Jury nullification … know it … use it




… Despite what the John Robert’s corporate owned U.S. Supreme Court says … “we” (the people) as JURORS are the SUPREME LAW of the land …


Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge’s instructions as to the law.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification


clip_image002[4]A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of acquittals develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

It was feared that a single judge or panel of government officials may be unduly influenced to follow established legal practice, even when that practice had drifted from its origins. However, in most modern Western legal systems, juries are often instructed to serve only as "finders of facts", whose role it is to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, and the weight accorded to the evidence,[1] but not the application of that evidence to the law. Similarly, juries are routinely cautioned by courts and some attorneys to not allow sympathy for a party or other affected persons to compromise the fair and dispassionate evaluation of evidence during the guilt phase of a trial. These instructions are criticized by advocates of jury nullification. Some commonly cited historical examples of jury nullification involve the refusal of American colonial juries to convict a defendant under English law.[2]

clip_image002[6]Juries have also refused to convict due to the perceived injustice of a law in general,[3] or the perceived injustice of the way the law is applied in particular cases.[4] There have also been cases where the juries have refused to convict due to their own prejudices such as therace of one of the parties in the case.[5]

Other cases have revealed that some juries simply refuse to render a guilty verdict in the absence of overwhelming direct or scientific evidence to support such a judgment. With this type of jury impaneled for the trial of a case, even substantial and competently presented circumstantial evidence may be discounted or rendered inconsequential during the jury’s deliberation.



… Time to make yourself fully informed about JURY NULLIFICATION … do not be deceived about the lawful authentic power “we” the people have …


clip_image001… “WE  (the people)  are the

 SUPREME LAW in America …

… Tell me what do you NOT understand … you are a representative of the people … you are a public servant … you serve at our pleasure … You are not God …

… Tell me what do you NOT understand … you are a representative of the people … you are a public servant … you serve at our pleasure … You are not God …


Don ‘Tequila’ Shooter: ‘We don’t need no stinkin’ testimony on the budget’


Posted: 25 Jan 2012 01:52 PM PST  ..Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Just how authoritarian is our Tea-Publican legislature? This authoritarian. Shooter considering banning public testimony on budget bills – Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):

The chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee said Tuesday he is considering banning all public testimony when lawmakers take up the state budget later this year.

Sen. Don Shooter told the Arizona Capitol Times that he was weighing that decision on the same day he took criticism for not taking public testimony during presentations by two government agencies.

“I’m not saying they will or won’t (testify). That decision hasn’t been made yet,” the Yuma Republican said. “It’s possible there’s no public testimony. It’s possible there will be some limited testimony or whatever.”

His decision not to hear public testimony during budget presentations by government agencies isn’t entirely unprecedented, but banning testimony during budget-bill debates is.

If he takes the more restrictive route, it will surely invite criticisms from Democrats and groups who expect to at least be heard in committee..

… Why do they NOT have to report ALL gifts regardless of size and who gave the gift …

… Why do they NOT have to report ALL gifts regardless of size and who gave the gift …

Fiesta Bowl scandal spurs gift ban proposals


clip_image001By BOB CHRISTIE
Associated Press

PHOENIX (AP) — The Fiesta Bowl scandal has prompted two state lawmakers to plan legislation that would include an outright ban on gifts to legislators.



Laws being drafted separately by Republican Sen. Ron Gould of Lake Havasu City and Democratic Sen. David Schapira of Tempe are a response to last year’s revelations that 28 current or former state lawmakers received free football game tickets and some got all expense-paid trips from the bowl.

Both also would prohibit lobbyists or corporations that hire lobbyists from giving anything of value to lawmakers. Currently, lawmakers generally can’t accept items not provided to the public at large, but can accept food, entertainment, travel or lodging benefits or speaking fees. They don’t have to report gifts costing less than $10, and must disclose gifts from a single source of more than $500.

Read More

to treat you as chattel and a slave


clip_image002… You can only get a raise in pay providing you allow Arizona’s government to treat you as chattel and a slave …


… And Brewer had the audacity to wag her finger at the President of the United States …


… That just ain’t going to happen …


clip_image002… Secrecy and behind closed doors is the SOP mode of Arizona government operations so why would anyone think the manner in which we KILL those sentenced to death would be disclosed and made transparent to you and me …


… That just ain’t going to happen 



IF as this article reports Arizona LIKES its lawmakers …

clip_image002… Before I can accept the Arizona Republic poll results I need to know the questions asked, when they were asked, how they were asked, by whom they were asked … then and only then will I be in a position  to ascertain IF as this article reports Arizona LIKES its lawmakers …


… I can only hope the majority of Arizona citizens have better judgment and discernment about the job Arizona’s leaders are doing for the majority of Arizona citizens … 



but rather the toxic residuals

… I was not aware it was the volume of water that FRACKING consumes but rather the toxic residuals this process leaves behind which adversely affects “life” …


Fracking’s water use small sliver of state total

Hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas consumed less than a tenth of a percent of water used in Colorado in 2010, a new report shows.

That amount could increase by about 4,800 acre-feet in 2015 from 13,900 acre-feet in 2010, but that still would represent just a little more than a tenth of a percent of the state total, according to the study, prepared by Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission staff with the help of the state Division of Water Resources. An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons.

The report assumes a fairly flat level of drilling activity over that timeframe, and emphasizes that projecting activity levels is difficult. It also assumes a continuing increase in horizontal drilling, in which wells are drilled down and then horizontally into formations. Such drilling requires more water than vertical or directionally drilled wells because the part of the well to be fractured is longer.



Hydraulic fracturing entails blasting formations with a mix typically consisting of water, sand and other substances to foster oil and gas flow. The oil and gas commission studied the practice’s water requirements partly in response to a recommendation from an outside review last year of its hydraulic fracturing regulations.

…Beware of Agent Orange Burgers…

Beware of Agent Orange Burgers

Dioxin, a chemical component of the herbicide Agent Orange, is perhaps the most toxic compound synthesized by man. Yet it is still being produced by chemical companies and pesticide manufacturers such as Monsanto, AND dioxin pollution increased 10% in 2010.

Now, as the Environmental Protection Agency is set to release the first part of the dioxin risk assessment it’s been working on since 1985, food industry lobbyists are attempting to block EPA action yet again. Why? The EPA is likely to confirm what the FDA has reported:

"Although dioxins are environmental contaminants, most dioxin exposure occurs through the diet, with over 95% coming through dietary intake of animal fats."

The food industry doesn’t want you to know that you can easily exceed the daily dioxin limit proposed by the EPA by consuming a single large meal of non-organic animal products. Most of all, the food industry doesn’t want to have to take responsibility for the dioxin contamination. If they did, they would have to submit to common-sense food safety measures, like those embraced by the organic industry, that ban toxic pesticides and slaughterhouse waste from animal feed.

Tell the EPA to release its report on schedule and to not bow down to food industry lobbyists who don’t want us to know what we’re eating. Then watch this NutritionFacts.org video to learn which foods are most likely to contain dioxin.

clip_image002Take Action & Watch the VideoAnd, if you haven’t already, please take action on our "Stop Agent Orange Frankencorn" campaign to stop the new generation of genetically engineered crops designed to withstand being drenched with 2,4-D, the 7th-largest source of dioxin pollution in the US.

Learn More & Take Action

you achieved what


.clip_image002[4].. And for your finger-wagging” Gov. Brewer you achieved what…?


… You unquestioningly proved that civility and decorum are not part of Arizona hospitality …



… You got yourself and Arizona on the front page of most every newspaper in the world … though one might ask how beneficial your temper tantrum will prove to be for Arizona …

… Is it really … your call … ?

… Is it really … your call … ?

6:45AM GMT 25 Jan 2012

The latest study, published in the British Medical Journal, found no association between the frequency of fried food consumption in Spain – where olive and sunflower oils are mostly used – and the incidence of serious heart disease.

They say there is mounting research that it is the type of oil used, and whether or not it has been used before, that really matters.


The latest study, published in the British Medical Journal, found no association between the frequency of fried food consumption in Spain – where olive and sunflower oils are mostly used – and the incidence of serious heart disease.


However, the British Heart Foundation warned Britons not to "reach for the frying pan" yet, pointing out that the Mediterranean diet as a whole was healthier than ours.

Spanish researchers followed more than 40,000 people, two-thirds of whom were women, from the mid 1990s to 2004.


At the outset they asked them how often they ate fried foods, either at home or while out. They then looked to see whether eating fried foods regularly increased the likelihood of falling ill from having coronary heart disease, such as a heart attack or angina requiring surgery.


Dividing participants into four groups, from lowest fried food intake to highest, they found no significant difference in heart disease.


There were 606 incidents linked to heart disease in total, but they were split relatively evenly between the four groups.


The authors concluded: "In a Mediterranean country where olive and sunflower oils are the most commonly used fats for frying, and where large amounts of fried foods are consumed both at and away from home, no association was observed between fried food consumption and the risk of coronary heart disease or death."


Commenting on the findings in the BMJ, Professor Michael Leitzmann of the University of Regensburg in Germany said two other studies – one from Costa Rica and another by an international team – had also failed to find strong evidence of a link.


He said: "Taken together, the myth that frying food is generally bad for the heart is not supported by available evidence.


"However, this does not mean that frequent meals of fish and chips will have no health consequences."


Fried food did contain more calories, he said, while it had also been linked to high blood pressure and obesity.


The authors of the Spanish study noted that the findings could only really be extrapolated to other Mediterranean countries with similar diets, whose people tended to fry ‘fresh’ with olive and sunflower oil.


Fried foods from modern American-style takeaways were different, they argued, because these tended to have been cooked in re-used oils, higher in transfats.


In addition, such takeaways tended to contain much more salt, known to increase blood pressure and heart disease risk.

However, more and more people in Britain are now frying with olive oil or sunflower oil. Britain now consumes around 28 million litres of olive oil a year – double that sold a decade ago.


Half British households now use it regularly in some way, although not necessarily for frying, compared to a third 10 years ago.


Victoria Taylor, senior heart health dietitian at the British Heart Foundation, said: “Before we all reach for the frying pan it’s important to remember that this was a study of a Mediterranean diet, rather than British fish and chips.

"Our diet in the UK will differ from Spain, so we cannot say that this result would be the same for us too.


“Participants in this study used unsaturated fats such as olive and sunflower oil to fry their food."We currently recommend swapping saturated fats like butter, lard or palm oil for unsaturated fats as a way of keeping your cholesterol down and this study gives further cause to make that switch.


“Regardless of the cooking methods used, consuming foods with high fat content means a high calorie intake. This can lead to weight gain and obesity, which is a risk factor for heart disease."A well-balanced diet, with plenty of fruit and veg and only a small amount of high fat foods, is best for a healthy heart.”




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.