Forget Jury Nulification : Do It Anyway : opinion that counts

Forget Jury Nulification : Do It Anyway

The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the whole foundation of the United States does not permit any judge, court or authority to state, think or suggest that jury nullification should not be considered. That said, God at the first murder trail demonstrated that jury nullification is alive and well.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9)

Some judges will tell you that the law does not allow for nullification – ignore them because if you don’t God will judge you for it. Indeed, all courts want jury nullification kept secret from a dumb-downed jury pool. Most jury pools are still just getting their feet wet in the child’s wading pond when it comes to understanding justice.

This is why Prosecutor Jason Simmons in a courtroom kicked anyone who believed in the requirement of evidence off the jury.

Judge Lori K. Smith went as far to illegally tell the jury that they could not consider jury nullification because the “law” doesn’t allow it. Judge Lori K. Smith had no right to even utter such a declaration and crossed the line into sin by this statement.

Forget the debate about jury nullification as there is nothing to debate.

Each person sitting on a jury will give an account to God for their decision.

Every juror who sits in the box is responsible to hold the law, the codes, the lawyers, the judge and the person accused of a crime responsible for each other. Fact is the main focus of a jury is to hold the Prosecution accountable. And all the more since Prosecutors have made themselves exempt from accountability.

Note: The prosecution is laughing at every juror anyway. They blame the juror whenever they are caught in their crimes against mankind.

And God will not buy any excuse like:

  • I was just following the law.
  • I was doing what the Judge told me to do.
  • I didn’t know and the prosecutor told me what to consider.

Better stop the debate about jury nullification and worry about giving an answer to God for not standing up to the abuse of prosecutors across the land.

And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. (Genesis 9:5) : opinion that counts

Article Reference

(—Yesterday a federal judge in Denver issued a preliminary injunction protecting the First Amendment rights of activists who want to distribute jury nullification pamphlets outside the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse. Two activists, Mark Iannicelli and Eric Brandt, did just that last month and as a result were each charged with seven counts of jury tampering, a felony punishable by one to three years in prison. Last week their lawyer, David Lane, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of two other activists and the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), asking for an order barring such unconstitutional harassment. The injunction issued by U.S. District Judge William J. Martinez applies not only to arrests by the city but to enforcement of a judicial order restricting expressive activity near the courthouse.
That bizarre order, issued by Michael A. Martinez, chief judge of Colorado’s Second Judicial District (which covers the city and county of Denver) on August 14, originally banned essentially all expressive activity—including “demonstrating,” “picketing,” “protesting,” “marching,” “parading,” “holding vigils or religious services,” “proselytizing or preaching,” and “distributing literature or other materials”—anywhere near the courthouse. Martinez, the state judge, subsequently revised the order to cover a smaller part of the courthouse grounds, but it still struck Lane as blatantly unconstitutional, so he added it to his motion for a preliminary injunction.
Although FIJA suspected that the speech-suppressing order was aimed at jury nullification activists, Steven Steadman, security administrator for Colorado’s courts, testified that the restrictions were motivated by concerns about possible unrest following the sentencing of Dexter Lewis, who was recently convicted at the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse of stabbing five people to death at a Denver bar in 2012. Steadman said the fear was that there would be a violent reaction if Lewis, who is black, was sentenced to death while Aurora movie theater shooter James Holmes, who is white, received a life sentence. But Steadman conceded that the security issue could have been addressed with a much narrower approach.
In prohibiting enforcement of the speech restrictions, Martinez, the federal judge, noted that the city and county of Denver, which owns the courthouse, had conceded that the plaza outside of it, which has frequently been the site of protests and demonstrations, qualifies as a “public forum.” Denver officials also said they did not plan to enforce the state judge’s limits on expressive activity. Furthermore, Denver stipulated that “Plaintiffs who wish to engage in peacefully passing out jury nullification literature to passersby on the Plaza are entitled to do so and that Denver, through its police or sheriff department, will not arrest or otherwise charge Plaintiffs for handing out literature regarding jury nullification so long as Plaintiffs do not violate Colorado law or Denver’s Revised Municipal Code when they are handing out their literature.” The city and county added that “Plaintiffs’ proposed intent of peacefully handing out jury nullification literature to or discussing jury nullification with passersby at the Plaza, without more, does not violate Colorado law.”