If the judge just asked about "income" and both Florida and US tax code exclude gifts from income, then there is a colorable argument that excluding what he received from donations as a response to a question about income is not a knowing misstatement of material fact. The tax codes are the most accessible and well known definition of income. Gifts have been excluded from federal income since the income tax was first imposed nearly a century ago. I find it hard to believe that a judge needs to "have a complete knowledge of of the tax code" to know of that exclusion. Most individual taxpayers with incomes above the median know that. I would consider any law student that hasn't learned that by the end of 2L to be ill trained. If he lied about assets derived from gifts under oath, which is what I assume happened, then that's another kettle of fish. My question more precisely is to ask whether it's your contention that not volunteering information not asked supports a charge of perjury?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"
- Thread starter Kutnupe14
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
If the judge just asked about "income" and both Florida and US tax code exclude gifts from income, then there is a colorable argument that excluding what he received from donations as a response to a question about income is not a knowing misstatement of material fact. The tax codes are the most accessible and well known definition of income. Gifts have been excluded from federal income since the income tax was first imposed nearly a century ago. I find it hard to believe that a judge needs to "have a complete knowledge of of the tax code" to know of that exclusion. Most individual taxpayers with incomes above the median know that. I would consider any law student that hasn't learned that by the end of 2L to be ill trained. If he lied about assets derived from gifts under oath, which is what I assume happened, then that's another kettle of fish. My question more precisely is to ask whether it's your contention that not volunteering information not asked supports a charge of perjury?
No, not volunteering information not asked would not be perjury, but I do believe that excluding gifts from "income" in the context of a bond hearing would toe the line of not truthfully answering the question.
A bond hearing has nothing to do with taxable income, it has nothing to do with with the definitions in the federal code, it has nothing to do with the IRS and it has nothing to do with with the artificial distinction between a gift and taxable income.
In every one of the hundreds of bond hearings I've done, it had everything to do with how much money from any source you have coming in on average and how many assets you have. It has nothing to do with the source of those assets or their taxable nature. Many judges consider SSDI, food stamps etc, to be income and specifically inquire about them although they certainly are not taxable.
Bond and taxation have nothing to do with each other and I don't see any rational basis for a person to think he can incorporated the artificial tax definition into a bond hearing and not get dinged for it.
Best,
Joe
A bond hearing has nothing to do with taxable income, it has nothing to do with with the definitions in the federal code, it has nothing to do with the IRS and it has nothing to do with with the artificial distinction between a gift and taxable income.
In every one of the hundreds of bond hearings I've done, it had everything to do with how much money from any source you have coming in on average and how many assets you have. It has nothing to do with the source of those assets or their taxable nature. Many judges consider SSDI, food stamps etc, to be income and specifically inquire about them although they certainly are not taxable.
Bond and taxation have nothing to do with each other and I don't see any rational basis for a person to think he can incorporated the artificial tax definition into a bond hearing and not get dinged for it.
Best,
Joe
There is a very real connection, the tax code definition is the one of which most people are aware. In the cases you've been involved with, did the judge leave it up to the defendant to intuit what he was asking or did he explain what he was asking regarding income? From my experience you have to ask most parties very specific questions before you get specific answers or admissions. Either way, the broad general statement that I responded to before you jumped into it is incorrect in almost every context.
Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
terrehautian
Master
I guess if the bail part doesn't keep him out of jail, bring up more fake charges.
Those molestation accusations seem bogus.
On the molestations- : "It started when I was 6, he's about 2 years older than I am."
I've got a hard time believing that an 8 year old was getting sexual gratification by molesting a 6 year old.
"The woman also recounted incidents when she was 13 or 14 years old in the interview with investigators and said she went to see Zimmerman alone when she was 16 years old."
So now we have a 16 year old girl meeting an 18 year old man alone? Supposedly this man who is only 2 years older than her has been molesting her for the duration of her life. Why would she go meet him alone. Oh yeah, and she informs the investigators that Zimmerman hates black people...
This is a joke and her story doesn't even make sense. This "victim" is probably just looking for attention. Maybe Zimmerman even broke up with her at one point...
On the molestations- : "It started when I was 6, he's about 2 years older than I am."
I've got a hard time believing that an 8 year old was getting sexual gratification by molesting a 6 year old.
"The woman also recounted incidents when she was 13 or 14 years old in the interview with investigators and said she went to see Zimmerman alone when she was 16 years old."
So now we have a 16 year old girl meeting an 18 year old man alone? Supposedly this man who is only 2 years older than her has been molesting her for the duration of her life. Why would she go meet him alone. Oh yeah, and she informs the investigators that Zimmerman hates black people...
This is a joke and her story doesn't even make sense. This "victim" is probably just looking for attention. Maybe Zimmerman even broke up with her at one point...
Still another case where "the serious nature of the charges" 'proves' guilt all by itself.
I'm curious how all you who wanted to claim that the unproven allegations that Trayvon "might" have possessed possibly stolen jewelry and may have been involved with marijuana bolstered their case feel about this?
I am also in awe of all you experts that feel that you can determine the truth or falsehood of molest allegations based on news reports. I have no idea if it is true or not, but at least I can admit that.
Do people who want their 15 minutes normally go by "Witness 9"?
I find it curious that this person is claiming to be fame-seeking when she has not publicly come forward and solely made the report to LE who are barred by law from releasing her name.
Remaining anonymous for months (she was interviewed March 20) and through the present totally sounds like a publicity whore to me. I mean waiting for FOIA requests to cause your name-redacted police report to become public is obviously more effective at fame-gathering than say, a press conference?
Joe
Last edited:
04DarkShadowGT
Master
I dont know she was molested or the truth about the shooting. The only difference is Zimmerman has a reason to lie. It could keep him out of jail if his story is really not what happened. On the other hand, what exactly is the lady going to gain? Certainly ot going to be fame, being raped by a nobody really isnt movie script material. Is she going to sue him? For what? His defense fund? He isnt wealthy, just a middle class guy with huge legal bills coming. Good luck collecting anything from him.
I will accept your assurances that she will not be peddling her story at a later point to the news media or a book.
I will also accept your assurances that the charge that he touched a 6 yo girl's pee pee when he was 8 is relevant and material to the charge that he hunted Trayvon down and killed him, being your a lawyer and I am just an ignorant citizen.
So in the state of Florida, if you go make a statement to the police accusing someone of wrongdoing, that statement is public record for FOIA dissemination? Is this true of most states? It seems like there is a butt-ton of information coming out on this case, more than you usually hear of. I don't know what public interest it serves or how it helps an innocent-until-guilty man get a fair trial.
I have to say I'm kind of surprised that you are putting these "assurances" in my mouth when nothing of the kind has ever come from it.
You made the (unsupported) claim she was seeking fame, I simply said her conduct to date was not consistent with that. On its face, her actions in no way support your claim. Unlike others here, I don't claim to know what happened much less what will happen in the future...
I defy you to show me where I in any way said anything like your above claim that this molest allegation is material to the shooting case. Why do you think you get to impute that to me when I never said anything of the sort?
If anything, my point in the above post was A CAUTION against using unproven alleged prior conduct BY EITHER PARTY to try and bolster arguments about an unrelated event.
I also defy you to show me where I ever claimed you or anyone else was "just an ignorant citizen".
In fact, I'm hard pressed to believe you even really read my above post.
Joe
Srsly? You cold have little income but have a million dollar estate. The idle rich. Andrew Luster anyone? A court should ask about assets, not income. That would be stupid.
But he still has to pay, right?
Zimmerman says he's sorry Trayvon Martin's family had to bury their child; family calls apology insincere | Fox News
At about the 4 minute mark the lawyer totally dodges the self defense question.
At about the 4 minute mark the lawyer totally dodges the self defense question.
- Status
Site Supporter
Members online
- tjones
- 12many
- 1775usmarine
- KLB
- mwg
- bogus
- gds
- cobber
- BeDome
- Haven
- 04FXSTS
- doddg
- DoggyDaddy
- yetti462
- bgeis1990
- daddyusmaximus
- Sniper 79
- MCgrease08
- cstoltie
- INPatriot
- loudgroove
- GregoryRomeu
- oze
- 63PGP
- kotaoz
- 223 Gunner
- efd1295
- maxipum
- Grim714
- Lirpa8mm
- Creedmoor
- ISP 5353
- knutty
- indyblue
- printcraft
- snorko
- 92FSTech
- Guns&engines
- Steel and wood
- alc1985
- 85Cosmo
- kwood
- Plumbous
- phylodog
- Doug28450
- dmeadlo
- Butch627
- jwamplerusa
- 55fairlane
- Grogmister