Meant for everypotential juror,

law student,police officer,

judge,attorney,

and all Americansinterested in

restoring power to the people…

…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!

* WHAT FOLLOWS IS PROOF ZIMMERMAN DID NOT GET A FAIR TRIALand 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, withthe 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, andif a criminal gets away with a crime in one State, he could move to another State andendanger the people there, proving we all have an interest in juries getting it right).

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.

This is just a sampling to demonstrate how average people CAN make a difference when theybelieve they ARE the government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people!

BY Victoria-Joy Godwin, Overseer, Angel With The Inkwell Ministries

PREVIEW TO SLIDES OFFERING EVIDENCE TO ATTORNEYS

© Victoria-Joy Godwin 2013

The slides represented here are permanent to prevent inadvertent alterations.The viewer is reminded that while most of these slides were sent to the prosecutionteam, 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 thatour public servants do not have the capacity to ignore our in-put when it is well-intended, even if they do not agree with it. Government officials are elected to listento us, the REAL government, and to discount assistance just because it does notcome 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 clearerpicture 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.

NOTICE

The cover came to this author within seconds of the title change, more than half-waythrough the completion of the book, keeping in mind most of the book was pre-writtenbecause 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 titleto 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 formthe author pictured them in her mind! After accepting the new idea (difficult, as mostwriters do not like to change any of their precious words), a double-check of thedefinition for the word ‘follies’ seemed in order. Familiar with the theatrical meaningof the word (double-majored in science and theatre), the author remembered severalother possible uses of the word, and was not surprised to find that Secretary Seward’spurchase of Alaska had been considered a ‘folly,’ as in mistake. However, the remaining definitions garnered reactions from pleasure to shock. Confirmation thatthe word ‘follies’ fit what happened in the Zimmerman case to a ‘T’ raised a smilenot unlike the one on the cat that swallowed the canary. But finding that follies alsorefers 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 lightof the importance of picking out key words in Zimmerman’s own recounting of the eventswhich is what initially prompted the author doing her civic duty to send the insights.

KEY WORD

A-2The blue blocks bear the numbers of the slideswithin their series, as they were presented to prosecutors and as they are described in the book

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 prescribedaction is limited to the lawful activity of REPORTINGa specific behavior for confirmation by a secondwitness. Neighborhood Watch organizations areestablished to REPORT questionable behavior. Noone, not even law enforcement officers are authorizedto hunt down and kill another human, even if theyare caught committing a known criminal act.

The only exception is if the crime is an immediatethreat to another human.

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 adefendant actually is, and, not only that, but to reveal the intent behind concocting sucha 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 thequestion of the likelihood that the action happened in the manner alleged. The intentof the chance continuums on several incidents was to debunk the ‘stories’ as flat-outlies. In hindsight, the prosecution team showed how unlikely it was that the gun cameout when Zimmerman said it did. But, as we saw, that was insufficient. The jurors werenot given the degree of implausibility. One of the elements that attests to the degree ofimplausibility is to establish other alternatives which are MORE plausible, in fact, MORElikely than the one being debunked. By including the ‘posturing statement’, whichsupports the implausibility that the gun came out seconds before the shot (no one stopsa fight in the middle to make a comment that takes 3 full seconds), and the reason for thepunch 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 entirepicture emerges. No regretted verdicts come from this process.

F-1 through F-6

Definite Impossible

DEFINITE / MORE PROBABLE / MAYBE / POSSIBLE / IMPOSSIBLEabsolute; certain

100 % 50-50 0%

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.

F-1

DEFINITE MAYBE IMPOSSIBLEabsolute; certain

100 % 50-50 0%

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?

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 Defend- ant to lock it against ribcage. This evidence was never presented.

F-2

DEFINITE MAYBE IMPOSSIBLEabsolute; certain

100 % 50-50 0%

NEXT STEP = go backwards to discover AT WHAT POINT THE GUN ACTUALLYDID COME OUT. Possible points are scrutinized until probable point is located.

STANDING RUNNING ROLLING ON GROUND

No time, dominance shifts

One party ju

mps other, b

egin

to fa

ll over.

Highly probable; very probable debatable possible less possible100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Too much m

ovement

makes it

awkward

Defendant reaches into ‘pocket’

allegedly for cell phone not th

ere

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%

60%

89%

0%

End

of

fight

F-3

DEFINITE MAYBE IMPOSSIBLEabsolute; certain

100 % 50-50 0%

NEXT STEP = design several conclusions as to WHAT POINT THE GUN ACTUALLYDID COME OUT. Possible points are scrutinized until probable point is located.

STANDING RUNNING ROLLING ON GROUND

No time, dominance shifts

One party ju

mps other, b

egin

to fa

ll over.

Highly probable; very probable debatable possible less possible

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Defendant reaches into ‘pocket’

allegedly for cell phone not th

ere

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.

Too much m

ovement

makes it

awkward

F-4

DEFINITE MAYBE IMPOSSIBLEabsolute; certain

100 % 50-50 0%

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.

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 Recon- structionist 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.

Terror at scene ? In police car? At police station? At re-enactment? Today?Logical if gun came out where we said it did - reaching for cell phone not in usual place !!!!!

Compare to someone who was rescued from a bear attack, or runaway vehicle.

89%

80%

60%

38%

0%F-5

DEFINITE MAYBE IMPOSSIBLEabsolute; certain

100 % 50-50 0%

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?Explains TM’s abrasions and lack of Z’s blood on TM’s hands!

STANDING RUNNING ROLLING ON GROUND

No time, dominance shifts

One party ju

mps other, b

egin

to fa

ll over.

Highly probable; very probable debatable possible less possible

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Defendant reaches into ‘pocket’

allegedly for cell phone not th

ere

Too much m

ovement

makes it

awkward

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.

Use phone records and the testimony of witness’ time lines to approximate these.

Mr.

G

oo

d

bef

ore

he

wen

t b

ack

insi

de.

Rac

hel

hea

rd ‘

TH

UD

’ =

PU

NC

H I

N

F

AC

E?

?

Remember, if Def doesn’t take stand to changestory, he lives with what he already said, andIf he DOES change story - OH, WELL

F-6

HANG THEIR HATS ON… OR THEIR

RE

AS

ON

COMMON

SENSE LOG

IC

Where was the prosecution witness who would scientifically debunk the ridiculous story that the injuries on the back of the head and the suffocation caused Zimmerman to “almost pass out” but somehow he still had the wherewithal to grab for his gun, aim it perfectly and shoot??

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 rain- ing 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??

Jodi Arias’ prosecutors also missed this one.

George should have ID’d himself, but then I might have seen the gun out.

I-6

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 had the gun out by this time, because this one wasn’t

going to get away.

He was an eye-witness

to my stalking him with a gun out, and it was him or

me.

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

any-one.

I-7

Taaffe’sHouse

WHERE ZIMMERMAN COULD/SHOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH CAPTAIN

Covered clustermailboxes

The ‘T’

Circled the car

While he was running away

The LAWN

Before he punched him In the face

WHILE the wrestling was still going on

Why youfollowing me

for?

1 4

3

2

8 9

7

5

6

I-1

FOR THESAKE 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 ANDHAD THREE FIGHTS IN SCHOOLYESTERDAY(ignore the promise he made to his step-brother to buy him candy and watch the NBA finals with him tonight)

WHERE IS ZIMMERMAN’SRIGHT, POWER, OR AUTHORITYTO SHOOT THE TEENAGE BOY?

In the law

With a badge

The Constitution

Legal decisions

Our rights

I-8

FOR THESAKE OF

ARGUMENT…

That Trayvon Martin:

ASKED ZIMMERMAN IF HEHAD A PROBLEMand when – IF - Zimmerman said “I don’t have a problem,”Trayvon punched him in the face for ‘nothing’(ignore that Rachel heard “Whyyou following me for?” for the moment)

WAS SMASHING ZIMMERMAN’SHEAD TO THE GROUND(ignore he saw the gun and was defending HIMSELF for the moment)

PINCHED ZIMMERMAN’S NOSE ANDCOVERED HIS MOUTH TO SUFFOCATEHIM (ignore that it takes several minutes forthe body to pass out for the moment)

WHERE IS ZIMMERMAN’SRIGHT, POWER, OR AUTHORITYTO SHOOT THE TEENAGE BOY?AND WHERE WERE THE MARKSON TRAYVON’S BODY OF THISLIFE & DEATH FIGHT FOR AIR?

(Ignore the impossibility of doing BOTH ofthese things at the same time for the moment)MEDICAL

REPORTBefore pass-Ing out, the

body strugglesfor survival,

fighting for air.

??

I-9

The J series of slides is clearly an afterthought, although, asit 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 veryfamiliar with the intent of the Founding Forefathers, and having read THE FEDERALIST PAPERS, the author understands the fear the creators of thiscountry had of the nature of man. When combining those aspects of study withher reading of the Bible all the way through 20 times or more, the author sawhow much the men who created this republic sensed that the biggest problem thenew 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 whousurp 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 theyare not to question witnesses. It is suspicious that no one can point to a law whichprohibits such questioning. It is more suspicious that no one can identify the partywho says ‘no’ if a juror asks if he can ask a question. But, it is a practice (!) in 47States. It was the fact that prosecutors in the Zimmerman case ignored sincereefforts to help that called attention to the fact that jurors might have come up withwhat prosecutors did not. Challenge the unsubstantiated practice. Stand up!

J-1 through J-15WHO WILL

HELP, AND I BETTER NOT HEAR, NOT I?

The Constitution

BEING DEFIANT WHEN AND WHERE IT COUNTS

ON A JURY…

WHERE IT CANBE TESTED ATTHE SUPREMECOURT…

AGAINST THESUPREME LAWOF THE LAND.

I HAVEA

QUESTION

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.

J-1

The Constitution

BEING DEFIANT WHEN AND WHERE IT COUNTS

WHO WILL BEBRAVE ENOUGHTO STAND ANDANNOUNCE THATTHEY HAVE A QUESTION FOR AWITNESS?

AND WHO OF THEMWOULD DARE TOSTOP YOU WITHOUTSHOWING YOU THELAW PROHIBITING IT?

AND WHICH OF THEMWILL CHALLENGE THELAWS AGAINST TREASON?

I HAVEA

QUESTION

WE WOULD NEVER HAVE ANOTHER TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE AS WE DID INTRAYVON MARTIN’S CASE , AGAIN! WE NEED TRAYVON’S LAW! – not boycotts

The Over-the-Not-Me-Gang

Really?

J-2

Constitution

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.

In three (3) states, jurors ask witnesses

questions. It cannot be unconstitutional !!THIS IS NOT a question of whether or not jurors

are ALLOWED to ask questions.

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.

J-3

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 areSUMMONED into court by court order. That court order is in compliance with theFIRST 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 governmentSERVANTS 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.

BILL OF

RIGHTS

The right to petition for redress of grievances…Aren’t we all aggrieved when some criminal injures us or our property?By serving on a jury, we are petitioning our servants to do something about it – as the Founding Forefathers wanted – AND assigned us to help from the jury box in the same venue where the crime occurred.

Contempt =disobeying acourt order

J-4

ARTICLE V

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

ARTICLE VI

ARTICLE VII

I….II

….III…IV….

VIII….IX….X…

We‘re mentioned in

5, 6, & 7

…on indictment by a Grand Jury…

…trial by an impartial jury…

…trial by jury…

The jury is clearly a

safeguard for all Americans

That’s prettysignificant.

Here are thehighlights.

A trial BY jury does not mean a

prosecutor ‘tries’ the case.

Or the State ‘tries’ the case.

And it is NOT the same as a jury trial,

where the jury merely advises the

judge.

J-5

WERE WE SOLD A BILL OF GOODS TO COVER UP FOR THE BILL OF RIGHTS?OR HAS EVERY ATTORNEY THAT HAS GONE BEFORE BEEN INCOMPETENTIN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IS EQUALLY IMPORTANTTO 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!

Rosa Parks was willing to go

to jail for what she believed.

Are we?

As a judge, I’m neutral, so I’mstaying out of this. Not me!

As an attorney, I’m good at playing ostrich or Little Red Hen’s friends – NOT ME.

As a cop who doeswhat 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.

Not me? Now, where have I

heard that before?

J-6

SO IT IS FOR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. JUST AS HE HAS A RIGHT TONOT BE WRONGFULLY CONVICTED, SOCIETY HAS A RIGHT TO HAVETHE 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

And the State IS ‘We the people.’

Gimme my rights.

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!’

Articles in Amendment

4th --

-- 5th

6th --

J-7

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.

HUH?

Yea! We always

win!

Cheers!

J-8

Do-Overs?

That’s because the gang that came before

us, screwed up

The gang that came before

us?Uh, that would be

us.

We let someone else do

it.

Or convinced us of

something untrue?

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?

J-9

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 appeal after the do-over?

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!

J-10

But now it appears we need two - one in a jury box ANDOne in the Florida State Legislature

Zimmerman needs to be tried again on one (or both) of the following grounds:

Zimmerman wanted to make a name for himself - let’s give the man what he asked for

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!

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 inter- fering 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.

J-11

THEEXCUSEDU JOUR

IS…

Foxy loxy Turkey lurkey

Piggy wiggy Loosey goosey

Bailiff Schmailiff

Attorney Balerney

Judgey Wudgey

WE NEVER ACTUALLY TOLD JURORS THEY COULDN’T ASK QUESTIONS

J-14

BUT IF ONE

JUROR did ASK…

Foxy loxy Turkey lurkey

Piggy wiggy Loosey goosey

Bailiff Schmailiff

Attorney Balerney

Judgey Wudgey

IT’S NOT OUR FAULT IF THEY BELIEVED THEY COULDN’T QUESTION WINTESSES

IF A REFUSED JUROR STEPS

FORWARD NOW…

I PITY THE OFFICIAL

WHO SAID NO!

J-15

2 SURE-FIRE WAYS TODESTROY ACOUNTRY!!

DEVALUE IT’S MONETARY SYSTEM

PERVERT IT’SSYSTEM 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!!!!

L-10

#1Decide to serve on a jury if summoned toensure the PEOPLE

are there as a checks and balance..

Insist on askingquestions you needto know to complete

the record beforeyou deliberate.

File a Declaratory Judgment actionfor a ruling thattests the theory,

as there cannot bea law prohibiting it.

#2Write to your congress-men and ask them topass ’Trayvon’s Law’

which prohibits allwho try to obstruct

jurors.

Ask them and theGovernor to draft the

Attorney Generalof FL to try GZ

again.

Educate jurorseverywhere andseek jurors whoWERE denied

the right to question witnesses.

#3Write a graduatethesis on how the

jury systems in yourState evolved intoleading jurors tobelieve they hadto wait until they

deliberated to askquestions.

Vote for educatorsand businessmen

and NOT attorneysto elected offices(they had 100 yrs.and they’ve made

a real mess).

Study Honor andDishonor processes.

More PowerPoint Slide ProgramsHierarchy of the LawMirror Image Trusts in Parallel WorldsAll Sin is EqualHonor ResponsesData Integrity Boards for RemediesMotions in LiminePrimary Liability

BooksThe Zimmerman Trial Follies: Case Made for American Jurors to

Question Witnesses [www.smashwords.com, Amazon,Nook, Apple, etc.]

Workshops/Speaking EngagementsHonor/Dishonor Even The Judge StandsFixing Broken Justice How To Tell The Truth From LiesZimmerman Trial IF Deductive Reasoning Were Applied

Contact zimmermantrialfollies@yahoo.com for a list of FREE itemsand a description of the study aid’s benefit to your education. Great forTea Party meetings, NAACP groups, classrooms, and organizations dedicated to making changes for the betterment of society.

Go to www.smashwords.com author’s page for revealing interview!

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 COPYTO SEE IF ONE MIGHT WRITE A FOREWORD TO THEBOOK, AS JUST OBTAINING THEIR INPUT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY THOUGHT OF ASKING THEQUESTIONS 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 confirmationfrom the juror to whom you delivered the message, and you willreceive 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 usethe email address to make arrangements. Contact zimmermantrialfollies@yahoo.com