Zimmerman Trial Follies

345 views

Published on

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.

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
345
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Zimmerman Trial Follies

  1. 1. Meant for every potential juror, law student, police officer, judge, attorney, and all Americans interested in restoring power to the people…
  2. 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. 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. 4. BY Victoria-Joy Godwin, Overseer, Angel With The Inkwell Ministries PREVIEW TO SLIDES OFFERING EVIDENCE TO ATTORNEYS © Victoria-Joy Godwin 2013
  5. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

×