Holiday Sales....

Page 5 of 6  
Stormin Mormon wrote:

It was Walmart 'Mountain Lightning'. ($0.84/ two liter bottle)
Winn-Dixie stores has 'Diet Country Mist'. ($1.00/ two liter bottle)
Save-A-Lot stores has 'Diet Mountain Holler', price unknown.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

'Diet Mountain Holler' is ($0.78/ two liter bottle).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

There is a specific pain killer for Diabetic Neuropathy, 'Gabapentin'. Other pain killers don't even touch the problem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Stormin Mormon"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobromine "It has a similar, but lesser, effect than caffeine in the human nervous system.."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mine was a bit less dramatic, but I did help find a defective batch of hose clamps, when I was a school boy. Dad brought home some product samples from his job, and paid my sister and I to do the testing.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
I was a broadcast engineer, and later worked as an engineering tech on advanced Telemtry receiving equipment. I was told I was too damn picky, and was never satisfied with any test data. That could hang a jury, very easy. My last supervisior once told me, "You're damn opinionated. But you're usually right" I told him, "It's not an opinion when I'm right, now is it?" ;-)
I was asked to do failure analysis on the Beckman trimpots we were using. Beckman refused to admit they were shipping defective units, till they got my report. Managment complained about the pages of information, all to five decimal places. I told them that I always went three additional places, to reduce rounding errors. We dropped Beckman, for Bourns and a couple months later Beckman admitted that the seals on their 'washable surface mount parts' were well out of spec. The 'o' rings were too narrow, and they had used 1/4 the special grease to keep them sealed. We didn't switch back, even though they were about 20% cheaper. Once a vendor was blacklisted they stayed that way for at least two years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nutty idea. Can you work the gas station while the other guy does jury duty? (I don't really expect so, which is why it's nutty idea).
Or, you can bring a physician to jury duty? If you cannot afford one, one will be provided.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
A judge told a local business owner that he couldn't be excused, even though he has no employees. He works 14 to 16 hour days at his gas station, and was told to lock the place up for up to three weeks. He told the judge to go to hell, that he wouldn't have a business to go back to after a week of being closed. The $15 a day pay wouldn't come close to his losses. His station is the only one owned & operated by someone born & raised locally. I'd rather pay a couple cents a gallon more to buy there, than one where it takes three or more tries to make a clerk understand that you want $20 worth of gas & a receipt.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

No. I can't stand all day, or run in and out to pump gas. If I could work for even a few days I would lose my VA disability. They have a zero tolerance policy on the disabled.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, I can see that now. It's a thought.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
No. I can't stand all day, or run in and out to pump gas. If I could work for even a few days I would lose my VA disability. They have a zero tolerance policy on the disabled.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/3/2012 3:01 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

I told them I would vote "Not Guilty" no matter what and I've never been called again. ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Daring Dufas wrote:

I hope they ask about the death penalty. Yes, fry them all! Both lawyers & the judge, while they are at it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 04:01:17 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"

Ask them about "jury nullification" and ask if the other jurors have been advised about it.
You will be out of there like a rocket.
Gunner
The methodology of the left has always been:
1. Lie 2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible 3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible 4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie 5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw 6. Then everyone must conform to the lie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A judge once told me that i don't have the right to nullify the law. I told the judge jury nullification is a power and no state granted right is needed. GOODBYE!!!!!!!
Best Regards Tom.
--
http://fija.org /



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Indeed. Truth! And most/many courts, from the judge to the DA...hate it when those 2 words are uttered.
Really hate it.
<VBG>
For those that are not aware of what Jury Nullification is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Jury nullification is a de facto power of juries. Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systemsa general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition (in some countries) on retrying defendants after an acquittal (see related topics res judicata and double jeopardy).
Jury nullification is the source of much debate. Some maintain that it is an important safeguard of last resort against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny.[6][7] Others view it as a violation of the right to a jury trial that undermines the law.[7] Some view it as a violation of the oath sworn to by jurors. In the United States, some view the requirement that jurors take an oath to be unlawful in itself, while still others view the oath's reference to "deliverance" to require nullification of unjust law: "will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help [me] God." United States v. Green, 556 F.2d 71 (D.C. Cir. 1977). [8] Some fear that nullification could be used to permit violence against socially unpopular factions.[9] They point to the danger that a jury may choose to convict a defendant who has not broken the letter of the law. However, judges retain the rights both to decide sentences and to disregard juries' guilty verdicts, acting as a check against malicious juries. Jury nullification may also occur in civil suits, in which the verdict is generally a finding of liability or lack of liability (rather than a finding of guilty or not guilty).[10]
Nevertheless, there is little doubt as to the ability of a jury to nullify the law. Today, there are several issues raised by jury nullification.
First, whether juries can or should be instructed or informed of their power to nullify. Second, whether a judge may remove jurors "for cause" when they refuse to apply the law as instructed. Third, whether a judge may punish a juror for exercising the power of jury nullification. Fourth, whether all legal arguments, except perhaps on motions in limine to exclude evidence, should be made in the presence of the jury.
In some cases in the United States, a stealth juror will attempt to get on a jury in order to nullify the law.[11] Some lawyers use a shadow defense to get information entered into the record that would otherwise be inadmissible hoping that evidence will trigger a jury nullification.[12][13] A notable contemporary example of this tactic was the claim by the defense in the Roger Clemens perjury trial to have the charges against Clemens dismissed due to "prosecutorial misconduct", i.e. that the prosecution intentionally introduced video evidence which Judge Reggie Walton had ruled inadmissible, for the purposes of getting, in the words of the defense, "a second bite at the apple", due to the prosecution's alleged poor performance. The introduction of the tainted evidence caused a mistrial after only two days. The judge denied the defense's motion but noted his strong displeasure with the prosecution. [2], [3], [4] Common law precedent Even prior to Bushell's Case, Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, a non-Episcopalian English Dissenter or Nonconformist outside of the established Church of England, was acquitted by a jury, despite the hostility of the judges.
The early history of juries supports the recognition of the de facto power of nullification. By the 12th century, common law courts in England began using juries for more than administrative duties. Juries were composed primarily of "laymen" from the local community. They provided a somewhat efficient means of dispute resolution with the benefit of supplying legitimacy.
The general power of juries to decide on verdicts was recognised in the English Magna Carta [14] of 1215, which put into words existing practices:
No free man shall be captured, and or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, and or of his liberties, or of his free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we proceed against him by force or proceed against him by arms, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, and or by the law of the land
For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood
Largely, the earliest juries returned verdicts in accordance with the judge or the crown. This was achieved either by "packing the jury" or by "writ of attaint". Juries were packed by hand-selecting or by bribing the jury so as to return the desired verdict. This was a common tactic in cases involving treason or sedition. In addition, the writ of attaint allowed a judge to retry the case in front of a second jury when the judge believed the first jury returned a "false verdict". If the second jury returned a different verdict, that verdict was imposed and the first jury was imprisoned or fined.
This history, however, is marked by a number of notable exceptions. In 1554, a jury acquitted Sir Nicholas Throckmorton, but was severely punished by the court. Almost a century later in 1649, in the first known attempt to argue for jury nullification, a jury likewise acquitted John Lilburne for his part in inciting a rebellion against the Cromwell regime. The theoretician and politician Eduard Bernstein wrote of Lilburne's trial:
His contention that the constitution of the Court was contrary to the fundamental laws of the country was unheeded, and his claim that the jury was legally entitled to judge not only as to matters of fact but also as to the application of the law itself, as the Judges represented only 'Norman intruders', whom the jury might here ignore in reaching a verdict, was described by an enraged judge as 'damnable, blasphemous heresy.' This view was not shared by the jury, which, after three days hearing, acquitted Lilburne who had defended himself as skilfully as any lawyer could have done to the great horror of the Judges and the chagrin of the majority of the Council of State. The Judges were so astonished at the verdict of the jury that they had to repeat their question before they would believe their ears, but the public which crowded the judgment hall, on the announcement of the verdict, broke out into cheers so loud and long as, according to the unanimous testimony of contemporary reporters, had never before been heard in the Guildhall. The cheering and waving of caps continued for over half an hour, while the Judges sat, turning white and red in turns, and spread thence to the masses in London and the suburbs. At night bonfires were lighted, and even during the following days the event was the occasion of joyful demonstrations.[15]
In 1653, Lilburne was on trial again and asked the jury to acquit him if it found the death penalty "unconscionably severe" in proportion to the crime he committed. The jury found Lilburne "Not guilty of any crime worthy of death".[citation needed]
In 1670, a grand jury refused to convict William Penn of unlawful assembly in Bushel's Case. The judge attempted to find the jury in contempt of court; this was ruled inappropriate by the Court of Common Pleas.
In 1681, a grand jury refused to indict the Earl of Shaftesbury. Then in 1688, a jury acquitted the Seven Bishops of the Church of England of seditious libel. Juries continued, even in non-criminal cases, to act in defiance of the crown. In 1763 and 1765, juries awarded 4,000 and 300 to John Wilkes and John Entick, respectively, in separate suits for trespass against the crown's messengers. In both cases, messengers were sent by Lord Halifax to seize allegedly libelous papers.[citation needed]
In Scotland, jury nullification had the profound effect of introducing (or as others believed, reviving) the verdict of "not guilty". It was in 1728 that one Carnegie of Finhaven accidentally killed the Scottish Earl of Strathmore. As the defendant had undoubtedly killed the Earl, the law (as it stood) required the jury merely to look at the facts and pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven" depending on whether they believed the facts proved the defendant had killed the Earl.[citation needed] However, if the jury brought in a "proven" verdict they would in effect cause this innocent man to die. To avert this injustice, the jury decided to assert what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts, rendering the verdict of "not guilty" which remains in Scotland to this day. Over time, however, juries have tended to favour the "not guilty" verdict over "not proven" and with this the interpretation has changed. Now the "not guilty" verdict has become the normal verdict when a jury is convinced of innocence and the "not proven" verdict is only used when the jury is not certain of innocence or guilt.[citation needed]
Standard jury trial practice in the United States during the Founding Era and for several decades afterward was to argue all issues of law in the presence of the jury, so that the jury heard the same arguments the bench did in reaching his rulings on motions. This is evidenced by such decisions as the 1839 case Stettinius v. U.S., in which it was held that "The defense can argue law to the jury before the court gives instructions."[16] Later, judges began to demand the parties submit motions in writing, often before the jury was empaneled, to be argued and decided without the jury being present. This transition began with motions in limine, to exclude evidence, on which it was felt the jury should not hear the argument because they would be informed of the evidence to be excluded. Later that was expanded to include all legal argument, so that today, that earlier practice of arguing law before the jury has been largely forgotten, and judges even declare mistrials or overturn verdicts if legal argument is made to the jury.[citatio
United States Main article: Jury nullification in the United States
In the United States, jury nullification first appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. Later, during Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws,[23] possibly as often as 60% of the time.[24] This resistance may have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing Prohibition, the Eighteenth amendment.
In a well known example of jury nullification, at the end of James Hickok's trial for the manslaughter of Davis Tutt in 1865, Judge Sempronius Boyd gave the jury two instructions. He first instructed the jury that a conviction was its only option under the law, he then instructed them that they could apply the unwritten law of the "fair fight" and acquit. Hickok was acquitted, a verdict that was not popular with the public.[25][26] Fugitive Slave Law
"Jury nullification" was practiced in the 1850s to protest the federal Fugitive Slave Act, which was part of the Compromise of 1850. The Act had been passed to mollify the slave owners from the South, who were otherwise threatening to secede from the Union. Across the North, local juries acquitted men accused of violating the law. Secretary of State Daniel Webster was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous "Seventh of March" speech. He wanted high profile convictions. The jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South. Webster led the prosecution when defendants were accused of rescuing Shadrach Minkins in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner; the juries convicted none of the men. Webster tried to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his Whig Party passed over him again when they chose a presidential nominee in 1852.[27] Post Civil War
White defendants accused of crimes against blacks and other minorities were often acquitted by all-white juries, especially in the South, even in the face of irrefutable evidence. [28] 21st century
In the 21st century, many discussions of jury nullification center on drug laws that some consider unjust either in principle or because they are seen to discriminate[verification needed] against certain groups. A jury nullification advocacy group estimates that 34% of all jury trials involve nullification,[29] and a recent rise in hung juries is seen by some as being indirect evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves.[30] Judicial opinion in the U.S.
In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[31]
In recent rulings, the courts have continued to prohibit informing juries about jury nullification. In a 1969, Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir.1969), the Court affirmed the concept of jury nullification, but upheld the power of a court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[32] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[33] In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction that "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[34] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[35]
Controversy
The main deontic issue involved in jury nullification is the tension between democratic self-government and integrity.[36] The argument has been raised that prosecutors are not allowed to seek jury nullification, and therefore defendants should not be allowed to seek it either.[37] U.S State Laws
On June 18, 2012, New Hampshire passed a law explicitly allowing defense attorneys to inform juries about Jury Nullification.[38]
It is legal and as far as Im concerned..it should be a staple of last resort for any juror. And legally..it is. Though most juristictions hide it.
Gunner
The methodology of the left has always been:
1. Lie 2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible 3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible 4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie 5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw 6. Then everyone must conform to the lie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

States don't "grant" any rights. Governments can only take them away. \
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gunner wrote:

The notice also said that I can't wear shorts to the courthouse, but due to the damage to my legs, they are all I can wear. Who knows? I might have to call a TV station about them. :)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sorry to hear your health is poor. I think if you vommit on a lawyer, you'd improve the aroma.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Lucky him! I have jury duty today. I've had a headache for three days, and almost no sleep for a week. I've been up sick since 1:15 AM. Now I get to be grilled by both sides for the selection process. :(
Maybe if I vommit on a lawyer, I'll be excused?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

The lawyer's, not the vommit's?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, that would be the case.
Nothing like improving the world.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
Stormin Mormon wrote:

The lawyer's, not the vommit's?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
04:01:17 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

    twofer!
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
pyotr filipivich wrote:

Then cover them in kitty litter and let the janitor sweep them up, and toss them in the dumpster?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.