Zimmerman's charged with perjury

[Bricker]

@Peanut_Gallery

IANAL… but from the linked article:

“Does your client get to sit there like a potted plant and lead the court down the primrose path? That’s the issue,” (Judge) Lester said in revoking Zimmerman’s bond. “He can’t sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond based upon those material falsehoods.”

Seems damaging, especially coming from the judge. But it has been suggested by others here that perhaps this can’t come up in his murder trial. I don’t know one way or the other there. Also, I’ll note that this was about his bond, and not his wife’s perjury, but as a layman, to me they all seem very much connected. I’ve no idea whether this obvious deceit can be legally connected in court, but it should be IMO.

It’s very damaging with respect to the prospects for a future bond. At the first bond hearing, I thought the judge was extremely reasonable in setting a bond amount that was serious but not impossible. Now he feels lied to, and that’s going to hurt Zimmerman’s next bond hearing.

But it’s utterly inadmissible at his trial. It might be admissible after a verdict of guilty for sentencing purposes, but it has absolutely no bearing on his innocence or guilt of the charge of second degree murder.

Neither, by the way, do his prior arrests.

[rat_avatar]

@doorhinge

Was this response supposed to be directed at moi?

It was not directly at you,

I was just clarifying I have made no claim as to if the prosecution is correct in their actions.

I have made no claim as to such and I have had an issue with a few posters taking pot shots at me recently.

FYI the federal law does not involve taxes, it involves avoiding reporting rules but those reports are used not just for taxes but to detect money laundering etc…

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Marley23

OK, so it’s perjury, but it’s not important perjury. This is not really generating a lot of sympathy from me.
He went into hiding for several weeks after the shooting, and even his lawyers said they couldn’t find him for a while.

Not to mention that he has family in Peru and, according to his brother, speaks Spanish.

[Bricker]

@rat_avatar

FYI In United States v. Jaime Ruiz-Estrella the defendant was charged with structuring for wire transfers.

Yes.

Here’s what happened in that case. Ruiz-Estrella sought to send $6,000 to Mexico. He knew that there was an automatic reporting done by the banks for wire transfers of more than $3,000 (see 31 C.F.R. § 103.33(f)), so he sent three $2,000 wire transfers.

In doing that, he violated 31 USC § 5324(c)(3):

@31 USC § 5324

(c) International Monetary Instrument Transactions.— No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5316—
(1) fail to file a report required by section 5316, or cause or attempt to cause a person to fail to file such a report;
(2) file or cause or attempt to cause a person to file a report required under section 5316 that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any importation or exportation of monetary instruments.

This is a separate charge from anything involving domestic wire transfers.

He was also charge with drug manufacturing and transport, and entered a plea of guilty.

According to this story:

@Miami Herald

From April 16 to 19, Shellie Zimmerman transferred $74,400 from George Zimmerman’s account to her own in small chunks: She transferred just under $10,000 six times and $7,500 twice.

On the 16th, she twice withdrew $9,000 cash from her own account and later discussed with her husband taking what she “put in the box.”

George Zimmerman felt safer if his wife used gift cards instead of cash and asked her to pay off their American Express and Sam’s Club cards, according to prosecutors.

On April 16 and 17, another $47,000 was transferred from Zimmerman’s account to his sister’s bank account.

Since the reporting requirement imposed upon banks for wire transfers is $3,000 (see, again, 31 C.F.R. § 103.33(f)), none of the transactions mentioned in that story would qualify – so she could not be structuring to avoid them.

However, the reporting requirement for cash is $10,000. If she did in fact withdraw $9,000 twice in two days, that seems like a good candidate for an allegation that she was avoiding the cash withdrawal reporting requirement, which is a crime under 31 USC § 5324(a)(3).

[Ravenman]

@Iggy

Asking about “major assets” is a stupid question. "Major"is subject to interpretation. House? Stocks? Bonds? Get specific.

Are you kidding me? Is your next suggestion that the witness could not give full answers to the questions until counsel explained what the meaning of “is” is?

[Bricker]

@Ravenman

Are you kidding me? Is your next suggestion that the witness could not give full answers to the questions until counsel explained what the meaning of “is” is?

It will be interesting to see the people that insisted Clinton did not commit perjury reconcile their views with this case.

It’s obvious to me that Clinton committed perjury and its obvious to me that Shellie Zimmerman committed perjury.

[TriPolar]

@Bricker

It will be interesting to see the people that insisted Clinton did not commit perjury reconcile their views with this case.

It’s obvious to me that Clinton committed perjury and its obvious to me that Shellie Zimmerman committed perjury.

Want to point out where Clinton did not use the most commonly accepted and first listed definition of ‘is’? Also, do you have some sort of court case showing where Clinton was convicted of perjury? Lacking that, I’d say it’s obvious he didn’t commit perjury. (That last part is only because you’re a lawyer. We all know he intended to deceive.)

[rat_avatar]

@Bricker

Yes.

Here’s what happened in that case. Ruiz-Estrella sought to send $6,000 to Mexico. He knew that there was an automatic reporting done by the banks for wire transfers of more than $3,000 (see 31 C.F.R. § 103.33(f)), so he sent three $2,000 wire transfers.

In doing that, he violated 31 USC § 5324(c)(3):

This is a separate charge from anything involving domestic wire transfers.

He was also charge with drug manufacturing and transport, and entered a plea of guilty.

According to this story:

Since the reporting requirement imposed upon banks for wire transfers is $3,000 (see, again, 31 C.F.R. § 103.33(f)), none of the transactions mentioned in that story would qualify – so she could not be structuring to avoid them.

However, the reporting requirement for cash is $10,000. If she did in fact withdraw $9,000 twice in two days, that seems like a good candidate for an allegation that she was avoiding the cash withdrawal reporting requirement, which is a crime under 31 USC § 5324(a)(3).

I guess most of this would depend on how they view local bank transfers between unconnected accounts.

But really it would be letter of the law, as you pointed out and I pointed out above I doubt it will be a federal charge.

I would hate to be the AUSA who tries to push this past a grand jury.

[Bricker]

@TriPolar

Want to point out where Clinton did not use the most commonly accepted and first listed definition of ‘is’? Also, do you have some sort of court case showing where Clinton was convicted of perjury? Lacking that, I’d say it’s obvious he didn’t commit perjury. (That last part is only because you’re a lawyer. We all know he intended to deceive.)

Then, of course, if a conviction is necessary, Shellie Zimmerman also did not commit perjury.

See my point? There’s no reasonable standard you can create for perjury that captures Shellie and excludes Bill.

[TriPolar]

@Bricker

Then, of course, if a conviction is necessary, Shellie Zimmerman also did not commit perjury.

See my point? There’s no reasonable standard you can create for perjury that captures Shellie and excludes Bill.

That hasn’t been settled yet, and I’m not a lawyer, I get to use the vernacular. You are held to a higher standard. (That’s just a gratuitous jab at a lawyer, no real argument here)

[Ravenman]

I have a question on the nature of sworn testimony over here, if folks with legal expertise could shed some light for me. I didn’t want to derail this thread.

[Cheshire_Human]

@DigitalC

I don’t understand this “she lied for her spouse” stuff. She lied for the money, not for George.

She could have done both, you know.

[PatriotX]

@jtgain

I’m not familiar enough with bond hearings to answer that. I do know that there is enough wiggle room that those aren’t really “assets” of the Zimmermans. They can’t be used to gamble away in Vegas.

They used them to pay household bills and the money IS earmarked to cover Z’s debts incurred with his case. Bond would definitely fall into the category of a debt incurred as a result of his predicament.
Even GZ himself is quoted as saying [by the prosecutor no less] that is what the money is for.

@jtgain

Does anyone seriously think this isn’t to intimidate George?

Does anyone seriously think this could have happened without SZ’s decisions and actions?

[rat_avatar]

OK according to this:

http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/shelliecapias.pdf

She did “withdraw,” thus a cash instrument, $18,000 twice in amounts of $9000 and also transferred money to family members, if this is true this is clearly structuring.

I don’t see how she thought this would help the case.

[Cheshire_Human]

@rat_avatar

I don’t see how she thought this would help the case.

She didn’t think it would help the case, that’s why she hid it. She (wrongly) thought it would help her and George, personally, financially. That’s why she actually did it.

[Iggy]

Re: major assets

@Ravenman

Are you kidding me? Is your next suggestion that the witness could not give full answers to the questions until counsel explained what the meaning of “is” is?

Not at all. But be careful what you ask for. You just might get it. I’m just very picky about asking the right question.
I teach 9-1-1 dispatchers call-taking skills. A huge portion of that is to instill in them the need to ask questions in a timely manner to get at the actual information that is needed.

Situation: Caller reports a worker fell off a roof at a construction site.

Good question: What is the address? A. It’s 1234 Main St
Stupid question: Do you know the address? A. Yes.

Good question: How is the patient’s breathing? A. He’s not breathing at all.
Stupid question: Do you know if the patient is breathing? A. Yes.

It still amazes me how often people who have no intention to deceive will answer those sorts of stupid questions with “yes” and nothing more. :smack: Stupid questions waste time and may give the call taker a false impression about what is going on.

I am not a lawyer, but what should the lawyers have asked Shellie Z., IMHO?

Good question: What means do you, your spouse, family, or friends have to raise funds for bail?

Leave it open ended. A lawyer could probably do better. (and perhaps asking what means family and friends have would be asking for hearsay?)

That said, she was asked sufficiently open ended questions according to the transcript. She did have an obligation to respond truthfully. Looks to me like she didn’t.

[Bricker]

@rat_avatar

OK according to this:

http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/shelliecapias.pdf

She did “withdraw,” thus a cash instrument, $18,000 twice in amounts of $9000 and also transferred money to family members, if this is true this is clearly structuring.

I don’t see how she thought this would help the case.

The transferring money to family members is completely legal.

But yes, the withdrawal of $18,000 as two $9,000 transactions is a good candidate for structuring.

Which is exactly what I said above:

@Bricker

However, the reporting requirement for cash is $10,000. If she did in fact withdraw $9,000 twice in two days, that seems like a good candidate for an allegation that she was avoiding the cash withdrawal reporting requirement, which is a crime under 31 USC § 5324(a)(3).

[you_with_the_face]

I’m wondering where the Zimmerman’s have acquired all this nefarious financial know-how from. I can’t possibly be the only one here who is just learning that structuring is a thing.

Anyone else think the former Virginia magistrate has been schooling his son and daughter-in-law on how to get one over on the gubment? Not that the State can prove it, but I think the whole family is in this together. Zimmerman and his wife didn’t come up with this plan themselves (okay, maybe the “code” was their idea).

[TriPolar]

@you_with_the_face

I’m wondering where the Zimmerman’s have acquired all this nefarious financial know-how from. I can’t possibly be the only one here who is just learning that structuring is a thing.

Anyone else think the former Virginia magistrate has been schooling his son and daughter-in-law on how to get one over on the gubment? Not that the State can prove it, but I think the whole family is in this together. Zimmerman and his wife didn’t come up with this plan themselves (okay, maybe the “code” was their idea).

The $10,000 reporting requirement is fairly well known. I don’t think they need to know about the structuring law to violate it once they know about the limit. Or someone told them, or they saw it on the internet. Doesn’t seem like it requires a criminal mastermind to help them.

[Kearsen]

@Bricker

Has that happened?

In a sense yes, if the perjury happened that was ‘normally’ let slide but isn’t let slide in this case then they have essentially tied the two together.