Zellner Tweets

[dexter75]

Cue the Accountant..

Here's my thoughts... Kathleen Zellner is a private attorney, she is being assisted by Tricia Bushnell who works with the Midwestern Innocence Project, IMO because she is local. KZ is not assisting the Innocence Project.

As for the donations.... if there are people out there trying to scam others, why shouldn't she clear it up and set the record straight? I think it would be almost irresponsible for her not to clear it up, especially if someone has "spoofed" her site with an added letter and people are being duped into donating on it (I have not seen the website, but read posts elsewhere about it).... again JMO .... I doubt a lawyer in KZ's position would risk misappropriating funds that has been or will be donated, and like dexter said... maybe an email to KZ would clear that up pretty quickly.

I have a feeling that costs for testing/experts will far exceed any donations, but I could be wrong.

I'm Canadian, so I'm not sure of the laws, but wouldn't any kind of fund like this have legal requirements to keep track of donations and how that money is being spent? Almost like a non-profit organization. Maybe one of our really smart accountants could answer that ;-)

 

[dexter75]

And in reference to the testing experts,

I do hope you are wrong. ( sorry, just this once, haha )

I hope the best experts have stepped up to help already =)

Here's my thoughts... Kathleen Zellner is a private attorney, she is being assisted by Tricia Bushnell who works with the Midwestern Innocence Project, IMO because she is local. KZ is not assisting the Innocence Project.

As for the donations.... if there are people out there trying to scam others, why shouldn't she clear it up and set the record straight? I think it would be almost irresponsible for her not to clear it up, especially if someone has "spoofed" her site with an added letter and people are being duped into donating on it (I have not seen the website, but read posts elsewhere about it).... again JMO .... I doubt a lawyer in KZ's position would risk misappropriating funds that has been or will be donated, and like dexter said... maybe an email to KZ would clear that up pretty quickly.

I have a feeling that costs for testing/experts will far exceed any donations, but I could be wrong.

I'm Canadian, so I'm not sure of the laws, but wouldn't any kind of fund like this have legal requirements to keep track of donations and how that money is being spent? Almost like a non-profit organization. Maybe one of our really smart accountants could answer that ;-)

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Here's my thoughts... Kathleen Zellner is a private attorney, she is being assisted by Tricia Bushnell who works with the Midwestern Innocence Project, IMO because she is local. KZ is not assisting the Innocence Project.

As for the donations.... if there are people out there trying to scam others, why shouldn't she clear it up and set the record straight? I think it would be almost irresponsible for her not to clear it up, especially if someone has "spoofed" her site with an added letter and people are being duped into donating on it (I have not seen the website, but read posts elsewhere about it).... again JMO .... I doubt a lawyer in KZ's position would risk misappropriating funds that has been or will be donated, and like dexter said... maybe an email to KZ would clear that up pretty quickly.

I have a feeling that costs for testing/experts will far exceed any donations, but I could be wrong.

I'm Canadian, so I'm not sure of the laws, but wouldn't any kind of fund like this have legal requirements to keep track of donations and how that money is being spent? Almost like a non-profit organization. Maybe one of our really smart accountants could answer that ;-)

Ok...here goes...IF the non-profit was set up as a non-profit then the non-profit has to account for all funds spent and have it publicly accessible for all to see. Not specific expenditures, line item by line item--but general categories, advertising, salaries, co-council, professional fees, etc. IF it is set up as a 501(c) 3, then the donations are tax deductible.

However, if the non-profit was NOT set up as a 501(c) 3, then the donations are NOT tax deductible and DO NOT have to be accounted for.

Hope that answers your questions.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Cue the Accountant..

Right on it Dex!

 

[missy1974]

And in reference to the testing experts,

I do hope you are wrong. ( sorry, just this once, haha )

I hope the best experts have stepped up to help already =)

I just meant that I doubt that the donations would even cover the full costs... unless of course those experts are working pro-bono too ;-)

And thanks BCA, absolutely did answer my question

 

[BigCityAccountant]

I just meant that I doubt that the donations would even cover the full costs... unless of course those experts are working pro-bono too ;-)

And thanks BCA, absolutely did answer my question

Most non-profits now a days have the report on their website. I went to Midwest Innocence Project and I could not find it. So, I typed it into Google and here you go. They operate on a very small budget considering the high cost of expert witnesses. Their 2013, 2012, and 2011 revenues were as follows: $490,324, $569,162, and $296,257, respectively.

Their operating expenses for the same years as mentioned above $369,362, $442,827, and $220,485.00. Funny, they don't show 2014, ( I think they need a new accountant..LOL) but their 2015 project revenues and expenses were $550,000 and $552,000 respectively.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Doesn't look like it will be tax deductible. It just states "Steven Avery Legal Defense Fund" it doesn't say it is a 501(c)3. I didn't expect it to be, but curious as to why it wasn't funneled through Midwest Innocence Project, so that it would be tax deductible. But, it states that it will be used "exclusively" for Mr. Avery's legal defense, which would make it for only 1 person--and not for the benefit of the community, in which case they wouldn't get 501(c) 3 approval.

 

[Limaes]

Casey Anthony is another example and she had NO money to her name either. Zellner is venturing into Jose Baez territory with her tweets. :moo:

Yes, forgot about her although I didn't follow that case closely.

Imo, every case should have gag orders to stop murder trials turning into circuses. There should never be a repeat of the OJ trial.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[HastingsChi]

I do appreciate those who have shared such great information about non-profits and disclosure.

To others, I once again ask:
Do you feel in the interest of ethics and transparency that Zellner, who is soliciting donations, should provide a full line item accounting of how the contributions were spent?

Considering the ethics issues that so many have raised regarding law enforcement and the prosecution; I'm absolutely shocked that anyone would be against such disclosures and transparency.

 

[missy1974]

I don't think anyone is saying there shouldn't be a full accounting of the donations received and expenses. I think what BCA has indicated is that there is no legal requirement for her to do so.... but it doesn't mean she won't. I would be interested in knowing if she will or won't provide some information at some point, but I don't know if we "know" that at the moment.

 

[ZOOL]

There is a sufficient Internal Revenue Service auditing for non-profits. I doubt that Zellner Law can side-track the many issues involved without incurring a deep audit of its current 2015 - 16 activities. But...then again, there are even presidential candidates in our capitalistic economy that have mastered just exactly how to do that. :gasp:

 

[BigCityAccountant]

There is a sufficient Internal Revenue Service auditing for non-profits. I doubt that Zellner Law can side-track the many issues involved without incurring a deep audit of its current 2015 - 16 activities. But...then again, there are even presidential candidates in our capitalistic economy that have mastered just exactly how to do that. :gasp:

But, it is not set up as a non-profit. It is just to donate, so there would be no oversight by the IRS. Unless, they have 501(c)3 status, then you can donate all you want and the receiver of the donation does not have to account for it to anyone. When in fact they have obtained 501(c)3 status--then yes--there is oversight. But that is not the case here--they don't have 501(c) 3 status.

The donation cannot be deducted for tax purposes by the donor either. Only qualified charities 501(c) 3 donations qualify for a tax deduction. That is not the case with the Avery donation. So be careful when you donate--not all donations are tax deductible. Find out first if they are a 501(c)3. :noooo:

 

[HastingsChi]

but, it is not set up as a non-profit. It is just to donate, so there would be no oversight by the irs. Unless, they have 501(c)3 status, then you can donate all you want and the receiver of the donation does not have to account for it to anyone. When in fact they have obtained 501(c)3 status--then yes--there is oversight. But that is not the case here--they don't have 501(c) 3 status.

The donation cannot be deducted for tax purposes by the donor either. Only qualified charities 501(c) 3 donations qualify for a tax deduction. That is not the case with the avery donation. So be careful when you donate--not all donations are tax deductible. Find out first if they are a 501(c)3. :noooo:

this!

 

[missy1974]

But, it is not set up as a non-profit. It is just to donate, so there would be no oversight by the IRS. Unless, they have 501(c)3 status, then you can donate all you want and the receiver of the donation does not have to account for it to anyone. When in fact they have obtained 501(c)3 status--then yes--there is oversight. But that is not the case here--they don't have 501(c) 3 status.

The donation cannot be deducted for tax purposes by the donor either. Only qualified charities 501(c) 3 donations qualify for a tax deduction. That is not the case with the Avery donation. So be careful when you donate--not all donations are tax deductible. Find out first if they are a 501(c)3. :noooo:

to be honest... from what I have read "elsewhere", some people just want to help, they don't care if it's tax deductible LOL I have yet to read any posts anywhere that someone is concerned about donating to Zellner. I did read posts about people being concerned about donating to the family with the intention of it going to SA or BD and maybe it wasn't getting where they intended, and there has been more than one scam website set up trying to get donations. So I really do think that Zellner clarifying where people should donate to SA's legal defense fund IF they want to, is a good thing. IMO

On another note.... I have also read posts where people just want to donate to SA's mom and dad..... and they are. Or they want to donate money to Barb, and they do. Or gas cards so she can go see BD, and even things that SA and BD need, or donating to their jail account. If you just want to help and you don't care about the tax receipt, whatever.... not my money LOL

 

[shadowraiths]

The donations do not bother me in the least little bit. There are people who will want to donate to SA's defense, and at least KZ has a track record, and is legit. Personally, I think it is a great idea.

As for donating to the family? Or SA/BD, directly, there are pages that provide info for sending money to their prison funds.

In a way, and imho, this provides a means for people to choose who/what they want to donate their money to. Smart move. Again, imho.

 

[HastingsChi]

The donations do not bother me in the least little bit. There are people who will want to donate to SA's defense, and at least KZ has a track record, and is legit. Personally, I think it is a great idea.

As for donating to the family? Or SA/BD, directly, there are pages that provide info for sending money to their prison funds.

In a way, and imho, this provides a means for people to choose who/what they want to donate their money to. Smart move. Again, imho.

David Protress had a similar track record and reputation and look how that turned out... Ironically, he's also from Chicagoland.

Again, I believe that all defendants have a right to solicit help from the public to pay for their defense. Frankly, the State has unlimited funds so it's already an unfair fight in almost every case.

I'm not questioning Zellner's ethics, I've not seen anything which would indicate her ethics are nothing but the highest.

I am stressing the importance of transparency and disclosure because as so many believe that the prosecution and law enforcement behaved in an unethical manner and potentially an unlawful manner; it is critically important to hold yourself to the highest standards and be the example of best practices.

Why should Zellner provide a full, line item accounting of how the contributions were spent?
Because it demonstrates that the Avery defense operates at the highest standards and has nothing to hide. It signals to the public that Avery and his team are only committed to the truth. It says to the prosecution, we demand the same level of transparency from you. It gives you the moral high ground.

 

[BigCityAccountant]

David Protress had a similar track record and reputation and look how that turned out... Ironically, he's also from Chicagoland.

Again, I believe that all defendants have a right to solicit help from the public to pay for their defense. Frankly, the State has unlimited funds so it's already an unfair fight in almost every case.

I'm not questioning Zellner's ethics, I've not seen anything which would indicate her ethics are nothing but the highest.

I am stressing the importance of transparency and disclosure because as so many believe that the prosecution and law enforcement behaved in an unethical manner and potentially an unlawful manner; it is critically important to hold yourself to the highest standards and be the example of best practices.

Why should Zellner provide a full, line item accounting of how the contributions were spent?
Because it demonstrates that the Avery defense operates at the highest standards and has nothing to hide. It signals to the public that Avery and his team are only committed to the truth. It says to the prosecution, we demand the same level of transparency from you. It gives you the moral high ground.

Thanks for providing the clarification on why you were asking. With that being said, you make some very good point about holding yourself (Avery's defense team) to a higher level all the while demonstrating your commitment to transparency. Very well said, and thank you!

 

[ZOOL]

I saw that, as well as "check a deputy under herman ID." I immediately though it was "check ad u hid" but wasn't sure of what relevance that might be. Regardless,s it could mean anything. She didn't use camel caps, so who really knows?

Btw and aside, I see she changed her avie.

Shadowraiths ~ Thanks,

I like your guess. I would go one further: check a detective u hid.

Now then, as I understand it, Zellner implies that the person who was asked to sign in to enter the crime perimeter, and to assist in the search, signed in with this checkaduhid. My guess then would be that Zellner is implying that one of Hillegas' searchers was suspicious of somebody like Colburn from very early on.

To date though, the only name I have encountered about THAT would be Tammy Weber (see Avery's Nov 9 arrest interview with Fassbender and Wiegert, page 18, para 1.

But the whole conspiracy theory of "planting evidence" is far too speculative for me. I'm firmly convinced* that Avery's bloody, middle-finger matches the ignition-switch, blood-stain 100%, and that there is zero-possibility that anyone could have planted something like that.

* see Limaes' posts in this thread

• 02-21-2016, 7:49
• 02-22-2016, 7:36
• 02-23-2016, 12:45

 

[shadowraiths]

Shadowraiths ~ Thanks,

I like your guess. I would go one further: check a detective u hid.

Now then, as I understand it, Zellner implies that the person who was asked to sign in to enter the crime perimeter, and to assist in the search, signed in with this checkaduhid. My guess then would be that Zellner is implying that one of Hillegas' searchers was suspicious of somebody like Colburn from very early on.

To date though, the only name I have encountered about THAT would be Tammy Weber (see Avery's Nov 9 arrest interview with Fassbender and Wiegert, page 18, para 1.

But the whole conspiracy theory of "planting evidence" is far too speculative for me. I'm firmly convinced* that Avery's bloody, middle-finger matches the ignition-switch, blood-stain 100%, and that there is zero-possibility that anyone could have planted something like that.

* see Limaes' posts in this thread

• 02-21-2016, 7:49
• 02-22-2016, 7:36
• 02-23-2016, 12:45

BBM.

Interesting suggestion.

With the latest MTSO report release, there is a 24 year old female whose name is blacked out, and replaced with "confidential informant." (See pages 2 & 13).

 

[ZOOL]

BBM.

Interesting suggestion.

With the latest MTSO report release, there is a 24 year old female whose name is blacked out, and replaced with "confidential informant." (See pages 2 & 13).

Avery made a bunch of female enemies by Nov 7, 2005. No doubt one of them became an angry "confidential informant". It's interesting that this one "stated that STEVEN AVERY has 2 incinerators on the property in question and that investigators should check those areas."