i thought his laywer had it..

Mark O'Mara tells a story about how he got the passport in a fed ex from his client after his client was out on bond, and after he had turned in the old, non valid passport to the court. O'Mara has offered the court as proof a fed ex receipt and a copy of a time stamp from a word processing program that he claims shows that he wrote a letter to the court where he meant to tiurn in the passport, but failed to send in the passport or notify the court of it's existence. He claims he wrote the letter and "forgot" to send it.

Of course, the fed ex could have contained anything, and the time stamp was a case of him investigating himself. He knows his credibility is at issue, and has nothing real to offer to back up his story except his own investigative work, which of course proves nothing. The fact that he is offering a time stamp clearly means he knows his credibility is compromised seriously here.

Either he is telling the truth and the court has to take his word for it, or else he is covering for his client who stands to raise a million dollars or more before the trial is over. I tend to want to believe him, but there is simply no proof.

Did his client hide things from him regarding the money? It would certainly appear so. Did his client hide things from him regarding the hidden valid passport? It would certainly appear they did at first, when they gave him the old, invalid passport - and we cannot yet know if they continued to hide the valid passport from him by any independent means of proof.

Alternative: Our client is not a liar. It's just that the truth made him look guilty.

Alternative: Our client is not a fool. He just has lousy legal representation.

Of course, my post is just a joke -- a parody if you will.

There are people I know who don't make $30k annually - shit, i'm one of 'em. And the neat thing is, we didn't murder anyone.

$20,000 tax-free divided by 3 months = $6666 per month for "living expenses"

McDonald's, Burger King, Jack In The Box or any other McJob, $7.25 per hour, 40 hours a week, average 4 weeks in a month, minus 35% bite from Uncle Sam: $754 per month for "living expenses"

Where the fuck did Zimmerman go into hiding...DUBAI?

$30,000.00 to go into hiding? $6666.00/month to stay in hiding? Bull Shit!!

"Wasn't intended as a factual statement"

The defense would like to claim that there was "only" $135k hidden from the court but that's not including the $20K slush fund, or the 5K they gave to the bondsman which they did not declare as an asset, either. The $204k they raised minus that amount leaves $44k they spent somehow in a short time. This was their money to do with as they please, but the assets they possessed at the time of the bond hearing is what the court and the prosecution has issue with.

The prosecution has proof in the form of recorded jail conversations that GZ directed SZ to move $135k from his credit union account to her credit union account. They don't have proof of what money went into a Pay Pal account that GZ controlled - not yet they don't. They also don't have any proof of the $20K "liquid" slush fund. But they had enough proof to get his bond revoked, and there will be a hearing on the 29th of June where al of this will be discussed further, I believe. I doubt the topic of a new bnd for george will get much attention at this hearing - he still has quite a bit to clear up with the judge, who compared him to "a potted plant" that stood by while his wife lied to the court at the first bond hearing.

The full amount of money hidden from the court has not yet been established to the court, but there is more information in the public realm that can be proven in court at this time.

Then of course there is the issue of the still vakid passport hidden form the court - admittedly by the family AND by the lawyer for the defendant. This is a serious issue as well and so far we don't have closure on that issue, either.

The hearing on the 29th was scheduled BEFORE the defense made a motion for a new bond hearing. My guess is that this hearing is going to be about clearing up the issues, not setting a new bond amount.