The Zimmerman Trial Follies

By Victoria-Joy Godwin

Trayvon Martin was murdered and the reader is taken on a roller-coaster ride through a dark maze which could explain why the man who shot the gun is not locked up. With serious ramifications for those caught usurping the rights of jurors and three remedies suggesting how to right this wrong, the public reaction could change history. Had prosecutors presented even half of the twenty insights the six women jurors admit they needed, there might have been a different verdict. Watch the tale about when the gun came out, fall apart. Discover how the lack of adrenaline could have established there was no stand-your-ground issue. Put yourself in the shoes of the 6 women jurors and see if you would have asked about the ‘Gumby arm’ needed to reach into the back waistband. Then do the math and realize the motive behind keeping evidence from the jurors. Next, take a step into a haunted house and become terrified at how subtly jurors have been led to believe they can’t ask questions of witnesses without directly being told they can’t, and decide, if you are called for duty, to stand up to that falsehood because it cannot be a law. Why not? A juror who is prevented from questioning witnesses is forced to judge on an incomplete record and an incomplete record is an inaccurate record. Data integrity board charts show that is true. Prosecutors received a chance continuum proving the gun came out when Zimmerman said he reached for his cell phone that wasn’t in the pocket in which he normally kept it. Evidence shows that Trayvon didn’t say “you’re going to die tonight,” because that’s posturing talk males do BEFORE a fight. Yet no crime scene analyst was commissioned to create an animation showing that to the jurors. No one posed the possibility that the shot was at a 45-degree angle because Trayvon stopped fighting when they were caught by Mr. Good, and he stood up thinking the fight was over because the police were on their way, not realizing George now had to kill the only living witness. This is the only plausible explanation as to why the killer never once shouted out he was from Neighborhood Watch. Jurors could have been taken to the crime scene to HEAR how those words would have been heard by residents, yet prosecutors were silent. The use of ‘follies’ becomes clear for this ‘show’: “Folly: lack of foresight; Follies - costly undertaking having an absurd or ruinous outcome; an elaborate theatrical revue consisting of music, dance, and skits; perilously or criminally foolish actions. Take your pick; they all fit, so you can’t acquit! If, as the medical examiner is now alleging in his lawsuit, the goal was to not win the case, but save the county from civil rights lawsuits, this book could cost them a lot more. And all it will take is for one Rosa Parks to step forward and insist on asking a question BEFORE deliberations begin. It is not double jeopardy if the person wasn’t really tried because the jury was left out of finding the facts. Or, new charges, like first-degree murder could be brought. And this time the jurors will be a checks and balance in the courtroom to prevent incompetence or game-playing by either side, to get a just verdict. Jurors in three States have always questioned witnesses, so it cannot be unconstitutional. It is NOT a question of being allowed. It is a question of who will now dare to say jurors cannot ask questions without producing a written law to that effect. Will the next Rosa Parks please stand up? Man or woman. A sample declaratory judgment action is included to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Who has the courage and the passion, because, even if you live in another State, you have a right to have a murderer locked up to prevent him from moving to your area? The book is a step-by-step how-to guide for all Americans who want to know WHY, not WHAT happened, since most of us were glued to the news. That’s closure.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Victoria-Joy Godwin
• Release date: Oct 2, 2013
• ISBN: 9781301871162

Victoria-Joy Godwin

ABOUT THE AUTHORMs. Godwin taught high school science for seventeen years, owned her own writing business (involving breaking presumptions) for ten years, then became a missionary emphasizing honor and dishonor through a workshop designed to show people how to obey God’s laws without dishonoring man’s, since 2001. For the past twenty years, she has written movie and television scripts that have placed as quarter-finalists in major competitions [including the Academy of Motion Pictures’ Nichol Fellowship], and was told by a former advisor to the President of India that whatever she published “would create a worldwide tsunami.” After developing deductive reasoning through her science major, which she meshed with her feminine thinking patterns, she studied constitutional law through Barristers Inn, and the American legal system through Right Way L.A.W., where she was inducted into the Frontline Masters group in record time, probably due to her inmate dislikes for injustice and oppression of the underdog. Her students recognized her special gifts when they wrote on the blackboard “Mother Teresa saves the sick in Calcutta; Mother Victoria saves the oppressed in America.” She has spread hope through the Angel with the Inkwell Ministries by keeping FEMA from taking a farmer’s property because of an endangered salamander, stopping the state of Alaska from incarcerating a man for seventy years for practicing medicine without a license (he was a chiropractor’s assistant), preventing a County from usurping a man’s private property for a horse path, and avoiding numerous other authoritarian acts, as well as ferreting out crooked judges and attorneys whenever they cross her path. She invites the reader to participate in this tsunami for a wild ride through a different kind of revolution.

Book preview

THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL FOLLIES:

Case Made for American Jurors to Question Witnesses

By Victoria-Joy Godwin

Overseer, Angel With The Inkwell Ministries

Copyright 2013 Victoria-Joy Godwin

Smashwords Edition

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 - Judgment

CHAPTER 2 - Open and Shut, Cut and Dried, Worth Repeating

CHAPTER 3 - How To Lose a Case in 9 Days

CHAPTER 4 - Will the Next Rosa Parks, Please Stand Up?

EPILOGUE

CHARTS:

CHART A - Basis for the Theory - male/female thinking. .

CHART B - Chance Continuum .

CHART C - The Four Options To Respond: Honorable and Dishonorable

CHART D - Three-Fold Pattern

CHART E - Data Integrity Board Cycle

ILLUSTRATIONS:

LET ME COUNT THE PLACES

NOTHING ELSE FOR JURORS TO CONCLUDE

WILL THE NEXT ROSA PARKS PLEASE STAND UP? (1).

WILL THE NEXT ROSA PARKS PLEASE STAND UP? (2).

BILL OF RIGHTS

EXCUSE DU JOUR .

GUESS WHO GETS TRIED FOR TREASON

DATA INTEGRITY BOARD EXAMPLES

TROJAN HORSE

DIAGRAMS:

DATA INTEGRITY BOARD DIAGRAM II .

DATA INTEGRITY BOARD DIAGRAM IIIa .

DATA INTEGRITY BOARD DIAGRAM IIIb .

DATA INTEGRITY BOARD DIAGRAM IVa .

DATA INTEGRITY BOARD DIAGRAM IVb .

DATA INTEGRITY BOARD DIAGRAM IVc

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL FOLLIES

PREFACE

It was clear that long before the trial against George Zimmerman ever began, there should have been no trial. But not for the reason you may think. On June 29, AD2012, Zimmerman convicted himself. There was a smoking gun in this case, but it, like the rest of the testimony, was absolutely unnecessary because Zimmerman, in his only sworn statement, confessed to the crime. It was at that point that the masculine, scientific side of my mind bumped into the feminine, common sense portion of my brain, enabling me to see nuances and insights others apparently missed. There was no way I could know if the prosecutors, using male logic and reasoning, would see the same thing, although I certainly gave them the benefit of a doubt when I began sending my parade of letters to them. At first, I made sure to come in humble and low and seek their receptivity toward sharing my insights without intimating that they had not considered them, themselves. My intention was to assist in clarifying what sometimes is overlooked by overworked, overwhelmed government officials, and every one of my initial reports to them gave that assurance. Throughout the fast-paced trial, my concern grew because of what appeared to me to be missed opportunities. There were days when I sent as many as three or four perceptions the prosecutors did not appear to be recognizing. Things moved so swiftly, I chalked up the oversights to: (1) the prosecution team not receiving my mailings because overzealous clerks were protecting them from what they perceived to be unnecessary interruptions in the middle of a high-profile case (which could have been under direct orders); (2) the prosecution team not reading my perspective because I was not a member of the Bar Association or an elected official; (3) attorneys considering themselves smarter than the rest of us, and therefore justified in doing things their way, i.e., the way they have always done it in the past. I chose number three. However, I clung to a glimmer of hope that this might all be a strategy move, sort of a chess game, where they were going to let the defense team show all their cards, then pull the ace out from up their sleeves. Fat chance.

When none of my insights made it into the prosecutors’ case-in-chief, the prosecution team rebuttal case, their closing arguments, or their rebuttal close, I decided to write this book while the jury was still deliberating, because I had a morbid sense of dread overcome me regarding that verdict. This book explains why everyone should have experienced that feeling. But it goes one step further. It reveals the light at the end of the tunnel that, it appears, is not going to occur to anyone else. As a child, my heroes were not Snow White or Cinderella. My heroes were the Lone Ranger and Joan of Arc, and by the time I reached the seventh grade, I had added Paul Revere and Thomas Paine to that list. Perhaps growing up in a house where boy children were treasured, I struggled so hard to be one, that I developed the masculine traits to the point where they match my natural feminine instincts. Whatever the cause, my abilities in the scientific realms shone through my studies as I majored in biology and all of the general sciences. However, I could not ignore the powerful feminine attributes with which I was gifted, so I double majored, with a second degree in speech and theater arts. This combination has served me well as I now find my gift of deductive reasoning to equal that of my newest hero, Sherlock Holmes.

May you be enlightened by what you read herein, to the point where you are able to put aside any prior conclusions and consider the facts for what they truly are. This entire case is not about depriving anyone of the right to carry arms, stripping away true self-defense claims, or prejudices either openly displayed or concealed in the hearts of men. It is about understanding that no select group, whether they go to law school or not, is any more intelligent than any other group. It is about equalizing the power between the people of the nation and the officials they elect as public servants. If it is the government’s duty to protect the people from unscrupulous miscreants in every area of society who intend to harm people or their property, then it is equally the duty of the people, who are the government, to assist their agents in doing so. Not only does this mean that we should eradicate the devastating ‘Don’t Snitch’ trend that is prevalent in many communities, but it means that jurors, who have a duty to assist in the legal process, be allowed to do so unfettered, unobstructed, and with all rights preserved. May God have mercy on our souls as we move forward into a new chapter of American history - jurors who question witnesses!

SOME THINGS NEVER GO OUT OF STYLE:

TODAY’S RELEVANCE OF THOMAS PAINE’S BRILLIANCE

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." - Thomas Paine, COMMON SENSE

Somewhere along the path of history in forty-seven States, jurors began to believe they could not question witnesses. One must ask why? Thomas Paine, in 1776, showed his incredible ability to enlighten the American colonists about the dangers they faced as a society threatened with oppression from a would-be ‘ruler.’ The amazing recognition that England was only ONE of the European countries represented by the colonists proved England intended to oppress, for that country did not own everyone here and yet made it appear that Americans required permission to be an independent nation from the ‘mother country.’ Paine’s insights show he thought things through and presented analyses after analyses of how various situations could bode poorly for the Americans if they did not recognize the potential for evil that awaited them. While Paine’s incredible insights were amazing then, those same insights are more impressive today, when the same threats lurk in the shadows of our government.

Had the Founding Forefathers believed that men could be trusted once endowed with power, the Declaration of Independence would have been unnecessary, as rights would be secured automatically, via honorable men respecting each other and their property. Had the Founding Forefathers not considered the tantalizing scent of authority wafted above the heads of weak men who succumb to the potent influence of control, the Constitution would not have been written as a chain which binds men’s actions.

But they did understand human nature and thus, those documents were established. Here is how one man ferreted out the dangers and ills society faces regardless of the kind of government instituted amongst men. To read COMMON SENSE today is to acknowledge that man’s nature does not change. To forget that would be tantamount to forgetting the reason a rattlesnake has fangs. If his rattle isn’t fair warning, he will strike you with a deadly blow, whether he can eat you or not. Take heed.

"The cause of America is, in great measure, the cause of all mankind."Thomas Paine, COMMON SENSE

An examination of foreign justice systems, which Americans regularly demean as second to ours, must determine if the trier of fact, in the absence of a jury, questions witnesses and actually achieves a more accurate record upon which to render a just verdict. Study what happened in the case against Amanda Knox in Italy and you will gather clues as to why Americans find overbearing prosecutors in foreign countries abominable. It is now time to set aside our biases and revamp our flaws. If we want to be the leader, or continue to think of ourselves as the leader in fair play, we cannot carry the pretense any further.

"Government supplies the defect of moral virtue." The people must be in American courtrooms, through the minds of the jurors, or there is no checks and balance to cure this defect in a system which guarantees a fair trial when government accuses a man. The government cannot promise anything more than a ‘fair’ trial, simply because they can never have personal knowledge of an accused’s intent. Appellate courts check for procedural defects, and as long as nothing could be considered fundamental error, the trial was fair. Even having a public defender who slept through much of the trial is not deemed significant enough to have deprived an accused of a fair trial. That never made sense to me before observing the Zimmerman trial. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that the only justification for such rulings has to be founded in the presumption that it is the jurors who are the pivotal points in that courtroom, the only checks and balances in a trial where the other participants do not and can not share the same liberty interests with an accused. And, what makes better sense than to entrust that impartiality to a fellow American, a peer of the accused, whose interest in personal freedom equals the party on trial?

"Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven, but how a race of men came into this world so exalted above the rest and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into ..."Thomas Paine, COMMON SENSE

So, attorneys, defense or prosecution, actually do not have skills or abilities sacrosanct unto themselves? Imagine that? There is evidence they actually may need the help of the people in performing their jobs. Who would have ‘thunk’ it? So, placing jurors from the general public into a ‘trial’ was part of a deliberate plan? Awesome! Is it any wonder those with titles of nobility, such as Esquire, were forbidden from coming to American and practicing their ‘trade’ in that capacity? In the juror’s handbook, currently being written, a discussion of the Thirteenth Article in Amendment, it’s first and second version, will clarify the right to be free from involuntary servitude and the clever method of inducing people into volunteering into a state of slavery.

" ... but as it opens the door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression." Thomas Paine, COMMON SENSE

To label the act of restricting the ‘triers of fact’ to asking questions AFTER the case is closed and all the witnesses have gone home, as ‘justified’ cannot be considered as wise, good, and proper. Tell a judge during a ‘court trial’ or ‘bench trial’ that he must wait to ask questions until after all of the witnesses have gone home, and see what ensues. First of all, who would he ask? The only ones left standing are the attorneys, and if they had personal knowledge to qualify as a witness, they couldn’t litigate the action!

"Expedient and right are two different things." Thomas Paine, COMMON SENSE

Is not this just another way of saying ‘haste makes waste?’

Government employees have a reputation for taking the fastest way out. If this does not provide the strongest justification for keeping power in the hands of the people, what better reason could there be? ‘Let George do it,’ results in the less than satisfactory remedies, while ‘if you want something done right, do it yourself,’ demonstrates that only those who have an interest in the outcome in the resolution will take the time to ensure that the problem is corrected, and not temporarily patched.

"When planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary." Thomas Paine, COMMON SENSE

The same holds true when re-electing politicians, including district attorneys, to their positions. Just because someone has a clean track record, does not mean he has clean hands. Many criminals, even white-collar criminals, get away with their crimes for years. Going undiscovered may not be a sign of a good record; it may be a sign of a good criminal.

It is safe to conclude that all attorneys who have practiced law knew or should have known that the jury system began with jurors questioning witnesses. Those attorneys knew or should have known that the subtle change was not broadcast out loud in public for a nefarious reason. And those attorneys knew or should have known they had a duty to stop it before it happened, or should have interceded at any point along the way, over these many decades during which the unauthorized and unjustified change supplanted the intent of the law. If these attorneys are just as ignorant as the general population about what happened to effectuate this unlawful and illegal change, they must concede they are indeed, not smarter than the rest of us! And they must be removed from office until they figure out a way to accept the ‘rest of us’ as equal partners with the same or equivalent responsibility for keeping the justice arena fair for all! That fairness revolves around the jurors as the checks and balances capable of guaranteeing that the rights of both the accused and the State (as they bring charges in the name of the people) are preserved on an equal basis.

Then we can direct our attention to the educational system, government run, to resurrect the foundations of our government into the classrooms. The good news is that, with the Internet and the access available to most all children, parents can now guide their children to overcome the concealment that has created the ease with which the population has been fooled for over five decades.

Grateful acknowledgments to Kelly Innsbruck, my inspiration and supporter, my proofreader and editor, my dedicated student and ardent fan, my confidant and good friend, without whose persistent commitment, this book would never have been possible in the short time between the verdict and its release to the public. Kelly made time to proofread each section and all changes and additions, after numerous augmentations. Her contributions showed an uncanny sense of who I am and what I intend to accomplish through this book, and it was she who reminded me what the former advisor to the President of India predicted, when he said Whatever you publish will create a world-wide tsunami. Also, appreciation to Jack Smith, Rick Schramm and Jeannie Collins and Mary Keane, my early mentors who guided me to serve justice with my whole heart and soul, and the numerous students who brought their issues to my workshops and allowed the template of honor to be superimposed so a win-win result could be obtained and more ‘tests’ could be passed. Thank you to Molly Nordstrom for her assistance with proofreading and helpful input. With much appreciation, I thank Marti Dobkins for her expertise in formatting and providing the finishing touches. Thank you to Marshall James Lockley who listened intently and offered valuable feedback. The brilliant words of Florida Supreme Court Justice James E.C. Perry are treasured daily; they have become a template I applied to previous matters and relied upon in the Zimmerman case. But most of all, because of grace and mercy delivered unto me after eleven straight years of praying for wisdom and discernment, love and appreciation to the Good Lord who uses me as His tool to write when He speaks. As for the Good Lord, well, He always blesses me with ‘scathingly brilliant’ ideas, and will continue to do so as long as I carry them out. This is the latest of those.

INTRODUCTION

Out of lemonade, you make lemons. That’s not how the saying usually goes, but the failure of the prosecution of the George Zimmerman case, shows how what seemed impossible, occurred. If this were a sporting event, this failure would be the equivalent of ABC’s famed statement Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The worst thing that came out of the evening of February 26, AD2012, was the death of an innocent young man, who will never get to grow up. The second worst thing that came out of those events, was that a grown man who should have known better because he touted himself as the Neighborhood Watch Captain (with the key word being ‘watch’), chose to hunt the young boy down as a predator does his prey. Look for the diagram that shows how many opportunities Zimmerman had to identify himself as the helpful, courteous, kind, responsible guardian of the neighborhood and the lost and/or confused people in the area, and you will see that nothing Trayvon Martin did prior to that day, had any relevance to what happened. After all, it was dark and raining and every single one of those houses looks exactly like the others.

But, by far, the biggest lemon that came out of that series of events was the so-called trial. While it does not have the same significance as the death of an innocent teenager, or the impact of an unnecessary killing, it does qualify as one of the most important revelations to have reared its ugly head over the course of those 18 months. The good news is that this lemon can be turned back into lemonade, which means the young boy’s death will not have been in vain. A first-degree murder charge is still possible without violating the double-jeopardy protection of the Constitution, and, the people have the perfect platform to petition for a redress of grievances and get their power back. It might take gentle squeezing, or it might require forceful pressure in a heavy-duty juicer. But that lemon is destined to become lemonade again. How is that for a skit in a brand-new follies? Before developing that part of the story and revealing the remedy, it is necessary to bring everyone up to speed to see who wants to get their hands on the lemon that will restore the power back to the people.

In the late 1800s, in Paris, France, a new craze hit the country and its reputation spread rapidly. It was called the Folies Begere; people from all around the world flocked to the continent to watch the show girls sing and dance and they even enjoyed a few skits thrown in by actors who appear to have been the equivalent of vaudeville performers. It was basically a variety show with performers from all areas of show business, including burlesque. Eventually, this form of entertainment died and went to, no, not heaven, Las Vegas, where girly shows still out-draw everything else on stage.

The morning that I woke with a new title for this work, I checked out the definition of ‘folly’ and ‘follies.’ What I discovered was both fascinating and pertinent.

Folly - lack of foresight. The US purchase of Alaska was deemed, initially, to be a folly.

Follies - costly undertaking having an absurd or ruinous outcome; an elaborate theatrical revue consisting of music, dance, and skits; perilously or criminally foolish actions; evil, wickedness.

As I had expected, this new title was perfect. The insights which I humbly submitted to the Zimmerman prosecution team were ignored by people who had no foresight. Foresight is defined as wisdom and reasoning about the future. My presumption that crack prosecution teams automatically had these qualities was wrong. This case demonstrates their shortsightedness, forever linking the lack of foresight to acknowledge or recognize my insights and the subsequent shortsightedness which resulted from the refusal or failure to consider others outside the legal profession as having valuable contributions to make.

The perfection of the new title to the book however is cast in stone when one examines all four definitions of the word ‘follies.’ If there ever has been a costly undertaking that has an absurd and ruinous outcome, it is this Zimmerman case, regardless of which side you thought had the stronger position. Without all of the evidence, including the absence of evidence, choosing a side in this case was not only absurd, but it was ruinous to the entire justice system of the United States of America. If it weren’t for the fact that it is not too late to implement a remedy, we might have all come away jaded about our inner sense of what is right and wrong. We do have our heavenly Creator to thank for not limiting intelligence, logic, common sense, and reason, to those who graduate from law school.

As far as being a costly undertaking, just ask those parties involved how much money the state of Florida spent on one of the worst performances ever given by state actors in any court room anywhere. They aren’t called ‘state actors’ for nothing. Hollywood has gone to great lengths to show us how expensive it is to put on the elaborate shows, even using a courtroom to depict how fancy footwork and slick skits for buffalo-ing not only the jurors, but also the judge. Most people are familiar with these extravaganzas through the movie about Fanny Brice, titled Funny Girl. The creator of those shows on Broadway was Florenz Ziegfield. No one knows where he got all the money to spend on costumes and scene designs and special effects, but we sure know that it is the taxpayers who bear the cost of the courtroom dramas the American people love to hate. As if being expensive and absurd and ruinous isn’t enough, we now find the state actors putting on performances. Jurors almost seem to expect a re-enactment of sorts, so when the defense team in the Zimmerman case paid a lot of money to have an animation which alleged to re-create the crime scene, was not put into the record as evidence, no one wanted to see all that money go to waste. Not even the judge. However, because it was not based on actual witness testimony (whew!), the judge restricted the showing of that little clip to the defense’s closing arguments, which meant the jurors could not take it back into the deliberation room for consideration. This little episode itself turned out to be a skit. Prosecutors argued that the only other person who knew what happened that night was dead and could not testify. But for some reason, they never created their own little skit. Many of the insights which I submitted recommended that all prosecutors had to do