the Zimmermans, not only the prosecution team, but the whole scheme team, especially the Martins. Yes, perhaps not everything has been brought forth to the light yet. (I can't wait till it is!)

Seeing-eye,
But will it ever be brought to light? I have serious doubts at this point. I mean, the time for doing something was a while back. RZjr shouldn't have to be the only one telling it like it is. If they had intentions of bringing any of it into the light, why not do it when the hounds were at the gate?? I wish I had your optimism. I did at one time, but most of it is gone now. Maybe Beasly will do something, idk.

All of that is irrelevant with respect to perjury charges against Shellie.



Of course, there's no actual "blame" to divert, because Shellie didn't perjure herself.

She said that she didn't know how much money was in the PayPal account. With respect to a charge of perjury, the State must show that she lied about an objective, material fact. The "fact" would be "how much money, exactly, was in the PayPal account at the moment BDLR asked Shellie the question". That question would be inherently difficult to prove that any response was perjurous, because account balances can change many times in a given day. But moreso than that, Shellie did not have control of or access to that account, so she would have no reasonable expectation to know its balance.

Further, to prove perjury, the State has to prove that the statement was intended to deceive (I'm paraphrasing) - but Shellie told BDLR the exact person who could divulge the balance of the PayPal account, and offered to attempt to get him on the call.

Telling someone, "I don't know the answer to your question, but here's the person who can answer it" are obviously not attempting to deceive regarding the answer to the underlying question.

There's no perjury here. Period. The State can't prove that Shellie knew the account balance at the moment she answered the question, and the State can't prove that Shellie was attempting to lie.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Before I even start catching up in this thread:

Hiya, Chip! Nice to cyber-see you!

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Hi, Chip. Thanks. I value your opinion. I hope the prosecution doesn't lie and obfuscate to get what they want. Or, maybe, I should say, hope they don't get away with it because I am sure they will do that. Or, maybe they will settle out of court, drop the case, or whatever. Or, is that being too optimistic?

Well done, Chip. I agree - there is no perjury. The attempt was just another of the very dirty, unethical, arrows in the state's quiver.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Hiya, auscitizenmom!

You seem to have a great understanding of the prosecutors.

I'll not be surprised if the case is dropped. Given how petty and vindictive that crew has proven to be, I'll also not be surprised if it goes to trial. It's not like it costs them anything; taxpayers foot the bill; their reputations are already in tatters in the eyes of anyone who paid attention to the GZ case, including the Trayborg™; and apparently their job security isn't affected by their malfeasance.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Mornin' liesel.

Likewise!

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

There's nothing that lying or obfuscating can do to help them. (To the extent that they used lying and obfuscation - i.e. the charging document - those antics will probably be actionable at some level. Their selective quoting of the bond hearing transcript was used as an obvious attempt to earn a fraudulent arrest.

There's nothing that lying or obfuscating can do to help them at trial.

Refer to Fl. St. 837.02:


The State has to prove 4 things:

1) Accused made a false statement
2) False statement regarded a material matter
3) Accused believed statement to be untrue
4) Accused made the statement in an official proceeding

We can concede #4, because the allegation regards statements made during George Zimmerman's bond hearing. That leaves the other three.

The State has to prove that Shellie made a demonstrably false statement about a material matter. Under case law, that false statement must involve an objective fact, and not a matter of opinion, interpretation, or speculation.

The only material, objective fact is the amount of money in the PayPal account. So the State will have to prove:

1) That Shellie knew the exact amount in the PayPal account at the time that she said that she did not know the amount.
2) That Shellie believed that she did know the exact amount

Now, bear in mind that the material matter here is the amount of money in the PayPal account, not Shellie's knowledge of the amount of money in the PayPal account. Whether Shellie knew the amount of money in that account or not is immaterial to the court's determination of George Zimmerman's financial ability to make bond.

Shellie said that she did not know the amount in the account, but stated that Robert Zimmerman, Jr. administered the account, and that he could provide the account balance. Thus, the claim that Shellie intended to deceive regarding the amount of money in the account is simply specious.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Hi Chip.

No argument... Shellie did not commit perjury.

Never-the-less we have a pending trial (perhaps) and that will involve the goings on at the first bond hearing. Shellie's replies to questions about the Paypal account are in the context of advise from MOM.

I do hope sanity prevails and this case never gets as far as a trial... thrown out at next week's Status Conference.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Chip! I have been wondering about you. I hope all is well with you and your family.

All the big-name celebrities post at Random Topics

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Chip, I wouldn't even concede that she made a material statement. Her testimony had nothing to do with the guilt/innocence determination of the underlying case, and GZ was ultimately acquitted. She made no statement about the PayPal balance other than she didn't know it. To my mind, there is no material statement alleged.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Doing well, thanks. Just insanely busy. Work takes up a lot of time as usual, so I'm mostly in a "monitor and respond when needed" mode.

Getting ready to start first grade with our oldest (her curriculum just arrived this week, and she's chomping at the bit to get started). Heading down to Kentucky Saturday to send some lead downrange. Finally taking a vacation to the Smokies next month - but I'll probably be leaving straight from there for a business trip to NC. So, pretty much life as usual!

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

That question is probably above my pay grade. I would think that the financial state of the defendant is "material" for purposes of a bond hearing, and thus lying under oath about that financial state would constitute perjury; but I'm not a lawyer.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

I understand your point - I think we all agree there was no perjury. Maybe my argument, made for the purpose of discussion, would be better understood if you view it in the context of not only GZ's acquittal, but his entitlement to protection from prosecution. While that doesn't apply to Shelly directly, if GZ applies for and is granted immunity, could she have committed perjury in a case that shouldn't have been brought?

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

The perjury assertion against Shelly seems pretty thin. The problem is that once the prosecution apparatus swings into gear, it is difficult to get them to back off. Institutionally, there is an inclination to take the battle to the end rather than concede a mistake in the original charging.