I thought playing hardball was what wins votes in places where the DA is elected. Being unfair and using charges against family members is just par for the course for most DA offices, I suppose. The legal system is stacked in the police state’s favor.
Did you complain about it when the defendant was less to your liking in the past? Well, it can hardly be surprising that when you or someone you like draws the attention of the system that you find it harsh. Thousands of petty hoods, drug dealers and car thieves all found it harsh before. Nobody cared then.
Wait am I reading correctly that Zimmerman attempted to have himself declared indigent?(AKA eligible for a public defender).
If so no wonder they went after her, the rules on that are harsh.(you’d basically have to be actually homeless to qualify) The DA probably couldn’t believe his ears.
Yeah, part of why I was interested in transcripts of the proceedings rather than a news report summary. News reports I read prior to making my posts were focusing on the website money and talked about them talking in code about money. But details? Meh.
Asking about “major assets” is a stupid question. "Major"is subject to interpretation. House? Stocks? Bonds? Get specific. Or just leave it at assets - more of a catch-all. Now, seeing a fuller transcript I see that O’Mara was asking the questions in the earlier part and the prosecutor in the later part.
I figured the prosecutor asked a stupid question and got the answer he deserved.
[aside] I was once on the witness stand when a lawyer asked me “Iggy, do you own a 1955 Mitsubishi Mirage.”
Simple answer. “No.”
He had a conniption. We spent the next few minutes with him getting pretty red faced and hostile, asking increasingly leading questions.
I finally asked the judge to have the court reporter read back the question. The lawyer then asked the right question. “Iggy do you own a 1995 Mitsubishi Mirage?”
Simple answer. “Yes.”
The model year of my vehicle wasn’t the point at issue, but he asked a stupid question and was putting on the whole “It’s a yes or no question” routine so he wouldn’t listen to his own mistake.[/aside]
Because public defenders are actually quite good at their jobs. In order to get close to someone with that level of expertise in the criminal justice field, they’d likely have to hire an extremely expensive private attorney.
As far as why they think they would get away with this is another question.
She lied, deliberately, under oath. And it was clearly in her own self interest since the money in question was joint property. Is there a topic to debate here?
No. This money was a gift to Zimmerman. No federal tax. Probably no FLA state tax, either. If I was foolish enough to just hand you money or send you a Christmas present - would you owe taxes on it?
If someone “gifted” (aka gave money to) $10,000 or more TO Zimmerman, only the donor would have to deal with any “gift tax”.
If Zimmerman had “won” the money, he would have to pay taxes on it.
If Zimmerman “earned” the money, he would owe taxes.
If Zimmerman recieved the money as part of his “doing business” or “conducting his trade”, he would be required to file form 8300.
*Who must file Form 8300?
Any persons who receive more than $10,000 in one transaction or a series of related transactions, while conducting their trade or business, must file a Form 8300. *
This judge isn’t concerned with the Zimmerman’s future tax liability. This judge is only concerned with whether FLA taxpayers will be paying for the Zimmerman’s future room and board.
I’m not a lawyer, but my thought was that if he was involved in lying about his finances in order to keep his bail down, get out of prison more easily, or something of that nature, it’ll hurt his credibility at trial. If that’s not the case because this issue is inadmissible at his trial or the court doesn’t believe he’s involved, then I guess it would not hurt his defense.
That’s not clear. I presume she lied to keep his bail down and make it easier for him to get out of prison.
Again, we don’t know exactly what happened because of the scant details. However, I found several articles stating that Zimmerman’s wife transferred close to $50,000 to the sister. If those were true gifts, than up to 13k (IIRC) is federally non-taxable as a gift per anum, but that doesn’t mean that it’s also non-reportable. There’s a difference between non-taxable and non-reportable. If you see a bunch of transactions for $9990 that’s a huge red flag that the person is trying the reporting requirement, which where she could face federal charges.
While gifts are not really income in the usual sense, there are still reporting requirements (and potential tax consequences requirements) for both the donor and recipient. That was the point, and it’s not helpful to use a single word response that doesn’t clarify the situation at all.
The “No.” response was to “gifts are income and thus are taxed by the feds”. No, gifts are not income and no, they are not “thus taxed by the feds”. So “No.” was the proper response.
There are no reporting requirements for the recipient of a cash gift. None. If someone gives you $10,000,000 you do not have to report it to the IRS. There are no “potential tax consequences requirements” (whatever that means). So the answer is “No.”.
“No” was “a” response but the one you just gave was a complete and proper response, which was my point (so thanks for giving a complete and proper response there). Just saying “no” isn’t enlightening, helpful, or useful.
Even that is not true. Over $13K, the amount that is over is subtracted from your lifetime gift exclusion ($5.2M I think). Only if you go over the lifetime exclusion sum in your overages will you owe tax on the gift.
I don’t understand what you’re asking here. The point of allowing a defendant to be bailed out of jail is that the defendant is giving up a significant amount of money as a guarantee he’ll show up for trial. Shellie Zimmerman said they basically had no money, and that was taken into account when the court determined George Zimmerman’s bail. The prosecution asked for bail to be set at $1 million; based in part on Shellie Zimmerman’s testimony, it was set at $150,000. The idea as I understand it is that if you lie about your financial standing or say you’re broke when you aren’t, the bail payment is less and maybe you decide you’re willing to give up the money and flee. (I’m not saying that’s what the Zimmermans were doing, just that that’s the principle.) Now he’s back in jail and may not get bail again, and if he does, it’ll be a greater amount that more accurately reflects the money they have.