The Names of the Six Jurors who Acquitted George Zimmerman in the Death of Trayvon Martin Made Public

The six jurors in the George Zimmerman murder case better change their phone numbers to unlisted.

As reported in the Orlando Sentinel, the names of the six member jury panel that acquitted George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin have been made public for the first time, after a new court order. RUT-ROH, these folks are in for a world of unwanted phone calls and possible home visits. Hopefully, the order will be stayed so that the individuals could prepare for this.

The names of the six-member jury panel that acquitted George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin have been made public for the first time, after a new court order, records show.

Circuit Judge Debra Nelson, who had previously ordered the jurors’ identifying information be kept confidential, granted access to the names in a ruling March 21.

Zimmerman’s defense asked the judge in June to keep the names secret until six months after the verdict. The judge set no timeline then, but noted in her new order they have been withheld more than eight months.

Attempts to reach the jurors by phone and in-person Thursday were unsuccessful.

Judge Jan Jurden Sentences du Pont Heir, Robert H. Richards IV, Probation for Raping His 3 Year Old Daughter Because ‘He Would Not Fare Well’ in Prison

WTF … who cares whether this child rapist would fare well in prison or not!!! How could anyone call this Justice?

Judge Jan Jurden, a Superior Court judge needs to be thrown off the bench after her insane sentencing decision for a child rapist. Judge Jurdan unbelievably sentenced Robert H. Richards IV to probation for the rape and molestation of his then 3 year old daughter stating, he “will not fare well” in prison. WHAT!!! Prison is not meant to be nice, it is meant to be a punishment and to keep predators away from society. However, this misguided judge actually said that prison life would adversely affect Richards. What about the adverse affect that his daughter faces thanks to his rape? So what was the “unique circumstances” that the judge made her decision, his wealth?

Robert H. Richards IV

A Superior Court judge who sentenced an heir to the du Pont fortune to probation for raping his 3-year-old daughter wrote in her order that he “will not fare well” in prison and suggested that he needed treatment instead of time behind bars, according to Delaware Online.

Court records show that in Judge Jan Jurden’s sentencing order for Robert H. Richards IV she considered unique circumstances when deciding his punishment for fourth-degree rape. Her observation that prison life would adversely affect Richards confused several criminal justice authorities in Delaware, who said that her view that treatment was a better idea than prison is typically used when sentencing drug addicts, not child rapists.

Jurden gave Richards, who had no previous criminal record, an eight-year prison term, but suspended all the prison time for probation.

According to the following site, Judge Jurden’s present term ends May 29, 2013. Not soon enough!!!

UPDATE I: Judge said du Pont heir ‘will not fare well’ in prison.

O’Neill said he and his deputies have often argued that a defendant was too ill or frail for prison, but he has never seen a judge cite it as a “reason not to send someone to jail.”

Richards was no frail defendant, court records show, listing him at 6 feet, 4 inches tall and between 250 and 276 pounds. Nor do court records cite any physical illnesses.

O’Neill said the way the Richards case was handled might cause the public to be skeptical about “how a person with great wealth may be treated by the system.”

Jurden, who has been a judge since 2001, and Superior Court President James T. Vaughn Jr. did not respond to questions last week about the case.

UPDATE II: Du Pont heir accused of raping 2nd child in lawsuit.

A du Pont family heir who raped his 3-year-old daughter nearly a decade ago but received no prison time now faces a lawsuit from his former wife that accuses him of sexually abusing his toddler son.

Robert H. Richards IV, 47, who is supported by a trust fund and who paid $1.8 million for his 5,800-square-foot mansion near Winterthur Museum, pleaded guilty in 2008 to fourth-degree rape of his daughter. Currently on probation, he has never been charged with crimes against his son.

WHAT!!! Upskirt Photos Not Illegal According to Massachusetts High Court

ARE YOU KIDDING ME … REMEMBER WHEN LAWS USED TO PROTECT OR PROVIDE JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIM?

How can it be that a man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law?  Massachusetts highest court ruled the following on Wednesday, “A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing.”  The Court overruled a lower court and stated that the State law “does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA.” Unbelievable! What ever happened to intent? Hell, what ever happened to Justice?

Just curious, what would have happened if he was doing this on a play ground?

A man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of women riding the Boston subway did not violate state law because the women were not nude or partially nude, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Wednesday.

The Supreme Judicial Court overruled a lower court that had upheld charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested in August 2010 by transit police who set up a sting after getting reports that he was using his cellphone to take photos and video up female riders’ skirts and dresses.

The ruling immediately prompted top Beacon Hill lawmakers to pledge to update state law.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court’s justice is not only blind, it’s stupid as well.

Michael Dunn Found Guilty on 4 of 5 Counts, 3 Counts of Attempted 2nd Degree Murder in the ‘Loud Music Murder’ Trial …. Judge Declares Mistrial on the Count of Murder of Shooting Death of 17 Year Old Jordan Davis

A verdict is in for the Michael Dunn “loud music” trial …

The jury has returned a guilty verdict on 4 of 5 counts against Michael Dunn, including three for attempted second-degree murder. However, the jury had deliberated for nearly 40 hours but was deadlocked and could not come to a unanimous decision on count one, the first-degree murder in the death of black teen, Jordan Davis. The jurors could have decided not to convict Dunn on that charge but instead find him guilty on lesser charges such as manslaughter. Or they could have acquitted him altogether on this count. Earlier in the day after the jury had stated they had reached verdicts on 4 of 5 counts, but were having difficulty on the first count, judge  Healey brought the jurors into the courtroom and recited them an Allen charge, which is an instruction to continue deliberations and make a decision. However, the jury could not come to a conclusion on count one. Circuit Judge Russell Healey declared a mistrial for the murder count. The shooting happened on November 23, 2012 outside a Jacksonville convenience store. Michael Dunn will be sentenced March 24, 2014.

Jurors did convict Dunn of the second-degree attempted murders of Tevin Thompson, Leland Brunson and Tommie Stornes, and also convicted him of a fourth count of firing bullets into the vehicle all four teenagers were in.

State attorney Angela Corey will have to decide whether to try dunn again for Davis’ murder.

Supporters of both Dunn and Davis appeared crestfallen after the verdict was announced with the parents of both men fighting back tears. Ron Davis, father of Jordan, held his wife and cried so

The Florida jury in the case of Michael Dunn has found him guilty on four charges, including three for attempted second-degree murder, but they couldn’t reach a verdict on the most significant charge — first-degree murder in the death of Jordan Davis.

After the decisions were read out Saturday night in court, Judge Russell Healey — who moments before had said that the jury had reached a verdict on all counts — declared a mistrial on the murder count.

This possibility had seemingly been floated around since 4:45 p.m. Saturday, when the 12 jurors sent a note saying they’d decided on four of the five counts that Dunn faces. But they hadn’t unanimously reached a verdict “on count 1 or any of the lesser included offenses related to it.”

Count 1 is first-degree murder for the shooting death of 17-year-old Davis.

Jurors could have decided not to convict Dunn on that charge but instead find him guilty on lesser charges such as manslaughter. Or they could have acquitted him altogether on this count.

Michael Dunn – Pic from Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office

Bay State 9: Michael Dunn found guilty of attempted murder, mistrial on murder charge.

The jury in the Michael Dunn murder trial found him guilty of three counts of attempted second-degree Saturday but a mistrial was declared on a first-degree murder charge after the 12 jurors couldn’t agree on it.

The Brevard County man was charged with fatally shooting 17-year-old Jordan Davis, of Marietta, Ga., in 2012 after they got into an argument over music coming from the parked SUV occupied by Davis and three friends outside a Jacksonville convenience store. Dunn, who is white, had described the music to his fiancee as “thug music.”

Dunn’s trial started Feb. 3, and jury deliberations began Wednesday and lasted more than 30 hours over four days.

Liberal & Obama Supporter Attorney Jonathan Turley Says Expansion of Barack Obama’s Presidential Powers Threatens Liberty

WOW, IF THIS DOES NOT WAKE PEOPLE UP, NOTHING WILL … LIB ATTY AND OBAMA SUPPORTER BLASTS OBAMA’S ACTIONS

Last night on ‘The Kelly Files,’ Jonathan Turley, a liberal Constitutional attorney and Obama supporter said a mouthful last night with regards to the imperial president, Barack Obama’s “unilateral” and Unconstitutional actions.  Turley stated, “I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left” and Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism.”

This is a must watch interview and remember, this is coming from a lib. Turley is basically describing … “TYRANNY”.

Transcript from Real Clear Politics:

KELLY: Let me ask you about this because in that soundbite we played before we went to commercial, you said the framers would be horrified because everything they did was to create balance between the branches of government and we’ve lost that.

TURLEY: Well, I’m afraid it’s quite serious because the framers created a system that was designed to avoid one principle thing, the concentration of power in any one branch. Because that balancing between these branches in this fixed orbit is what not only gives stability to our system but it protects us against authoritarian power, it protects civil liberties from abuse.

And what we’ve been seeing is the shift of gravity within that system in a very dangerous way that makes it unstable, and I think that’s what the president is doing. I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.

KELLY: We heard a lot of objections when President Bush expanded the powers of the presidency from the left and from the media. They haven’t been raising the same objections now that we have a Democrat in The White House. And you say they do so at their own peril.

TURLEY: I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.

KELLY: Why is it so dangerous? What’ so bad that will come of this?

TURLEY: Well, you know, a system in which a single individual is allowed to rewrite legislation or ignore legislation is a system that borders on authoritarianism. I don’t believe that we are that system yet. But we cannot ignore that we’re beginning to ignore a system that is a pretense of democracy if a president is allowed to take a law and just simply say, ‘I’m going to ignore this,’ or, ‘I’m going to shift funds that weren’t appropriated by Congress into this area.’

The president’s State of the Union indicated this type of unilateralism that he has adopted as a policy. Now, many people view that as somehow empowering. In my view, it’s dangerous, that is what he is suggesting is to essentially put our system off line. This is not the first time that convenience has become the enemy of principle. But we’ve never seen it to this extent.

KELLY: What is supposed to be done about it? You know, I know in your testimony before Congress you cited Ben Franklin who believed that the other branches would work in their own self interest to try to reign in a president who got drunk on his own power, or however you want to put it. You know, Congress doesn’t have — they can withdrawal money, they can move to impeach, they can file lawsuits –which they’ve done — I mean, what are they supposed to do?

TURLEY: Part of the problem really rests with the federal courts. For the last two decades, federal courts have been engaged in a policy of avoidance. They are not getting involved when the executive branch exceeds its powers, they’re just leaving it up to the branches. And often they say Congress has the power of the purse, Congress can simply restrict funds.

But one of the complaints against President Obama is that very clearly dedicated funds in areas like healthcare, have been just shifted by the White House unilaterally to different areas. And the courts have adopted this avoidance policy.

I am astonished by the degree of passivity in Congress, particularly by Democrats. You know, I first came to Congress when I was a young page and there were people that fiercely believed in the institution. It didn’t matter what party held the White House. But what we’re seeing now is the usurpation of authority that’s unprecedented in this country.