Lester: No Judge to Rush

I could be wrong, but I do think it’s rather revealing that Judge Lester has taken his good old-time deciding whether or not he’ll step down from the bench. Granted, he’s been on vacation, but Zimmerman’s recusal motion was filed on July 13, well over two weeks ago, and as far as I’m concerned, the accused hasn’t had enough time to get nervous yet. He still thinks he’s the boss. Now, if I were in charge, I’d make him wait the full 30 days that’s allowed under the law before rendering a decision. Really rattle him. Then, I’d drop the bomb — that the judge has decided to remain on the case.

I’m not saying this because I expect Lester to be personally biased against the defendant. No, that’s hardly the reason. I just don’t think it’s right that George should get his way this time, like he’s been used to most of his life. Throw a tantrum. After all, he’s the one who lied to the court by ordering his wife to hide the truth. That means that he’s responsible for his wife facing a perjury charge. Now, he blames the court for it.

Even his attorney, Mark O’Mara, said his client lost his credibility. Soon after Zimmerman’s bond was revoked, he told Charlie Rose on CBS This Morning, “Judge Lester gave us all a very strong signal that he and he alone will run the courtroom and that everyone is going to tell the truth. So I’m certain that not only the Zimmerman family but all other witnesses that come before Judge Lester had better tell the truth and nothing but the truth if they’re going to be treated fairly.”

He readily accepted the judge’s fairness. Treat me right, I’ll treat you right.

According to a USA Today report, O’Mara said, “He [Zimmerman] should have jumped up and said she is lying. He should have done something, and he didn’t.”

I could go on and on with remarks made by Zimmerman’s own defense, but the fact remains, he lied and that’s all there is to it. O’Mara acknowledged that it would take a lot of work to regain the judge’s trust, and he admitted it was a huge mistake. He expected the judge to have a strong opinion. Rightfully so! This is nothing new, and it leads me to believe that, had the more prudent O’Mara prevailed, he would have worked out the messy kinks because he knows how much the judge and most in the legal field admire his honesty and professionalism. I believe the motion to recuse was Zimmerman’s idea, and his alone; just like taking command of his Website again. Not to mention his parents’.

Here’s the deal, in my opinion. Judge Kenneth Lester will “Stand His Ground” and remain seated. Why? Because Florida and federal law is on his side, and I don’t think he will relinquish anything to a punk, whether it’s “appealing” or not. He doesn’t strike me as a quitter.

According to The Law of Judicial Disqualification or Recusal, Florida Rules of Disqualification: Rule 2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges, Zimmerman’s defense cites:

(d) Grounds. — A motion to disqualify shall show:

(1) that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge; or

(2) that the judge before whom the case is pending, or some person related to said judge by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, is a party thereto or is interested in the result thereof, or that said judge is related to an attorney or counselor of record in the cause by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or that said judge is a material witness for or against one of the parties to the cause.

I can clearly understand the first motion to recuse against Judge Reckseidler based on (d)(2), but will the motion against Lester stand on the merits of (d)(1)? On his motion against Lester, Zimmerman added:

(f) Determination — Successive Motions. — The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion.

This means if the judge denies the defense request, no explanation is to be given. A simple “NO” will suffice. End of story. Time to move on.

As I wrote in my first article, Why Judge Lester Will Refuse to Recuse, a defendant cannot simply lie to a judge and get away with it. If a judge cannot respond without showing any kind of opinion regarding said lie, what’s the court to do? Evidence proved Zimmerman lied and the judge responded with disdain. Lying in court is against the law, and if all a person has to do is lie to the judge to get him/her recused for voicing concern, it would be anarchy in the courtroom. This would mean that every time a judge cries, “May God have mercy on your soul” after a death sentence is pronounced, the defendant should get the case thrown out of court. Not guilty on a technicality. The judge voiced his opinion on the verdict and a personal belief in religion. Separation of church and state!

Now, we come to a matter of law. Let’s quickly examine Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code, Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge. The most important part of this section is that in order to warrant a recusal, the judge’s expressions of opinion about the merits of the case must have originated outside the case.

Held: Required recusal under §455(a) is subject to the limitation that has come to be known as the “extrajudicial source” doctrine [or factor]. Pp. 3-16.

The general rule is that a judge should be disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding…” This pertains to a prior opinion, and that would mean Judge Lester would have to have had an interest in the case before it was assigned to him. Surely he heard about it in the news? That’s not relevant. (See: Liteky v. United States (92-6921), 510 U.S. 540 (1994).) Under Liteky, the judge is expected to form opinions based on what is presented during the proceedings, not before. Remember that a judge formulates an order based on case law, and each side presents its own case law examples. Such is the situation regarding this recusal motion and the state’s very own response.

If we go back to the Casey Anthony v. State of Florida case, we saw multitudes of examples where Judge Perry admonished Jose Baez. If ever there was a situation that appeared to be biased and prejudiced, that was the one. Had Ms. Anthony been convicted, would it have been overturned on appeal based on the less than cordial interaction between Perry and Baez? I seriously doubt it, and do you want to know why? Because, in the end, the defendant was found not guilty of murder. The End. If the judge showed any bias or prejudice toward the defendant or any of her attorneys, the jury failed to notice. Why? Because the system worked and it will work again.

Judge Lester is tenacious. He has no reason to relinquish the bench. He saw right through George Zimmerman from Day 1 and he will see him right through to the end. That’s my judgement. That’s my opinion.

Comments

[SnoopySleuth]

Dave~~thanks for a great post. I just wish that my pea brain could understand all the legal mumbo jumbo especially the (d)(1) and the (d)(2). I read it twice but nothing stuck to the gray matter. Richard Hornsby thinks it will be treated as a first motion to disqualify. I guess we will have to wait and see.

I hate to think that O'Mara is allowing himself to be George's puppet but at $400 per hour, it does put the meat and taters on the table and pay for an extension on one's business enterprise. Maybe it is just wishful thinking but I still envison Mark pulling out of this case especially since Robert and Gladys opened up their website soliciting funds. We all know where those funds will be going. Surely O'Mara did not give that site his blessings but who knows? The talk around town is that no one is making donations at Mark's website. Robert aka George laid on the sympathy quite well and it looks like they may hit the jackpot. A thousand here and there soon adds up. Some have even rec'd nice thank-you notes from Robert for their generosity. I heard all this while hanging around the water cooler. *wink

As per Judge Lester, I don't know why he would want to stay on this case or any judge for that matter. Regardless of the outcome of a trial, it ain't gonna be pretty. Judge Eaton would be perfect for this case as I doubt if he is too worried about being reelected since he did come out of retirement to take on a few cases.

I have a gut feeling that Judge Lester will make his decision this week and give a sigh of relief when he signs his response.

[Better late than never... been a little under the weather... again.

I would hope, that at $400/hour, O'Mara's doing more than being a puppet. One never knows, but I don't think he will look good if he continues on this weak path and his client loses. Heck, Baez looked bad throughout the case and ended up a winner, but that was a completely different type of situation. The only thing they have in common is that they're both high profile. I wonder if he hasn't just resolved it with himself and shrugs, "Oh well, it won't hurt to try." Why else the lack of response from him?

I don't agree with what Zimmerman is doing by exploiting his parents and the general public, but he's certainly within his rights to try every trick in the book. Eventually, the money well will run dry and then what? Will Zimmerman open sites in Peru and Germany? The world's his oyster.

As for judge's hanging in, I don't know if it's their call. I mean, he was on the rotation and the case is his. If he thinks it's getting problematic, he may step down, but not because he wants to quit. Judges do this for a living. If he's used to handling criminal cases, this is no big deal, but if it looks, overall, like a serious reason for appeal later on - and only if convicted - then he'll go. I don't think it reaches that level at all, and I think he'll stay on. Just my opinion, but I'm trying to base it on case law.]

[SnoopySleuth]

Dave~~I just reread your post and lo and behold my brain (yes I have one, surprise! surprise!) kicked into high gear. Okay here goes...

Now I understand why they have a (d)(1) and a (d)(2)... As the defense, I have one strike at the judge if I want him disqualified. Of course, I have to have a legitimate reason.

If I find at the beginning that the judge handling my case is related to my client or one of the attorneys, why should I, as the defense, be penalized if I file a motion to have the judge disqualified? Isn't it generally the defense who is obligated to file said motion? You seldom, if ever, hear of the state trying to get a judge recused. Can a judge withdraw from a case on their own without a motion being filed by the defense?

So there you go, Mark O'Mara filed a motion citing section (d)(2) so his second motion exempts him from it being considered a second motion because he cited section (d)(1).... his first motion to disqualify a judge.

Do I go to the head of the class or what? lol

[Very good, Snoopy, and you can go to the head of the class. The first recusal motion was a sensible thing to do. Yes, the judge could have stepped down right from the start, before a defense motion was filed, and she could have turned the defense down. But she didn't, and it would have been problematic later on.

In Judge Lester's case, it's a different situation. Judges are allowed to opine and scold. The judge decides on all sorts of motions. If the judge rules one way and not the other, is it not a legal opinion? If judges are only supposed to remain neutral, how can he/she decide in favor of the defense or state; plaintiff or defendant, on matters of motions? The fact remains, the Zimmermans are big, fat liars and the judge called them on it. That's a fact. In the situation we have now, where the defense filed a motion against this judge, too, the judge can do either of two things - step down or remain. The only thing that I can see that would almost force him to leave would be if he had some sort of experience with this defendant during a prior case, where the possibility of prejudice existed before he took THIS case on. Other than that, judges have a tremendous amount of leeway when they issue their orders. In this case, Zimmerman deserved it. If you scold one child, do you care less about that child? No, you make your point and move on. That's all that's going on here, too, and the SYG motion will be based on evidence, not prejudice. Lester is a fair judge.]

[Newbie]

Huh?

[I'd say read the second paragraph of my response to Snoopy's second comment, Newbie. That may be what you're looking for.]

[Tootie]

Most people have lost interest in this case....it has stalled for too long.

[Some people, for sure, and I'll agree with that, but most people? I don't think so. It's a matter of which way you look at it:

Most people agree that Barack Obama will be reelected president in November.

or

Most people agree that Mitt Romney will be elected president in November.

I guess it depends on what your meaning of the word "most" is.]

[nan11]

Dave: Well, I can most certainly accept your 'judgement and opinion.' I really do hope it goes as you suggest. However, I do hope we find out soon--one way or the other.

It seems to me that it has become a 'boys in the backroom' decision on an attempt to judge shop. I'm sure if the judge 'agrees' to step down, he will have no problem finding 'law' to support his decision. (And vise versa.)

Just a little aside here--from where I sat, Judge Perry bent every rule in favor of the defense--in spite of his constant admonishments, and attempts to teach Baez the act of lawyering. I do believe you have hit the nail on the head when you say: quote: "If ever there was a situation that appeared to be biased and prejudiced, that was the one." end quote. Except--I saw his reason for doing this as to prevent an appeal.

Really, Dave, it was the judge that allowed Baez to spin his yarn about molestation. (Remember, there was not one shred of evidence to back that up.) It was the judge that allowed Baez to 'court' the jury everyday with the 'good morning smiles' and any other way the defense could think up.

I believe the judge never dreamed the jury would find the murderess innocent; therefore, he allowed all the utter foolishness that the defense threw out there--worrying instead about appeal issues. (lol--The appeals never came because the Pinellas twelve deemed a murderess to be innocent.)

I do believe that had the murderess been properly found guilty there would have been an appeal. Why? Because of the 'chloroform' debacle. My bullpoop opinion only--the state didn't need the chloroform; they had the duct tape.

Personally, I'm hoping the system not only works this time--I'm hoping to see it back on track.

Thank you for post, Dave. It is always a pleasure to read here.

[We'll find out by Aug. 3 at the latest, nan11. I guess we could look at it either way. Had the judge decided to leave, it would have been a simple good bye, and he would have allowed the new judg to step in by now. Or, he's been busy exploring case law that would support his desire to stay on the case. If that's his choice, he's under no obligation to explain his decision. Actually, whatever he decides, a simple answer is all it will take. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that, as time goes on, he's planning on hanging in there. Or he would have ended it by now. Just my opinion, though.

Had Casey's defense not shot its wad on Judge Strickland, they would have gone after Judge Perry, but they couldn't. The bottom line then was like today in one sense. Despite the fact that the cdefense could not have filed a recusal motion with Perry, that doesn't mean they couldn't have filed appeal motions later on, had she been convicted, based on some of the judge's pro-state rulings and public repremands of Jose Baez. By saying pr0-state, I don't mean it that way. They just didn't go the way of the defense, and that's the way the defense would have worded everything. It's the same thing here. The defense doesn't like the judge's decision to raise the bond to $1,000,000. Not only that, but the judge had the "audacity" to explain WHY he raised it so high by noting such things as being a flight risk, despite the phone calls noting the tucked away passport and luggage. The couple lied and what would stop them from lying again and again had they not been caught the first time?

Anyway, back to Baez. Perry didn't necessarily "allow" him to spin his tale about molestation. He was allowed to say whatever he wanted in his opening statement - because it's allowed, but the jdge would not let him establish any of it during the trial. No evidence would have been admitted. Baez was free to say Casey's father was from Mars, but by that point, all evidence was in and nothing new would have been allowed.

Thank you, nan11, I'm honored that you find it a pleasure to read here.]

[SnoopySleuth]

Jeff Weiner@JeffWeinerOS

Courts spokeswoman just said she expects a ruling from #GeorgeZimmerman's judge "sometime this week" on whether he'll stay on the case

[I can't wait, one way or the other, but if Zimmerman expects to pick his own judge, he can kiss O.H. Eaton's bench good bye. What audacity. To think he has that much power.]

[nan11]

Dave: I see a fair amount of interest in this case. It's a little bit slow right now--maybe because of the Olympics and everything. After all, there are just so many hours in everyone's day.

I hope you keep following it, though.

WESH - Zimmerman judge to make ruling on recusal request
Sub-Heading: City to discuss permanent memorial | UPDATED 4:14 PM EDT Jul 30, 2012
Quote: In his order, Lester expressed concerned that Zimmerman might be hatching a plan to flee the country to avoid prosecution, something Zimmerman's defense strongly denies. End Quote

Well, they may strongly deny it; but there is zero reason to wonder where the ’concern’ might have come from:

1. Passport discussion:
Page 5 of transcript | Date: 2012/4/17 | Time: 11:27:26
ZIMMERMAN: I think my passport’s in that bag.
SHELLIE: Oh, really. Well, I have one in a safety deposit box.
ZIMMERMAN: Okay, you hold onto them.

2. New luggage discussion:
Page 11 of same link:
SHELLIE: I'm gonna get you one [suitcase]so that you can be mobile at any time.
ZIMMERMAN: Okay.
SHELLIE: Because even though your stuff is where you want it to be, you know, at any time you might not need to be, might need to be somewhere else.
ZIMMERMAN: (Inaudible) Well, I suggest Sam’s Club or like.
SHELLIE: That’s what we’re, that’s what we’re doing
ZIMMERMAN: Yeah. Or like TJMaxx or something.

3. Shellie cries as she tells George she is ‘thinking’ she may never see her Grandma again.
Call 111 (near beginning)
George: Why are you sad?
Shellie: I just said bye to my grandma.
George: Oh. Okay. {snipped} You know you can invite them up whenever you want.
Shellie: I know, but I couldn’t help but think it may have been the last time I ever saw my grandma.
George: Well you can come down whenever you want to, honey.

And I’m sure there is more. Those are just a few I came across.

[Oh, I'm not going to stop writing about it, nan. And thank you very much for the info regarding the passport and the luggage. Proof that the judge had to worry about it.]

[nan11]

Dave: I came across this call (linked below), and I thought about your post. Zimmerman is ‘warning’ Shellie to ‘be smart’ about her meeting with O’Mara.

Quote from your 6th paragraph: I believe the motion to recuse was Zimmerman’s idea, and his alone; just like taking command of his Website again.” End Quote

This guy is full of many not so brainy ideas, it seems. I’m guessing that Mr. O’Mara would try to discourage him, but that doesn’t mean George listens. But if so, Mr. O’Mara must be rather unhappy. jmo

I’m also wondering how many pots are boiling? Iykwim. For example—Mr. Zimmerman’s family seem to be very willing to ‘help’. As the old saying goes: ’Too many cooks spoil the broth.’ Maybe some of the ideas are not George’s alone.

One more thing--concerning this short phrase of yours, also in the 6th paragraph: ”Not to mention his parents’.” Since George’s original attorneys had worked to get a website set up in Mr. Zimmerman, Sr.’s name—I wonder if he [Mr. Zimmerman, Sr.] was instrumental in that decision, and always felt it would be better.

Maybe George threw the little hissy fit--ditching one set of lawyers and gettin a new set--because he didn’t want Daddy in charge of his ‘finances’. (Having Daddy in charge of the finances via one donation site might have been the best idea, though.)

Mr. O’Mara might be stuck in the middle of all this; trying to please all sides. (Hoping they will tire themselves out before trial, maybe?)

Call 28 (mid-way through)
George: ...ummm, just be smart about meeting O’Mara.
Shellie: ..Where?
George: No. I said just be smart about it.
Shellie: Yeah. Yeah.
George: Don’t say a word...
Shellie: Yeah. That is what I am doing.
George: Okay.
Shellie: I had to make a decision—and immediately I heard your voice in my head. You saying just to be safe.
George: Yes.
Shellie: That is what it is for.
George: Okay.
Shellie: And that is the way I made my decision.
George: Okay. Good.
Shellie: Mmmhumm.
George: Good. Good. Good.
Shellie: ‘Cause I’m not—I can’t risk anything just to save anything. You know.
George: Please don’t.
Shellie: So... {sigh}
George: Is my older sister going with you?
Shellie: Oh, of course. And so is our safety team, you know.
George: Okay. Good.
Shellie: Your fam...
George: Make sure that they don’t mix her up, though. Alright? Being [Unintelligible.]—you know, just let O’Mara talk.
Shellie: I won’t interrupt her.
George: No, no no. I mean our safety team.
Shellie: Oh, right. Yeah. Well, he is going to be pretty outnumbered anyway.
George: Yeah, and they...
Shellie: But, yeah. I know what you mean.
George: They can say what they want, but; ultimately, you know, it is your decision. So.
Shellie: Yeah. Well, it is good to have them there because sometimes I don’t understand what he is talking about.
George: Oh. Okay.
Shellie: So, it is good for it to be interpreted for me.
George: You ask whatever you need to ask. Write down notes.
Shellie: Mmmhum.
George: Okay. You are smart.
Shellie: Yeah. {sigh} I’m even thinking about maybe even recording it. I don’t know.
George: That is a good idea. That is what I did all the time—when I went to school.
Shellie: Yeah. I remember. Yep.

[I guess that means that, for sure, O'Mara is outnumbered by the Zimmerman family. I think he wants to remain on the team, but only in the form of legal consultant and court representative. As designated by the majority Zimmermans.]

[nan11]

Here are just a couple of things:

This is a 'fake' email that is apparently going around. The picture they show is not Trayvon.
A real photo of Trayvon Martin? Chain email makes false claim
Quote: The email accuses reporters of deceiving the public by suppressing this photo...{snipped} End Quote

And then there is this. I think he is getting what he deserves. In fact, I think 'outing' Witness 9 should be a criminal offense.
Blogger who outed ‘Witness 9’ in George Zimmerman unmasked">
Quote: The blogger who revealed the name, address, and photos of a cousin of George Zimmerman, the man charged with killing Trayvon Martin, has carefully guarded his own privacy. Known on the Internet only as “Sundance Cracker,” the anonymous blogger has posted potentially embarrassing personal information about several figures in the Martin case...{snipped} End Quote

[I think it's interesting that the guy who outed witness #9 has also been outed. Talk about the goose and gander thing. Huh... a red-necked gander got goosed. I hope it was by another gander.]

[nan11]

Here is another video by LLMPapa. It's very melancholy, though. I almost don't recommend it.

Trayvon's screams can be heard in the background--so, listen at the risk of heartbreak.

YouTube Video | Published on July 39, 2012 by LLMPapa | Did You Feel Anything, Zimmerma?

[SnoopySleuth]

Dave~~Judge Lester will make a ruling on the recusal by Friday, if not before.

Zimmerman judge to make ruling on recusal request

[SnoopySleuth]

Dave ~~in the following video at exactly 14 seconds, is that Trayvon's remains to the right covered in a yellow tarp? It is a bit away from the sidewalk.

Video

If they are T's remains, maybe you should delete this whole comment. You will understand why. TIA

[I don't think so, but I can't say. It's in the public eye, so it shall stay. Let people judge on their own.]

.

[SnoopySleuth]

Ms Newbie~~I just noticed your Huh? upthread. LOL Did I confuse you with all my new found knowledge of the legal mumbo jumbo? I just went back and read what I wrote and can't understand one bit of it. Sometimes I think in French and try and write in English.

Seriously, I think that Judge Lester will consider O'Mara's request to recuse as being the defense's first motion to disqualify a judge in this case and step down.

All my predictions have been wrong thus far. LOL

PS, I hope the temps are cooling off in your state. My daughter said the heat is unreal in Illinois. Stay cool!

[nan11]

Ah, I'm glad to get on your site, Dave. I must have been having a 'duh' moment earlier--I couldn't log in. (lol)

Anyway, here are a few things.
Mr. O’Mara says they are preparing a motion to this effect: (And makes a few other interesting statements.)
WESH – George Zimmerman wants out of Seminole County (VIDEO and write-up.)
Quote: George Zimmerman wants to change the terms of his probation that require him to live in Seminole County while he awaits trial. End Quote

Here is a nice interview that Trayvon’s mother did with The Grio: (I think it's fairly recent.)
VIDEO | The Grio: Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton shares early childhood memories of her son

[nan11]

These two links aren't as relevant to Trayvon's case as the WESH link, but they are interesting none-the-less.

Orlando Sentinel - George Zimmerman judge holds ‘stand your ground’ hearing in another murder case
Quote: The judge in the George Zimmerman case will hold a Stand Your Ground hearing Wednesday in the case of an Oviedo woman who says she shot her estranged husband while he was raping her. End Quote

Orlando Sentinel - Pastors gather in Sanford to pray for police department
Quote: Three dozen pastors from a variety of congregations in Sanford gathered outside the city’s police headquarters today to worship, pray and sing for more than an hour. End Quote

[SnoopySleuth]

Dave~~First off, I want to let you know that I will not be surprised if you disagree with me on what I am about to write. That seems to have been the norm during almost 4 years of our head butting blogging affair. ( not to mention the screaming matches behind the scenes)...lol I am not sure if we can put it down to the battle of the wits or , your favorite word, the twits.

I think Judge Kenneth B Lester, not only showed bias, but he acted as counsel to the state by letting them know they could file perjury charges against both Shellie and George Zimmerman. He accused GZ of being a flight risk. He also stated that he thought the state had a strong case. A three page Order would have sufficed instead of an eight page rant. This indicated to me that the Court did not write that Order but an angry judge who represents that court wrote it.

IMO, Judge Lester, in his Order should have stuck to the facts, those being that both Zimmerman and his spouse lied to the court about their finances, Shellie perjuring herself and George aiding and abetting her in trying to deceive the court. Judge Lester had every right to chide and scold Zimmerman over the deception and lying and leave it at that.

Let's think of a judge as a referee in a hockey game. They judge the game by rules (laws) in place on how the game is to be played properly. Break the rules and go to the penalty box or be expelled from the game. Now do you think that it would be proper for a referee to tell one of the team players how to skate down the blue line and score a goal. ( charge with perjury)? Do you think the referee should hollar over a boom speaker that the players on Team B look strong?

I guess you get my reason for saying...."Judge Lester must go."

[Well, if Lester is all that biased, I guess he contradicted himself by allowing bond for Zimmerman. By all accounts, he most assuredly should have left him in jail until trial. That's the logical thing, right?

I think it would be quite ironic that, if Lester does decide to step aside, the next judge revokes Zimmerman's bond if he files for indigence. No need to pay outside services to protect him. There's a very safe jail nearby.]

[SnoopySleuth]

Nan11~~thanks for the head up on Zimmerman wanting out of Seminole County. I predict his motion will be denied regardless of who the judge will be who hears it. I see the argument to be, if he cannot leave Seminole then we will have to declare him indigent because we can't afford security. I agree with Richard Hornsby in that all the security is not necessary. Sure, he will get death threats from some drugged up idiot now and then. I don't think anyone wants to see Zimmerman dead but would rather see him suffer in jail for a long time. JMO

[nan11]

CNN Transcript | PIERS MORGAN TONIGHT | Zimmerman Jailhouse Calls | Aired June 18, 2012 - 21:00 ET
Quote: O'MARA: Judge Lester put his neck out for George Zimmerman. There's no question about that. He let him out on bond, he allowed him to stay basically in secrecy. He allowed him some additional freedoms upon his release. And George and Shellie maybe didn't realize that that favor was coming. Didn't trust that it would come. They might have believed the state more and their attempt to keep him in. But certainly they have know affected George's ability to be free. We now know that the earliest he may be released is the 29th. So he'd spent a month in jail. And you're right, he may spend the rest of his time in jail if Judge Lester decides he can no longer trust him.

[Point well taken. If the judge was so prejudiced against Zimmerman, bond should have been denied. Period. Lester DID put his neck out for the ingrate.]

[SnoopySleuth]

Dave~~since denying bond cannot be considered punishment, Judge Lester did not have much other choice in not granting Z bail. By releasing Z, it was saving Seminole County tax dollars in having to house him in jail. These are just little things but end up being pluses when it comes to being reelected back to the bench.

The bondman rec'd his share of Z's defense fund and in turn has to pay the IRS on that income and in turn it goes back to the state of Florida...

If I lived in Seminole, I may even vote for Lester when his reelection rolls around, just for his saving ways.

Dave, you still haven't convinced me....Judge Lester must go!

[Taxes in Florida had absolutely nothing to do with Lester's decision to grant bond, wherever that one came from. In any event, explain why everyone was a'flitter over what the judge was going to do before his decision was rendered. You knew??? No one knew whether George was going to get it or not.

If you recall, I had said any new bond should be at least $1,000,000 (if at all) right after he went back in the slammer for lying. I said that because that's how terrible it was what George and his wife had done. Not even the tax collector.

What do you mean the judge had no choice but to grant bond? I definitely want to know what statute you're basing that assumption on because the fact remains, he could have kept Z in the slammer, no matter what you think of it. Punishment or not, that's no argument.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything because I know I will not. All I'm trying to do is explain my reasons why the judge should stay.

By the way, what do you know about Judge Alan Dickey? Are you aware that Seminole County has a 95% DUI conviction rate? There's some serious convictions going down in Seminole...]

[SnoopySleuth]

Dave ~~apparently I have got you all rattled. I heard different legal analysts say, while we awaited to see if Z would be granted bail, that denying bond could not be a punishment. You know very well that I cannot cite a law stating this so I am once again being backed into a corner. It seems like déja vu all over again.

Zimmerman had a right to be granted bond unless the court could prove that he was a danger to the public or himself, a flight risk and not show up at his next court appearance or he could not meet the financial conditions on what the bond was set at. Denying bond could not be punishment for perjury which was committed before the bond hearing. If he had committed this misdemeanor while on bond, then it would be a whole different ball game.

I am not trying to be a smarty pants here. I read the laws and every article I can get my hands on, including the following...

George Zimmerman Bail Set at $1 Million

Now, I just finished reading at the link you provided... I did not know anything about Judge Alan Dickey but I sure do now. I am unsure what the relevance is here re the DUI charges.

I am in the process of learning the laws in your State and I know I have a lot to learn and I take all this very serious. It is no secret that I am known to pun around but not when it comes to getting down to the facts of the case. You may also take note that I am not into name calling of the players involved in both sides of this case....that alone should prove something.

It is not an easy task when your judges are elected, your gun laws are something to be desired and when you throw in politics and racial issues... oh well...maybe I should get another passtime... but I am just too stubborn to pack it in now.

[Snoopy - You will find this interesting:

Article I, Section 14 of the Florida Constitution:

Pretrial release and detention.—Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions. If no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained.

Zimmerman's charge is punishable by life in prison due to the 3-strike rule with a firearm.

Granted, the State failed to prove that the Defendant may be held without bond, but from the above, you can clearly see it's not as simple as this one statement. Also, what your TalkLeft link failed to mention was the first part of the sentence. Here it is in its entirety, taken from Page 5 of Judge Lester's Order granting the second bond:

This Court has, thus far, declined to exercise its contempt powers and the State failed to prove that the Defendant may be held without bond.

You see, there are exceptions. The judge did not have to grant bond and there are two examples why. Don't give up the ship. There's still plenty to learn, but even O'Mara realized that Z could have been kept locked up.]

[SnoopySleuth]

Some of the things that come into my mailbox and I read... Re this next one... what about memorials for all of the other innocent victims who met violent deaths in Seminole County and surrounding counties?

Controversy sparks over Trayvon Martin memorial

And they come in non-stop... The total is getting bigger and bigger, they have been fired, resigned or just walked away...

Top Southern Baptist ethics official announces retirement, follows rebuke for racial remarks

I wont link all the things I read at the water cooler...