Author Topic: Motion to Disqualify Lester  (Read 30244 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kyreth

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #90 on: August 23, 2012, 03:45:06 PM »
The State responded to the objection to the subpoena; haven't seen anything about the State responding to the Writ of Prohibition though, and that was due almost an hour ago.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #91 on: August 23, 2012, 05:48:55 PM »
It may not be posted until tomorrow. When O'Mara filed his writ, he said something about the court having to accept it and he wouldn't publish it until that happened, which was the next day.

The court doesn't go to full electronic filing until Sept. 1. Here is its August, 2012 order on filings. So it seems the clerk's office has to "process" the document during business hours before docketing it and if they submitted it this afternoon, that could take until tomorrow.  This is just a guess, but I think we won't see it at the court's website until tomorrow.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #92 on: August 24, 2012, 09:59:56 AM »
The state's response and an Appendix are showing on the docket but they haven't posted the actual filings on their website yet.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #93 on: August 24, 2012, 02:49:06 PM »
From an Aug. 24 article in the Orlando Sentinel:

Quote
But in the same order, Koller pointed out, Lester ruled in Zimmerman's favor, granting his request to be released on bail.

A judge who does that, Koller wrote, has not provided clear evidence that he is biased or will be unfair to the defendant in the future.

Only because he determined that State v. Paul gave him no choice. He clearly expressed his distaste at being forced to do so.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #94 on: August 24, 2012, 03:56:47 PM »
Response is on a media website.  It's here.

Offline AghastInFL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #95 on: August 24, 2012, 04:59:13 PM »
Response is on a media website.  It's here.
p.19 False assertion:
Petitioner’s primary complaints are with the trial
court’s findings in the order granting bond that he manipulated the
system and demonstrated a disregard for the system. Of course, this
finding was made after it was established that Petitioner and his
wife knew they had received donations of more than $200,000.00 from
a website prior to the first bond hearing
, and that they had moved
the money from Petitioner’s account to his wife’s account before
the hearing and then back to Petitioner’s account after the bond
hearing.

p. 5 of the states own document:
According to the credit union statements, on April 19, 2012,
Shellie Zimmerman’s account reflected over $135,000.00
(Appendix D,
Page 7).

Someone buy the State of Florida a new calculator or an abacus.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 05:03:16 PM by AghastInFL »

Offline AghastInFL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #96 on: August 24, 2012, 06:34:13 PM »
<snip>
p. 5 of the states own document:
According to the credit union statements, on April 19, 2012,
Shellie Zimmerman’s account reflected over $135,000.00
(Appendix D,
Page 7).

Someone buy the State of Florida a new calculator or an abacus.
I have to add to this, three days prior to that April 19th date they had appx. $80,000 and one week prior to that date they had $370.45... which was borrowed money.
The State of Florida built its entire monetary argument on a bank statement which was not printed until eleven days after the first bond hearing.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #97 on: August 24, 2012, 06:47:43 PM »
Page 20:
Quote
Petitioner also asserts that the court continues to “hold over” Petitioner the possibility of contempt proceedings. (Pet. Appex. Pages 12-13). However, examination of the court’s order indicates that Petitioner has taken this reference out of context; the court’s reference to its declination to exercise contempt powers comes directly after a discussion of the Third District Court of Appeal’s opinion in State Washington, 37 Fla. L. Weekly D1535 (Fla. 3d DCA June 27, 2012), wherein the list of potential remedies of bond conditions, which include “the arrest and commitment of a defendant. . . harsher conditions of pretrial release. . . increase the amount of bond. . . pretrial detention. . . [or] direct or indirect criminal contempt.” Id. (Pet. Appendix Page 350). Immediately after quoting this language from Washington, the trial court discussed each alternative including, but not limited to, the possibility of contempt proceedings. Id. The socalled “threat,” if there was one, was contained in the language taken verbatim from Washington.

That's not really so. On page 5, after quoting from Paul, not Washington, Judge Lester says:
Quote
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. Further action by this Court, therefore, is limited to his already-effected arrest, the subsequent release on new bond conditions and the possibility of future contempt proceedings.

(My emphasis) I guess Zimmerman can relax, given this expression of the court's "disinclination to exercise [its] contempt powers."
« Last Edit: August 24, 2012, 06:54:31 PM by MJW »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #98 on: August 24, 2012, 11:46:14 PM »
I guess Zimmerman can relax, given this expression of the court's "disinclination to exercise [its] contempt powers."

"Declination" not "disinclination." I blame spell-check. I'm not sure it's to blame, but it's not here to defend itself.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #99 on: August 25, 2012, 01:48:38 AM »
I blame spell-check. I'm not sure it's to blame, but it's not here to defend itself.

It may be tried in absentia. The Supreme Court still refuses to acknowledge the constitutional rights of software.


Offline who007

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #100 on: August 25, 2012, 05:28:28 AM »
I have to add to this, three days prior to that April 19th date they had appx. $80,000 and one week prior to that date they had $370.45... which was borrowed money.
The State of Florida built its entire monetary argument on a bank statement which was not printed until eleven days after the first bond hearing.
The first bond hearing was April 20.

Offline who007

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #101 on: August 25, 2012, 05:39:43 AM »
p.19 False assertion:
Petitioner’s primary complaints are with the trial
court’s findings in the order granting bond that he manipulated the
system and demonstrated a disregard for the system. Of course, this
finding was made after it was established that Petitioner and his
wife knew they had received donations of more than $200,000.00 from
a website prior to the first bond hearing
, and that they had moved
the money from Petitioner’s account to his wife’s account before
the hearing and then back to Petitioner’s account after the bond
hearing.

p. 5 of the states own document:
According to the credit union statements, on April 19, 2012,
Shellie Zimmerman’s account reflected over $135,000.00
(Appendix D,
Page 7).

Someone buy the State of Florida a new calculator or an abacus.
Why would you say that?

Offline AghastInFL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #102 on: August 25, 2012, 08:38:19 AM »
The first bond hearing was April 20.
I understand fully the date, the State cited the balance at the close of the day 4/19 in the balance of their argument that was the total amount available to the Zimmerman's on the date of the bond hearing.

Quote
Why would you say that?
because $135,000 does not equal over $200,000. The State has misrepresented the funds available several times BDLR did so in summary argument and here in both the argument and introduction of the Staes response to the Writ.
The Zimmermans did not have over 200K available to them on the date of the first bond hearing as the State suggests. The State proves that fact in the body of their own document as I showed in my cite.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #103 on: August 25, 2012, 07:43:10 PM »
Receive donations over $200,000, spend some, have $135.000 left over.

Doesn't mean the the perjury charges against her don't smell of setup, though.

Offline who007

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #104 on: August 26, 2012, 08:24:19 AM »
I understand fully the date, the State cited the balance at the close of the day 4/19 in the balance of their argument that was the total amount available to the Zimmerman's on the date of the bond hearing.

That's not what you said. 

Here is what you said:

"The State of Florida built its entire monetary argument on a bank statement which was not printed until eleven days after the first bond hearing."

That is incorrect.

Quote
because $135,000 does not equal over $200,000. The State has misrepresented the funds available several times BDLR did so in summary argument and here in both the argument and introduction of the Staes response to the Writ.
The Zimmermans did not have over 200K available to them on the date of the first bond hearing as the State suggests. The State proves that fact in the body of their own document as I showed in my cite.
It appears you may be unfamiliar with the fact O'Mara himself said over 200,000 was there. He admitted it, and noted GZ knew it was there.  This came after the first bond hearing on the 20th, and before the subsequent media hearing on the 27th, where O was forced to relay that bit of tragic news to the judge.

O also said $50,000 of that $200,000+ raised had already been used for "security and living arrangements." (and as we found out later, to pay off debts, swish money around between accounts and
give the wife now charged with perjury some big fat pockets of walking-around money.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking