This series of articles begins my coverage of the Shellie Zimmerman prosecution for perjury. To understand that prosecution, you must understand the background of the charge. To that end, you absolutely must read Update 10 (They Did What?) and particularly Update 12 (Perjury And–Perjury?) if you have not done so already. Those two updates explain the factual basis–or as in the prosecution of George Zimmerman, the lack of factual basis–for the charge.
I’ll keep this article very brief so you have the time to read Updates 10 and 12. As you do, keep in mind these essential factors:
(1) Shellie’s arrest was probably the result of an after-the-fact perjury trap. I suspect the prosecutors, only after Shellie’s testimony, essentially said, “hey! We can make it look like she lied and use her as leverage against George!” It’s possible this was a planned perjury trap from the beginning, but I tend to accord the prosecution less credit for intelligence now that I know them better.
(2) As with the affidavit in George’s case, the affidavit for perjury has no probable cause. As you read it and my commentary in Update 12–and read the actual affidavit–ask this question: Where is the specific false statement made by Shellie Zimmerman, a provably false statement she believed to be false as she made it? These are two essential elements of the offense, neither of which is satisfied (nor is the requirement that the alleged false statement–which is never identified–be material and relating to objective fact). Update 12 explains Florida’s perjury statute in detail.
As always, thanks for reading, and I’ll follow with an article to bring you up to date with this aspect of the case very soon.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Dear Mike McDaniel:
Thank you so very much for having followed and written about the case from the start and putting in facts that are not based on lies.
Without truth seekers and others of like minds joining together… George might had a far different result. Actually “joining together” is a misnomer. We come from many different countries and were motivated almost exclusively by our searches for truth. Money, power and politics were not on our menus.
Thanks again for being visible enough for us to find you.
So now, the State has an intriguing but simple issue to handle. How can they blow this one? /sarc
Dear Jordan2222:
You’re very kind. It was my pleasure.
How can they blow this one? The same way they blew the first one: press charges without evidence.
Reblogged this on A world at war.
A sensible judge would tell the prosecution that it would be in their best interests to quietly withdraw these charges against Shellie Zimmerman. Unfortunately, in this case, the prosecutors probably now see this as a way to exact some revenge on George Zimmerman for the embarrassment they suffered in his criminal trial, and the judge (is it Nelson?) will probably allow it to continue.
Dear ackbarsays:
The judge in this case–it is not Nelson–has already denied a defense motion to dismiss. The prosecutors are arrogant true believers, incapable of embarrassment or shame. More to come soon.
IIRC, that was based entirely on the question of jurisdiction; namely, that Shellie was not included in the Executive Order that authorized Corey’s office to press charges against Shellie, and that the EO was strictly limited to the homicide investigation.
In the interim, Governor Scott extended the EO, and added Shellie’s perjury prosecution to its scope. Of course, there’s still a jurisdictional question, since the EO extension was not done lawfully. (Special jurisdiction EOs require approval of SCOFLA in order to extend beyond their original term.)
In any case, as far as I know, Shellie’s counsel has not yet moved for dismissal based on a lack of charges?
The charges in this case are almost as obscene as the charges against GZ. She offered to get her brother-in-law on the phone after they asked her how much money was in the account (paraphrase) at this moment. Talk about an open-ended question… Even the answer ‘no’ is an honest answer.
If she had said $82,000 and there was $82,425 in the account would they have charged her with perjury? (probably so, I fear) Can anyone say how much money is in a checking account ‘at this moment’? I guess it depends on which checks have cleared ‘at this moment’. Shameful prosecution!
Rachel and the TradeParents need to ‘enjoy’ perjury charges! And soon!
I agree with you that no matter what answer Seliie gave, it would not have been correct. The fact that the judge, and BDLR weren’t interested in talking to the Brother in law during that trial is telling. BDLR did say something like at this time, currently, or something like that.
I remember that on the day of the bond hearing the donations were coming in rapidly. There was also a friend that had a donation site set up for George. There were also some bogus sites set up.
If someone has access to the CNN feed of the hearing that day, BDlr walked over to O’Mara when the hearing was ended, and he asked O’Mara about the paypal account’s. I believe he did say paypal accounts. O’Mara replied that he had not gotten a chance to look into the paypal issue at that time.
I have no doubt that Corey’s office had access to the paypal account, and they were watching what amounts were being recorded on a continuing basis. As a state attorney’s office, in the process of investigating criminal charges against GZ would have been enough to give them access to the paypal account so they could monitor it. Corey’s office was hopeful that they could break the Zimmerman bank accounts so that he had no money to defend himself. The prosecutors tried to break GZ all along, right up until the end. Crump was incensed that so many people were donating to GZ’s defense and living costs, and the prosecution was sitting right there paraying for these sweet sweet parents. They forced the defense to spend unnecessary money while hiding behind the facade that they were not going to do the defense’s job. Even when much of that information should have been turned over as exculpatory evidence. One example, look at the W8 interview delays. Ha, the judge was purposely not available, no doubt.
Bottom line, they will do their damnest to hang her, since they missed on the George, thanks for the update!
testing again.
Looks like my comments are disappearing
Dear Jordan2222:
I did delete the “testing” comment, but no others. If they’re not getting through, I’ve no idea why not; they’re not in the spam filter. Just keep trying!
Thanks, Mike, I am fine now but I remember making two that did not make it… no big deal..
Mike wrote: I suspect the prosecutors, only after Shellie’s testimony, essentially said, “hey! We can make it look like she lied and use her as leverage against George!” It’s possible this was a planned perjury trap from the beginning, but I tend to accord the prosecution less credit for intelligence now that I know them better.
IIRC, Mike, it was Judge Lester’s idea. At the next hearing, as I recall (which may well have been the hearing when he raised GZ’s bond sky-high), he made a comment to the persecution along the lines of “I’m surprised you haven’t charged her with perjury.” And sure enough, soon afterwards, they did.
What the persecutors lacked in intelligence (which is plenty), they more than made up for in vindictiveness.