Can or should Zimmerman be tried again? What if there was no FAIR trial BY JURY the first time? It can't be double jeopardy then, can it? Even that can be overcome because there is enough evidence to try him for FIRST DEGREE murder, and it was all sent to the prosecution and ignored. What we need is the NEXT Rosa Parks to stand up in 47 States and insist on their right to question witnesses. It's already done in 3 States, so it cannot be unconstitutional. Where the jury did NOT question witnesses, the verdict was rendered on an incomplete record, and incomplete records ARE, by nature, inaccurate. The verdict cannot stand and if challenged to the Supreme Court level of the State, it will fall. Neither the accused nor the State got a fair trial, so, in effect, there was NO trial. The State has equal rights to a fair trial. Why is that,you ask? Because all criminal actions are brought in the name of the People of the State. Why is THAT, you ask? Because it is the State (via elected officials) who are charged with protecting and maintaining the welfare of the people. One miscreant running around, free to move to other States to commit more, and possibly worse, crimes, is one too many. That is why the slides prompt readers to take action to make history. Moving justice from the bus to the courtroom takes only one juror in each State to stand up and announce he has a question for a witness and no, he cannot hold the question until the time for deliberations, as an inaccurate record will form the basis for those deliberations! Who would dare stop such a courageous juror? At the risk of his job? No one. Jurors are summoned to court for possible selection. That right there confirms how important our Founding Forefathers thought putting ordinary people (with common sense and reasoning) into the room where another ordinary citizen has been accused. The jurors SERVE AS THE CHECKS AND BALANCE against corruption of the case by either side. Hence, the lawsuit contemplated by the medical examiner that the prosecution deliberately threw the case, would be truly tested. No one could throw a case when jurors question witnesses because it would require bribing all 12 of them (or 6 of them), and the odds that there wouldn't be one honest person diminish greatly under those circumstances. These slides demonstrate what the book explains in-depth about the fallacy of the 5th Amendment, also. We all have been led to believe that attorneys are smarter than the rest of us, but this case shows differently. We're all strong in different areas; hence, the idiom 'two heads are better than one.' So, who was it who started the rumor that jurors could not question witnesses and simply sat back and watched us bite? who was it that perverted the real meaning of the 5th Amendment? Try this on for size: One has a right against self-incrimination, but under the rules of honor and dishonor, no one has the right to deprive the other side of a fair trial.

1. Meant for every
potential juror,
law student,
police officer,
judge,
attorney,
and all Americans
interested in
restoring power to the
people…

2. …who has the courage
and the desire to change
history by becoming the
NEXT Rosa Parks
We’re just moving
justice from the bus to
the courtroom.
If anyone
dares to
challenge the
rights of
jurors, we’ll be
waiting!

3. Like most guilty
defendants, I believed I
could fool one or two
prosecutors, but if I know
a jury of my peers is going
to question me, I may be
smarter to admit my crime
and take a plea because
you can’t fool all the
people all the time.
* WHAT FOLLOWS IS PROOF ZIMMERMAN DID NOT GET A FAIR TRIAL
and needs to be tried again? (Beware the concealment of the two-edged sword built
into the 5th Amendment, for the State has equal rights to a fair trial FOR THE PEOPLE,
and anyone, including the defendant, who refuses to tell the truth, is obstructing justice.
There may be a RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION, but there is NO right to
prevent the State who represents the ‘people’ from obtaining all relevant testimony!
It’s NOT double jeopardy if he was never truly tried correctly the first time. Besides, with
the jurors asking questions, he COULD be tried for FIRST-DEGREE murder this time.
* WHAT FOLLOWS IS PROOF THE PEOPLE DID NOT GET A FAIR TRIAL
(cases against an accused are brought in the name of the people of the State, and
if a criminal gets away with a crime in one State, he could move to another State and
endanger the people there, proving we all have an interest in juries getting it right).
This is just a sampling to demonstrate how average people CAN make a difference when they
believe they ARE the government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people!

4. BY Victoria-Joy Godwin, Overseer, Angel With The Inkwell Ministries
PREVIEW TO SLIDES OFFERING EVIDENCE TO ATTORNEYS
© Victoria-Joy Godwin 2013

5. NOTICE
The slides represented here are permanent to prevent inadvertent alterations.
The viewer is reminded that while most of these slides were sent to the prosecution
team, there are slides which were not sent to Sanford, Florida due to the lack of time,
although the concepts and in-sights expressed therein may have been included in
the letters sent during the last few days.
The point of making these insights available is to establish to the American people that
our public servants do not have the capacity to ignore our in-put when it is wellintended, even if they do not agree with it. Government officials are elected to listen
to us, the REAL government, and to discount assistance just because it does not
come from an ‘attorney’ could be a consideration when the next election occurs.
All of the slides are described in the book and identified by the numbers assigned to
each individual illustration, so following along with the book could provide a clearer
picture as to why the illustrations were created in the first place. The author DID credit
the original intended recipients with the intelligence to understand the information
imparted therein, and apologizes to those who find the information unintelligible.

6. The cover came to this author within seconds of the title change, more than half-way
through the completion of the book, keeping in mind most of the book was pre-written
because the ‘insights’ were being sent to prosecutors for eighteen months. The new
idea presented itself at the usual time such ‘scathingly brilliant ideas’ flow from the
Creator – sometime between 5 and 6 in the morning. The original title became the title
to Chapter 3, How To Lose a Case in Nine Days. However, the new title sparked such
a vivid image, the author knew it had to be right. What was amazing was that the
characters in the ‘follies’ were found on clip art disks in almost exactly the same form
the author pictured them in her mind! After accepting the new idea (difficult, as most
writers do not like to change any of their precious words), a double-check of the
definition for the word ‘follies’ seemed in order. Familiar with the theatrical meaning
of the word (double-majored in science and theatre), the author remembered several
other possible uses of the word, and was not surprised to find that Secretary Seward’s
purchase of Alaska had been considered a ‘folly,’ as in mistake. However, the
remaining definitions garnered reactions from pleasure to shock. Confirmation that
the word ‘follies’ fit what happened in the Zimmerman case to a ‘T’ raised a smile
not unlike the one on the cat that swallowed the canary. But finding that follies also
refers to ‘wickedness’ raised both eyebrows as high as they could go!
The illustration on the title page following this slide, was originally to be the book cover.
Once the title changed, this illustration was too significant to abandon, especially in light
of the importance of picking out key words in Zimmerman’s own recounting of the events
which is what initially prompted the author doing her civic duty to send the insights.

7. The key word is ‘report’ and not ‘watch’ or ‘suspicious’ because
those words provide no limit to your actions against murdering
someone AFTER you have watched them acting suspiciously.
‘Suspiciously’ is a subjective term that could differ in the
minds of others, and ‘watch’ does not preclude a
subsequent unlawful action AFTER you’ve watched, while
turning in a report does..
However, report makes a promise that the prescribed
action is limited to the lawful activity of REPORTING
a specific behavior for confirmation by a second
witness. Neighborhood Watch organizations are
established to REPORT questionable behavior. No
one, not even law enforcement officers are authorized
to hunt down and kill another human, even if they
are caught committing a known criminal act.
The only exception is if the crime is an immediate
threat to another human.
A-2
The blue blocks bear the numbers of the slides
within their series, as they were presented to prosecutors
and as they are described in the book
KEY WORD

8. F-1
Definite
through F-6
Impossible
The F series of slides built on the devastating theories Zimmerman himself propounded.
The prosecutor has a duty to demonstrate how implausible an action claimed by a
defendant actually is, and, not only that, but to reveal the intent behind concocting such
a ridiculous story. If there is no innocent explanation, the opposite must be presumed.
A series of events which results in an action that requires an explanation, raises the
question of the likelihood that the action happened in the manner alleged. The intent
of the chance continuums on several incidents was to debunk the ‘stories’ as flat-out
lies. In hindsight, the prosecution team showed how unlikely it was that the gun came
out when Zimmerman said it did. But, as we saw, that was insufficient. The jurors were
not given the degree of implausibility. One of the elements that attests to the degree of
implausibility is to establish other alternatives which are MORE plausible, in fact, MORE
likely than the one being debunked. By including the ‘posturing statement’, which
supports the implausibility that the gun came out seconds before the shot (no one stops
a fight in the middle to make a comment that takes 3 full seconds), and the reason for the
punch in the face, prosecutors could have given the jurors several more pieces of the
puzzle upon which to form a strong determination of what actually happened. Then,
add another continuum on the adrenaline which proves a state of fear, and the entire
picture emerges. No regretted verdicts come from this process.

9. F-1
Template can be used so jury can adequately assess ALL facts at issue, so even though
this example uses ‘when gun came out’, issue of who was screaming, & where Def had
chance to identify himself at any time, etc., can also be plotted along the Continuum line.
100 %
50-50
DEFINITE / MORE PROBABLE / MAYBE
absolute; certain
0%
/ POSSIBLE
/
IMPOSSIBLE

10. F-2
EXAMPLE: when a witness/suspect/victim makes a statement which does not
appear to make sense, is not logical and/or cannot be reconciled with the truth
as to how the world works (physics, chemistry, biology, etc) according to the
reasonable man test. AT WHAT POINT DID THE GUN COME OUT?
100 %
50-50
0%
DEFINITE
absolute; certain
MAYBE
IMPOSSIBLE
After numerous attempts to reconstruct what the Defendant said
happened when the gun came out, we concluded it was impossible.
The victim’s knees blocked Defendant’s waistband, and, even if the
victim DID reach for the gun, the Defendant’s upper arm could NOT
have locked it to his ribcage WHILE using the hand at the end of
that same arm, to open the holster and pull out the gun and fire it. Victim
was right-handed and his left hand was closest to the gun. If victim reached
for the gun with right hand, it would have been too low for upper arm of Defendant to lock it against ribcage.
This evidence was never presented.

11. F-3
End of fight
NEXT STEP = go backwards to discover AT WHAT POINT THE GUN ACTUALLY
DID COME OUT. Possible points are scrutinized until probable point is located.
t’
in
ke r e
t
eg
oc he
ts
‘p t t
en
,b
hif
o
r
s
m
int e no
v e rd
ce
the
n
es
mo wa
so
ina
ch phon
h
m
mp
rea ell
uc awk
do
t
ju
m it
c
an
e,
rty r.
oo kes
im
nd ly for
a
t
T a
efe ed
e p l ove
No
D eg
m
On fal
ll
a
STANDING
RUNNING
to
ROLLING ON GROUND
0%
Was the reason Defendant did not find phone
because he actually reached into waistband
for the gun? Only the Defendant can tell us.
But he is SILENT!.
26%
38%
DEFINITE
MAYBE
absolute; certain
Highly probable; very probable debatable possible
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
0%
50-50
60%
89%
100 %
IMPOSSIBLE
less possible
20
10
0

12. F-4
NEXT STEP = design several conclusions as to WHAT POINT THE GUN ACTUALLY
DID COME OUT. Possible points are scrutinized until probable point is located.
t’
in
ke r e
t
eg
oc he
ts
‘p t t
en
,b
hif
o
r
s
m
int e no
v e rd
ce
the
n
es
mo wa
so
ina
ch phon
h
m
mp
rea ell
uc awk
do
t
ju
m it
c
an
e,
rty r.
oo kes
im
nd ly for
a
t
T a
efe ed
e p l ove
No
D eg
m
On fal
ll
a
STANDING
RUNNING
to
ROLLING ON GROUND
100 %
100
50-50
90
80
DEFINITE
absolute; certain
Highly probable;
70
60
50
0%
40
30
MAYBE
very probable
debatable possible
20
10
0
IMPOSSIBLE
less possible
CONCLUSION ONE – arguable if Defendant wishes to demonstrate how gun came out at any point
along Continuum, but forensics point to 80-90% chance gun and not phone was reached for, which
comports with why victim punched Def in face and ran, which is why ear-witnesses all heard a chase.
and why the boy was terrified. Man with drawn weapon not likely to cry for help. NOTE: Freudian
slip regarding whose hand covered whose mouth slipped out during re-enactment.

13. F-5
Now, you start all over again, beginning at the point of the ‘false fact’
placed into the record by the Def. Moving in the opposite direction, the analyst
screens for the evidence that Def WAS acting out of legitimate fear for his life.
Words are insignificant when there is an irrefutable body reaction to detect.
Logical if gun came out where we said it did - reaching for cell phone not in usual place !!!!!
MAYBE
Today?
0%
50-50
At re-enactment?
38%
DEFINITE
absolute; certain
At police station?
60%
89%
100 %
In police car?
80%
Terror at scene ?
0%
IMPOSSIBLE
Compare to someone who was rescued from a bear attack, or runaway vehicle.
Tack onto the previous continuum regarding when the gun came out, another
Continuum, this one to determine the point at which the flood of ADRENALINE,
a natural body function over which no human has any control. The Reconstructionist is looking for the point at which the adrenaline starts to dissipate.
Obviously, the closer to the crime scene, the more likely the claim of ‘flight or
fight’ can be substantiated. If Def showed signs of fear, terror, trembling,
doubling over, staccato speech, worry about the victim, and other such cries
when Mr. Good or Officer Smith appeared, the more likely he WAS in fear. The
longer we wait for those signs to appear, the more impossible it is to believe
Def acted out of fear for his life. His calm demeanor does not serve him here.

14. 100
90
Mr. Good
went back
Rachel heard ‘THUD’ =
PUNCH IN
FACE??
100 %
before he
inside.
Use phone records and the
testimony of witness’ time
lines to approximate these.
LAST STEPS = Take the testimony of each and every witness as to what they heard
and/or saw, and overlay them along the continuum, such as Rachel’s “Whatchoo doing
around here” and Mr Good’s “not blows but arms flailing” (wrestling for control of the gun?
t’
in
ke r e
Explains TM’s abrasions and
t
eg
oc he
ts
‘p t t
en
,b
hif
lack of Z’s blood
o
r
s
m
int e no
v e rd
ce
the
n
on TM’s hands!
es
mo wa
so
ina
ch phon
h
m
mp
rea ell
uc awk
do
t
F-6
ju
n
c
e,
o m es it
t y r.
da for
r
im
n
T o ak
pa ve
ot
efe edly
N
D eg
m
ne all o
l
O f
al
STANDING
RUNNING
to
ROLLING ON GROUND
50-50
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0%
10
0
DEFINITE
MAYBE
IMPOSSIBLE
absolute; certain
Highly probable; very probable debatable possible less possible
Plot statements such as “Why you following me for?” ( a GOOD question) and “Do you
have a problem”. Leave the unexplainable OFF the chart, such as “You’re going to die
tonight, M--Fer” and “You’ve got a problem now”, for the jury to decide who said it when.
Remember, if Def doesn’t take stand to change
story, he lives with what he already said, and
If he DOES change story - OH, WELL

15. I-6
HANG THEIR HATS ON…
OR THEIR
SO
N
Jodi Arias’ prosecutors also missed this one.
RE
A
then I might have
seen the gun out.
John Good REFUSED to let either side
pervert his words – he stuck to them with every
fiber of his body. When he said “I saw arms flailing,
he would not let anyone change that to “blows raining down” or “MMA style.” Prosecutors had the
perfect evidence right there that Trayvon was
wrestling for control of the gun WHICH HAD
ALREADY COME OUT – back when Zimmerman
said “You’re going to die tonight!” Why ignore that??
C
GI
LO
Where was the prosecution witness
who would scientifically debunk the
ridiculous story that the injuries on the
back of the head and the suffocation
ON
caused Zimmerman to “almost pass
M
M SE
out” but somehow he still had the
CO EN
S
George should have wherewithal to grab for his gun, aim it
ID’d himself, but
perfectly and shoot??

16. I-7
I had the
gun out by
this time,
because
this one
wasn’t
going to
get away.
I asked a
reasonable
question,
why he was
following
me.
I didn’t know
who he was
or what he
wanted, but
as soon as I
saw the gun,
I punched
him and ran.
I didn’t know
what else to
scream except
HELP as I never
dealt with this
before.
I had to shut
him up or I’d
go to prison
for life. I sure
couldn’t ID
myself to
anyone.
He was an
eye-witness
to my
stalking him
with a gun
out, and it
was him or
me.

17. I-1
WHERE ZIMMERMAN COULD/SHOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED
HIMSELF AS NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH CAPTAIN
3
Taaffe’s
House
1
Covered cluster
mailboxes
2
4
The LAWN
Circled the car
Why you
following me
for?
5
7
While he was
running away
8
6
The ‘T’
Before he punched
him In the face
9
WHILE the wrestling
was still going on

18. I-8
FOR THE
SAKE OF
ARGUMENT...
That Trayvon Martin
WAS ‘CASING’ A HOUSE
TO BURGLARIZE IT
(ignore the tea and candy for
the moment)
WORE HIS HOODIE TO
DISGUISE HIMSELF
(ignore the hoodie’s use to
shield the head from rain for
the moment)
SMOKED MARIJUANA AND
HAD THREE FIGHTS IN SCHOOL
YESTERDAY
(ignore the promise he made to
his step-brother to buy him candy and
watch the NBA finals with him tonight)
With a badge
In the law
WHERE IS ZIMMERMAN’S
RIGHT, POWER, OR AUTHORITY
TO SHOOT THE TEENAGE BOY?
The Constitution
Our rights
Legal decisions

19. FOR THE
SAKE OF
ARGUMENT
…
That Trayvon Martin:
I-9
ASKED ZIMMERMAN IF HE
HAD A PROBLEM
and when – IF - Zimmerman
said “I don’t have a problem,”
Trayvon punched him in the face
for ‘nothing’
WHERE IS ZIMMERMAN’S
(ignore that Rachel heard “Why
RIGHT, POWER, OR AUTHORITY
you following me for?” for the moment) TO SHOOT THE TEENAGE BOY?
AND WHERE WERE THE MARKS
ON TRAYVON’S BODY OF THIS
LIFE & DEATH FIGHT FOR AIR?
WAS SMASHING ZIMMERMAN’S
HEAD TO THE GROUND
(ignore he saw the gun and
was defending HIMSELF for the moment)
MEDICAL
REPORT
Before passIng out, the
body struggles
for survival,
fighting for air.
(Ignore the impossibility of doing BOTH of
these things at the same time for the moment)
PINCHED ZIMMERMAN’S NOSE AND
COVERED HIS MOUTH TO SUFFOCATE
HIM (ignore that it takes several minutes for
the body to pass out for the moment)
??

20. J-1
through J-15
WHO WILL
HELP, AND I
BETTER NOT
HEAR, NOT I?
The J series of slides is clearly an afterthought, although, as
it turns out, has become the major thrust of the entire book. If poor
performance on the part of a prosecution team isn’t justification for restoring
the power back to the people, nothing is. Twelve heads ARE better than two!
Having studied the law and the legal system for over 25 years, the author is very
familiar with the intent of the Founding Forefathers, and having read THE
FEDERALIST PAPERS, the author understands the fear the creators of this
country had of the nature of man. When combining those aspects of study with
her reading of the Bible all the way through 20 times or more, the author saw
how much the men who created this republic sensed that the biggest problem the
new country had, was from the men who assumed power. Men are easily corrupted,
and that places the people in danger from their fellow-man, their own countrymen who
usurp power from those for whom it was intended. Do we need another Rosa Parks?
This moves from the bus to the courtroom, where jurors have been led to believe they
are not to question witnesses. It is suspicious that no one can point to a law which
prohibits such questioning. It is more suspicious that no one can identify the party
who says ‘no’ if a juror asks if he can ask a question. But, it is a practice (!) in 47
States. It was the fact that prosecutors in the Zimmerman case ignored sincere
efforts to help that called attention to the fact that jurors might have come up with
what prosecutors did not. Challenge the unsubstantiated practice. Stand up!

21. J-1
BEING DEFIANT WHEN AND WHERE IT COUNTS
ON A JURY…
I HAVE
A
QUESTION
WHERE IT CAN
BE TESTED AT
THE SUPREME
COURT…
Just can’t see how sitting in a
governor’s office asking each
other what prejudice means to
you, or spouting off in
Washington DC about
boycotting an entire state, will
result in a positive change.
AGAINST THE
SUPREME LAW
OF THE LAND.
The Constitution

22. J-2
BEING DEFIANT WHEN AND WHERE IT COUNTS
I HAVE
A
QUESTION
The Overthe-NotMe-Gang
Really?
WHO WILL BE
BRAVE ENOUGH
TO STAND AND
ANNOUNCE THAT
THEY HAVE A
QUESTION FOR A
WITNESS?
AND WHO OF THEM
WOULD DARE TO
STOP YOU WITHOUT
SHOWING YOU THE
LAW PROHIBITING IT?
AND WHICH OF THEM
WILL CHALLENGE THE
LAWS AGAINST TREASON? The Constitution
WE WOULD NEVER HAVE ANOTHER TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE AS WE DID IN

23. J-3
People of ALL COLORS have been deceived!
This WAS the
fault of the
attorneys, and
now we know why
our Founding
Forefathers didn’t
want them
controlling our
country.
THIS IS NOT a question of whether or not jurors
are ALLOWED to ask questions.
In three (3) states,
jurors ask witnesses
questions. It cannot be
unconstitutional !!
THIS IS ABOUT whether Legislators will pass a bill prohibiting anyone
who tries to stop them, and call it ‘Trayvon’s Law.’
THIS IS a question of treason if anyone (wearing a badge or black robe)
dares to interfere with the First Amendment rights.
Constitution

24. Contempt =
disobeying a
court order
J-4
The right to petition for redress of grievances…
Aren’t we all aggrieved when some criminal injures us or our property?
F
O
LL TS By serving on a jury, we are petitioning our servants to do something
BI H
about it – as the Founding Forefathers wanted – AND assigned us to help
RIG
from the jury box in the same venue where the crime occurred.
Why do we have the right to a jury trial? Because that is the protection for the
American people to keep government from tainting our judicial process. We are
SUMMONED into court by court order. That court order is in compliance with the
FIRST AMENDMENT and the FIFTH, SIXTH and the SEVENTH AMENDMENTS.
It is the manner in which our Founding Forefathers ensured that we would have a say in
whether or not we get a fair trial. It is also our assurance that we help our government
SERVANTS do their job. We charge them with law enforcement, and we have a duty
to help them do that job. We are sworn in as jurors to find the facts. It is as much our
responsibility to rid the streets of miscreants unfit for society as it is theirs. In fact, they
cannot do it without us – AND HENCE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A JURY SIT IN ON ALL
CRIMINAL TRIALS. Just as the Zimmerman prosecutors dropped the ball, so
could everyone else who is human and charged with this major task.
IF
you don’t think it would be treason to obstruct jurors from doing their jobs,
look at the next sections of the Bill of Rights to see how important that jury is.

25. We‘re
mentioned in
5, 6, & 7
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
I
….
II
….
III
…
IV
….
J-5
That’s pretty
significant.
Here are the
highlights.
ARTICLE V
The jury is
clearly a
safeguard for
all Americans
…on indictment by a Grand Jury…
ARTICLE VI
…trial by an impartial jury…
ARTICLE VII
…trial by jury…
And it is NOT the
same as a jury trial,
where the jury
merely advises the
judge.
VIII
….
IX
….
X
…
A trial BY jury
does not mean a
prosecutor
‘tries’ the case.
Or the State
‘tries’ the case.

26. J-6
Not me? Now,
where have I
heard that
before?
WERE WE SOLD A BILL OF GOODS TO COVER UP FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS?
OR HAS EVERY ATTORNEY THAT HAS GONE BEFORE BEEN INCOMPETENT
IN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IS EQUALLY IMPORTANT
TO THE ENTIRE SOCIETY AS IT IS TO THE CRIMINAL? Why has it taken 200+ years
for someone to figure out that the right to a trial by jury includes the rights of the people who
are injured by the criminals? Just goes to show what the first 3 chapters of this book
have been saying all along - attorneys are NOT smarter than the rest of us and they DO
need our help, whether they want to admit it or not. So , let’s give it to them – as good
jurors questioning witnesses in areas attorneys missed!
As a judge, I’m neutral, so I’m
staying out of this. Not me!
As an attorney, I’m good
at playing ostrich or
Little Red Hen’s friends
– NOT ME.
Rosa Parks
was willing to
go to jail for
what she
believed. Are
we?
As a cop who does
what he’s told, you don’t think I’m going
to let the reporter put me in the headlines
that could go to the high court, do you? Not me.

27. J-7
SO IT IS FOR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. JUST AS HE HAS A RIGHT TO
NOT BE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED, SOCIETY HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE
THE GUILTY PERSON RIGHTFULLY CONVICTED, until they learn to behave,
which is why we put them in Correctional Institutions.
THE INDIVIDUAL - Two sides of this coin – THE STATE
Gimme my
rights.
4th --- 5th
6th --
And the
State IS
‘We the
people.’
Articles in Amendment
The people have a right to be free from the criminal, which requires attorneys and jurors
to work together. Who’s going to say it ‘ain’t so?’ Our right to have someone justly
convicted IS EQUAL to the right to not be wrongfully convicted. Shut jurors out of doing
their job and you have obstructed them from the oath they took ‘so help them God!’

28. HUH?
Yea!
Cheers!
We
always
win!
Yes, I can tell the story no
matter where I am barnyard, family home,
office workplace, or jury
box. It’s the same old tale
and the characters merely
change names.
Except in Arizona, Colorado, and Indiana, Loosy
Goosy becomes Sally Brown, Turkey Lurkey
becomes John Doe, and Foxy Loxy becomes
Suzy Jones. AND THE Pig, well, let’s just say
he’s Everyman. What no one has realized yet is
that all jury verdicts in 47 other states were
fraudulently obtained and the people are entitled
to do-overs. The main participant in ensuring
justice to BOTH sides of the coin, was omitted.
J-8

29. DoOvers?
We let
someone
else do
it.
That’s because
the gang that
came before
us, screwed up
Uh, that
would be
us.
The gang that
came before
us?
Hey, whaddya’ want from me?
Like everyone else, I believed
attorneys, er. mouthpieces,
were smarter than the rest of
us. I mean, who else could
have perverted the system?
Or convinced
us of
something
untrue?
J-9

30. You don’t get to get away
with it just because you
GOT AWAY with it – neither
you the criminal nor you the
official who cheated the
people of the State!
THE LEGAL ISSUES THIS MESS IS GOING TO RAISE:
1 – Who can demand a do-over?
2 – Isn’t a do-over better than letting a known rapist or murderer get away?
3 – If the State (the people) were cheated out of a fair trial because the jury was left out
of the process, who is entitled to demand the do-over?
4 – If the do-over is initiated, does the trial ‘unfair’ to the people, trump the double
jeopardy clause?
5 – What is the ultimate goal of a trial if not to protect the people from miscreants as
well as protecting one individual from being tried twice (if he’s innocent, what does
he have to fear?)?
6 – Whose fault is it that the jury was omitted in the first place? Didn’t the defense
attorney fail in his duty to inquire as to whether or not the jurors had questions, to
avoid any question of doubt about his client’s innocence?
7 – What duty does the legislature have in re-charging when the first trial was flawed?
8 – Isn’t the role of the judiciary to determine whether the executive branch is or was in
harmony with the intent of the legislative, making it a case-by-case decision on
J-10
appeal after the do-over?

31. J-11
But now it appears we need two - one in a jury box AND
One in the Florida State Legislature
It is appropriate that Florida be the first State of the 47 who do INVITE (it is not a matter of ‘allowing’)
jurors to question witnesses. Florida has obtained unpopular verdicts more frequently, in high profile
cases and that may have been the rumblings of a system gone wrong. It is time to fix it, and the first
government official who dares to obstruct a juror from doing his or her duty will bear the wrath of interfering with the oath taken by jurors WHO ARE MANDATED to assist the government agents in finding the
facts in a case. It was never intended that law enforcement try the accused without the people, as that
would shift the balance of power for a FAIR TRIAL AWAY from the people - a dangerous precedent that
has gone on much too long already. We wonder what’s wrong with the justice system - here it is. Test
this all the way up to the Florida Supreme Court if you dare, but one of the 47 States is going to have to
lead the way SOONER OR LATER. Look at the definition of the word ‘TRY’ and you’ll see this premise is
well-founded.
Zimmerman needs to be tried again on one (or both) of the following grounds:
One – He was never tried for FIRST DEGREE pre-meditated murder and the evidence is there to
support the premise he killed the only living witness to unlawful exhibition of a weapon.
Two – He never got a fair trial - the Constitution says he is to be tried by a jury, and he was not because
the jury was induced into being silent; he was tried by the State and by prosecutors, but NOT by a JURY.
Try him again and see who wants to test that theory at the Supreme Court level!
Zimmerman wanted to make a name for himself - let’s give the man what he asked for

32. J-14
THE
EXCUSE
DU JOUR
IS…
Foxy loxy
Turkey lurkey
Piggy wiggy
Bailiff Schmailiff
Loosey goosey
Attorney
Balerney
Judgey Wudgey
WE NEVER ACTUALLY TOLD JURORS THEY COULDN’T ASK QUESTIONS

33. IF A REFUSED
JUROR
STEPS
FORWARD
NOW…
BUT IF
ONE
JUROR did
ASK…
I PITY THE
OFFICIAL
WHO
SAID NO!
Foxy loxy
Turkey lurkey
Piggy wiggy
J-15
Bailiff Schmailiff
Loosey goosey
Attorney
Balerney
Judgey Wudgey
IT’S NOT OUR FAULT IF THEY BELIEVED THEY COULDN’T QUESTION WINTESSES

34. L-10
2 SURE-FIRE WAYS TO
DESTROY A
COUNTRY!!
DEVALUE IT’S
MONETARY SYSTEM
PERVERT IT’S
SYSTEM OF
JUSTICE!
3-FOLD
PATTERN
If the Executive is NOT in harmony with the Legislative intent…and the judiciary does nothing about it
the question of treason MUST be raised or the people will be oppressed under tyrants!!!!

35. #1
Decide to serve on a
jury if summoned to
ensure the PEOPLE
are there as a
checks and balance..
Insist on asking
questions you need
to know to complete
the record before
you deliberate.
File a Declaratory
Judgment action
for a ruling that
tests the theory,
as there cannot be
a law prohibiting it.
#2
Write to your congressmen and ask them to
pass ’Trayvon’s Law’
which prohibits all
who try to obstruct
jurors.
Ask them and the
Governor to draft the
Attorney General
of FL to try GZ
again.
Educate jurors
everywhere and
seek jurors who
WERE denied
the right to
question witnesses.
#3
Write a graduate
thesis on how the
jury systems in your
State evolved into
leading jurors to
believe they had
to wait until they
deliberated to ask
questions.
Vote for educators
and businessmen
and NOT attorneys
to elected offices
(they had 100 yrs.
and they’ve made
a real mess).
Study Honor and
Dishonor processes.

36. Go to
www.smashwords.com
author’s page for
revealing interview!
More PowerPoint Slide Programs
Hierarchy of the Law
Mirror Image Trusts in Parallel Worlds
All Sin is Equal
Honor Responses
Data Integrity Boards for Remedies
Motions in Limine
Primary Liability
Books
The Zimmerman Trial Follies: Case Made for American Jurors to
Question Witnesses [www.smashwords.com, Amazon,
Nook, Apple, etc.]
Workshops/Speaking Engagements
Honor/Dishonor
Even The Judge Stands
Fixing Broken Justice
How To Tell The Truth From Lies
Zimmerman Trial IF Deductive Reasoning Were Applied
Contact zimmermantrialfollies@yahoo.com for a list of FREE items
and a description of the study aid’s benefit to your education. Great for
Tea Party meetings, NAACP groups, classrooms, and organizations
dedicated to making changes for the betterment of society.

37. TO WHOMEVER GETS A MESSAGE TO (1) ANY OF THE
6 ZIMMERMAN JURORS TO GIVE THEM THIS EMAIL
ADDRESS SO THEY CAN GET THEIR OWN FREE COPY
TO SEE IF ONE MIGHT WRITE A FOREWORD TO THE
BOOK, AS JUST OBTAINING THEIR INPUT AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY THOUGHT OF ASKING THE
QUESTIONS IN THE BOOK WOULD BE HELPFUL TO
ALL AMERICANS; (2) SYBRINA FULTON; (3) TRACY MARTIN.
For your free book, send your email address with a confirmation
from the juror to whom you delivered the message, and you will
receive a coupon which you may redeem for your free copy.
Those who would like to preview the book in order to schedule a speaker may also use
the email address to make arrangements. Contact zimmermantrialfollies@yahoo.com