Here is the video that led to the charges:

The post Breaking News: Adam Kokesh Facing Up to 7 Years is Sentenced to 2 Years Probation appeared first on We Are Change.

Libertarian Republic Home

Mexicans are cleaning up our mess

Tired of living under the yoke of criminal gangs and corrupt public servants, groups of Mexican citizens are taking matters into their own hands. Armed vigilantes have stormed the town of Paracuaro, headquarters of the Knights Templar drug gang. A 600-strong band of rebels rounded up and arrested the area’s police, whom they accuse of being on the payroll of cartels like the Templar. 

Members of the Public Safety System, a Mexican self-defense group, barreled into Paracuaro in armored vehicles, yelling “Don’t be frightened, we are vigilantes” as gun battles raged around the city. At least one person is known to have been killed. The coup was a decisive victory for the vigilantes, who seized the weapons of the police officers they placed under arrest.

Vigilante groups like the Public Safety System are faced with a herculean task. Besides casting off their own state’s corruption, they must clean up our mess. Cartels like the Templar derive virtually all of their funding from America’s War on Drugs, which – like alcohol prohibition – ensures that inevitable drug sales are made only by the least scrupulous salesmen. A study by a respected Mexican think tank found that legalizing marijuana in only the U.S. states of Colorado, Oregon and Washington would axe Mexican cartels’ income by as much as 30%.

The disastrous state with which Mexico’s vigilantes must contend is further proof that drug prohibition is a fantastically utopian policy with no logical basis of any kind.

The post Mexican Vigilantes Throw Out Government, Cartels appeared first on We Are Change.

The underwater monument at Yonaguni, Japan is one of the clearest pieces of evidence of an advanced civilization at a time when mainstream archaeology says there was no advanced societies on Earth. 

Of all the famous monuments in Japan, perhaps none is more perplexing than Yonaguni, an underwater rock formation that lies off the coast of the Ryuku Islands. It was discovered in 1987 by a group of divers who were there to observe Hammerhead sharks, and it immediately sparked a huge amount of debate in the scientific community: is the monument a natural formation, or is it

man-made?Scientists have long argued that millennia of strong currents and erosion have carved the formations out of the ocean floor, and they point to the fact that the monument is all one piece of solid rock as proof that it was not assembled by a builder. Others, though, point to the many straight edges, square corners and 90-degree angles of the formation as proof that it’s artificial. They often cite one formation in particular, a section of rock that resembles a crude carving of a human face, as evidence. If they are right, then an even more interesting mystery presents itself: the monument had to have been built when it was last above sea-level… over 10,000 years ago!

“With exceptionally clear sub-surface clarity, and a 100 foot visibility a common factor, allowed for thorough photographic documentation, both still photography and video. These images provided the basis of japan’s leading headlines for more than a year. Yet, not a word about the Okinawa discovery reached the US public, until the magazine, “Ancient American” broke the news last spring. Since that scoop, only the CNN network televised a report about Japan’s underwater city. Nothing about it has been mentioned in any of the nation’s other archaeology publications, not even in any of our daily newspapers. One would imagine that such a mind-boggling find would be the most exciting piece of news an archaeologist could possibly hope to learn. Even so, outside of the “Ancient American” and CNN’s single report, the pall of silence covering all the facts about Okinawa’s structures screens them from view more effectively then their location at the bottom of the sea. Why? How can this appalling neglect persist in the face of a discovery of such unparalleled magnitude? At the risk  of accusations of paranoia, one might conclude that a real conspiracy of managed information dominates America’s well-springs of public knowledge.” –  Said Frank Joseph with “Ancient American Magazine”

The post The Yonaguni Monument appeared first on We Are Change.

Jury Nullification: What It Is and How to Use It

Bestselling author Tom Woods talks to Steve Silverman of Flex Your Rights about jury nullification.

The post Jury Nullification: What It Is and How to Use It appeared first on We Are Change.

Instead of giving Lostutter thanks for exposing these criminals, however, the FBI raided his house last April. At first, Lostutter had denied that he was the man in the video, but he decided to come forward after the appalling reaction of the rapists after they were exposed.

Lostutter is now facing ten years behind bars if indicted for obtaining tweets and social media posts which revealed the details of the rape as well as for threatening action against the Steubenville rapists and school officials who helped to cover up the crime. Lostutter posted the video to the Steubenville High School football team website, bringing national attention to the case and the cover-up.

The post Anonymous Hacker Who Exposed the Steubenville Rapists May Get More Prison Time Than Rapists appeared first on We Are Change.

As the consumption of cannabis, also known as marijuana, finally returns to its historical state of being legal, in Uruguay and across the world, a previously unseen problem shows its head: namely that of genetically modified cannabis. 

The main reason cannabis legalization has been so difficult within the last 100 years (since it became illegal), is because the bare necessities for its creation don’t amount to much, and a reasonably high yield can even be achieved with low skill, and little material investment; there is reason it is also called “weed.” This “inability to monopolize” was ironically probably one of the major reasons companies and politicians sought (and to some extent still seek) to keep it forbidden: guaranteeing increased profits and demand for the cotton, lumber, petroleum, pharmaceutical, and many other industries.

Thus the legalization sounds good, and most of us agree that criminalization is essentially unacceptable, but does its legalization open the door for Monsanto Cannabis? The answer is: maybe. It depends on how cannabis is defined in the law; what standards open sale (as opposed to between free individuals) have to meet. Regulation may want to take a form similar to how the Germans have historically regulated their beer: by defining an exclusive set of ingredients. The way to stop the creation and growth of “Monsanto weed” is to strictly define what “weed” is.

Is there proof Monsanto and co are working on such plants? No, although suspicions have been arising in Uruguay about it, and these have been amplified over the internet.

Is it possible or even likely? Yes, especially since Uruguay allows the growth of GM corn (unlike Mexico). It is unclear whether it will be from Monsanto though, as more than half of all existing cannabis patents are owned by Chinese companies.

Although genetic modification is not inherently bad, the genetic variability provided by nature largely guarantees no unexpected shift in the gene pool (since GM relies on the multiplication of genetically identical mutants), and allows the plants to better adapt to their environment in their evolution. Regardless of this, if laws are not put in place defining exactly what cannabis is, what can be put on or in it, then legal cannabis might not end up much safer than its illegal counterpart.

The post Catch 22 in Cannabis Legalisation? Monsanto Weed? appeared first on We Are Change.

(Pictured: Armored Nuisance Abatement Team – similar vehicles are in use across the United States)

The dream of many Americans is to get out of the hustle and bustle of the daily city grind. And what better dream to have then to move your family outside of city limits to the countryside so that you can grow your own food, produce your own electricity with solar power, and live outside the purview of an ever expanding government apparatus?

That was the goal for hundreds of residents living on the outskirts of Los Angeles. Many own their land outright and have been living on it for decades without so much as a peep from their local government. They’ve built their homes using whatever means they had available to them. They planted their own fruits and vegetables. They even set up their own personal power production stations using solar panels and miniature wind farms.

And they’ve lived peacefully without violating the rights of those around them and leaving a very small “carbon footprint” to boot. For all intents and purposes, they achieved a life of independence and freedom.

But the tentacles of tyranny are everywhere and no one is protected from their grasp.

Recently, agents of the Los Angeles county government started paying visits to these rugged individualists. They claimed they were “here to help,” as one resident puts it. But, as is generally the case when the government comes knocking, they were there for exactly the opposite.

What was once a dream come true for many quickly turned into the new American nightmare.

Code enforcement agents for the county showed up in droves. But they didn’t come alone. Along with them came heavily armed “Nuisance Abatement Teams” who raided the homes and land of these peaceful residents as they would those of a terrorist.

The collection of rugged individualists who [want to live here] are being chased away

Last year the county began performing unannounced inspections on his property.

Gallow says he cooperated with the county – clearing brush, then moving his shed, then getting rid of his motor home.

Finally, the county made a demand that shocked him.

“They told me… you have to get off the property. I said get off the property?’ They said ‘yeah, you can’t live here.’ ”

Gallow says county officials told him that neighbors, whom they would not identify, had complained about unsightly structures on his property.

He could keep his land, they told him, but would not be allowed to live on it.

“I said, for what? My closest neighbor is half a mile away. We’re not living in Beverly Hills here, this is my home. All of sudden you got police at my front door – bullet proof vests, guns, and then they surrounded the place. Everything I worked for was just melting away from me.”

“I don’t know where I’m going to go.”

Mr. Gallow is not alone. County enforcement officials with militarized Nuisance Abatement Teams in tow have made similar threats to other residents, ordering them to destroy everything on their properties and to get off their own land.

Watch this shocking, yet unsurprising account of the plight of these Americans who want nothing more than to be left alone:

The post Gov SWAT Teams Target “Rugged Individuals” Who Grow Their Own Food, Produce Their Own Electricity appeared first on We Are Change.

  

Stated another way, your thoughts are your motor intentions, only they are not always recognizable as such if they are sufficiently abstracted.

The actual patent speaks of picking up an “auditory signal” from the tattoo, and converting it into a digital signal. The signals from the brain, carried by spikes on the hundreds of laryngeal nerve fibers (and other nerves modulating the vocal tract), are already digital.

They bear no real resemblance to an auditory signal at this point. After transformation in the numerous muscles that control the speech organs, there is still no single signal that could be sent to a transducer to generate sound recognizable as speech.

Looking at an image of a smart tattoo pioneered by John Roger’s Illinois-based research lab, there seems to be all kinds of sensor goodies which can be built in to pick up various biologics.

I don’t know if the strain gauges could pick up an actual speech signal in the same way that a conventional microphone could, but they would certainly generate useful information.

The built-in EMG and ECG electrodes would not pick up individual spikes so to speak, but could certainly generate electrical records of muscle activity, and perhaps eventually compound nerve potentials.

Rogers helped to form a company, MC10, that hoped to commercialize this technology and although he indicated that he was not involved in these recent ventures, they have joint development efforts with Motorola Mobility.

There is already a device known as a throat microphone that has been used to record an auditory signal in noisy conditions like, for example, the cockpit of a jet fighter.

Developed along with the first pressure suit back in 1934, it used a direct contact microphone to pick up sound waves traveling through solid objects such as the throat wall.

Later so-called throat microphones, such as the Xbox 360 accessory, only use an open-air microphone.

They do not really exclude background noise, nor have the ability to pick up unvoiced signals.

What got some folks attention recently, namely those over at Patently Apple, was a few peculiar statements in the patent regarding the recording of galvanic skin responses.

These guys first heard about the e-skin tattoo from Regina Dugan, the former DARPA head who is now in charge of advanced research at Motorola.

Their article notes that the e-tattoo would provide a nice way to do authentication, but the seemingly out of place inclusion of the lie detection talk certainly raises some questions.

Covert voice activation of your device in a crowd would definitely be a nice feature. Instead of actually speaking to Siri or Google Now, you could merely think your voice command.

Detecting stress and other emotion could have some applicability too, although who else really needs to know if you have a lump in your throat?

Perhaps I have not read that many patents recently, but there certainly did seem to be an excess of wording, and scope. Every wireless communications protocol I am familiar with was included in some form, somewhere.

Not only were there definitions for words like “a” and “an,” but also actual percentages associated with a list of words like “about,” “approximately”, “essentially”, and “substantially”.

Clearly this is one among several recent patents that we all may want to keep an eye on

The post Motorola Patents E-Tattoo That Can Read Your Thoughts appeared first on We Are Change.

An investigation by El Universal found that between the years 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an arrangement with Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organization to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs while Sinaloa provided information on rival cartels. 

Sinaloa, led by Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, supplies 80% of the drugs entering the Chicago area and has a presence in cities across the U.S.

There have long been allegations that Guzman, considered to be “the world’s most powerful drug trafficker,” coordinates with American authorities.

But the El Universal investigation is the first to publish court documents that include corroborating testimony from a DEA agent and a Justice Department official.

The written statements were made to the U.S. District Court in Chicago in relation to the arrest of Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, the son of Sinaloa leader Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada and allegedly the Sinaloa cartel’s “logistics coordinator.”

Here’s what DEA agent Manuel Castanon told the Chicago court:

“On March 17, 2009, I met for approximately 30 minutes in a hotel room in Mexico City with Vincente Zambada-Niebla and two other individuals — DEA agent David Herrod and a cooperating source [Sinaloa lawyer Loya Castro] with whom I had worked since 2005. … I did all of the talking on behalf of [the] DEA.”

A few hours later, Mexican Marines arrested Zambada-Niebla (a.k.a. “El Vicentillo”) on charges of trafficking more than a billion dollars in cocaine and heroin. Castanon and three other agents then visited Zambada-Niebla in prison, where the Sinaloa officer “reiterated his desire to cooperate,” according to Castanon.

El Universal, citing court documents, reports that DEA agents met with high-level Sinaloa officials more than 50 times since 2000.

Then-Justice Department prosecutor Patrick Hearn told the Chicago court that, according to DEA special agent Steve Fraga, Castro “provided information leading to a 23-ton cocaine seizure, other seizures related to” various drug trafficking organizations, and that “El Mayo” Zambada wanted his son to cooperate with the U.S.

El UniversalA screenshot from the documents published by El Universal.

 

“The DEA agents met with members of the cartel in Mexico to obtain information about their rivals and simultaneously built a network of informants who sign drug cooperation agreements, subject to results, to enable them to obtain future benefits, including cancellation of charges in the U.S.,” reports El Universal, which alsointerviewed more than one hundred active and retired police officers as well as prisoners and experts.

Zambada-Niebla’s lawyer claimed to the court that in the late 1990s, Castro struck a deal with U.S. agents in which Sinaloa would provide information about rival drug trafficking organizations while the U.S. would dismiss its case against the Sinaloa lawyer and refrain from interfering with Sinaloa drug trafficking activities or actively prosecuting Sinaloa leadership.

“The agents stated that this arrangement had been approved by high-ranking officials and federal prosecutors,” Zambada-Niebla lawyer wrote.

After being extradited to Chicago in February 2010, Zambada-Niebla argued that he was also “immune from arrest or prosecution” because he actively provided information to U.S. federal agents.

Zambada-Niebla also alleged that Operation Fast and Furious was part of an agreement to finance and arm the cartel in exchange for information used to take down its rivals. (If true, that re-raises the issue regarding what Attorney General Eric Holder knew about the gun-running arrangements.)

A Mexican foreign service officer told Stratfor in April 2010 that the U.S. seemed to have sided with the Sinaloa cartel in an attempt to limit the violence in Mexico.

El Universal reported that the coordination between the U.S. and Sinaloa, as well as other cartels, peaked between 2006 and 2012, which is when drug traffickers consolidated their grip on Mexico. The paper concluded by saying that it is unclear whether the arrangements continue.

The DEA and other U.S. agencies declined to comment to El Universal.

The post CONFIRMED: The DEA Struck A Deal With Mexico’s Most Notorious Drug Cartel appeared first on We Are Change.

www.truthdig.com

By Chris Hedges

This is our last gasp as a democracy. The state’s wholesale intrusion into our lives and obliteration of privacy are now facts. And the challenge to us—one of the final ones, I suspect—is to rise up in outrage and halt this seizure of our rights to liberty and free expression. If we do not do so we will see ourselves become a nation of captives.  

The public debates about the government’s measures to prevent terrorism, the character assassination of Edward Snowden and his supporters, the assurances by the powerful that no one is abusing the massive collection and storage of our electronic communications miss the point. Any state that has the capacity to monitor all its citizenry, any state that has the ability to snuff out factual public debate through control of information, any state that has the tools to instantly shut down all dissent is totalitarian. Our corporate state may not use this power today. But it will use it if it feels threatened by a population made restive by its corruption, ineptitude and mounting repression. The moment a popular movement arises—and one will arise—that truly confronts our corporate masters, our venal system of total surveillance will be thrust into overdrive.

The most radical evil, as Hannah Arendt pointed out, is the political system that effectively crushes its marginalized and harassed opponents and, through fear and the obliteration of privacy, incapacitates everyone else. Our system of mass surveillance is the machine by which this radical evil will be activated. If we do not immediately dismantle the security and surveillance apparatus, there will be no investigative journalism or judicial oversight to address abuse of power. There will be no organized dissent. There will be no independent thought. Criticisms, however tepid, will be treated as acts of subversion. And the security apparatus will blanket the body politic like black mold until even the banal and ridiculous become concerns of national security.

I saw evil of this kind as a reporter in the Stasi state of East Germany. I was followed by men, invariably with crew cuts and wearing leather jackets, whom I presumed to be agents of the Stasi—the Ministry for State Security, which the ruling Communist Party described as the “shield and sword” of the nation. People I interviewed were visited by Stasi agents soon after I left their homes. My phone was bugged. Some of those I worked with were pressured to become informants. Fear hung like icicles over every conversation.

The Stasi did not set up massive death camps and gulags. It did not have to. The Stasi, with a network of as many as 2 million informants in a country of 17 million, was everywhere. There were 102,000 secret police officers employed full time to monitor the population—one for every 166 East Germans. The Nazis broke bones; the Stasi broke souls. The East German government pioneered the psychological deconstruction that torturers and interrogators in America’s black sites, and within our prison system, have honed to a gruesome perfection.

The goal of wholesale surveillance, as Arendt wrote in “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” is not, in the end, to discover crimes, “but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.” And because Americans’ emails, phone conversations, Web searches and geographical movements are recorded and stored in perpetuity in government databases, there will be more than enough “evidence” to seize us should the state deem it necessary. This information waits like a deadly virus inside government vaults to be turned against us. It does not matter how trivial or innocent that information is. In totalitarian states, justice, like truth, is irrelevant.

The object of efficient totalitarian states, as George Orwell understood, is to create a climate in which people do not think of rebelling, a climate in which government killing and torture are used against only a handful of unmanageable renegades. The totalitarian state achieves this control, Arendt wrote, by systematically crushing human spontaneity, and by extension human freedom. It ceaselessly peddles fear to keep a population traumatized and immobilized. It turns the courts, along with legislative bodies, into mechanisms to legalize the crimes of state.

The corporate state, in our case, has used the law to quietly abolish the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the Constitution, which were established to protect us from unwarranted intrusion by the government into our private lives. The loss of judicial and political representation and protection, part of the corporate coup d’état, means that we have no voice and no legal protection from the abuses of power. The recent ruling supporting the National Security Agency’s spying, handed down by U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III, is part of a very long and shameful list of judicial decisions that have repeatedly sacrificed our most cherished constitutional rights on the altar of national security since the attacks of 9/11. The courts and legislative bodies of the corporate state now routinely invert our most basic rights to justify corporate pillage and repression. They declare that massive and secret campaign donations—a form of legalized bribery—are protected speech under the First Amendment. They define corporate lobbying—under which corporations lavish funds on elected officials and write our legislation—as the people’s right to petition the government. And we can, according to new laws and legislation, be tortured or assassinated or locked up indefinitely by the military, be denied due process and be spied upon without warrants. Obsequious courtiers posing as journalists dutifully sanctify state power and amplify its falsehoods—MSNBC does this as slavishly as Fox News—while also filling our heads with the inanity of celebrity gossip and trivia. Our culture wars, which allow politicians and pundits to hyperventilate over nonsubstantive issues, mask a political system that has ceased to function. History, art, philosophy, intellectual inquiry, our past social and individual struggles for justice, the very world of ideas and culture, along with an understanding of what it means to live and participate in a functioning democracy, are thrust into black holes of forgetfulness.

The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin, in his essential book “Democracy Incorporated,” calls our system of corporate governance “inverted totalitarianism,” which represents “the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry.” It differs from classical forms of totalitarianism, which revolve around a demagogue or charismatic leader; it finds its expression in the anonymity of the corporate state. The corporate forces behind inverted totalitarianism do not, as classical totalitarian movements do, replace decaying structures with new structures. They instead purport to honor electoral politics, freedom of expression and the press, the right to privacy and the guarantees of law. But they so corrupt and manipulate electoral politics, the courts, the press and the essential levers of power as to make genuine democratic participation by the masses impossible. The U.S. Constitution has not been rewritten, but steadily emasculated through radical judicial and legislative interpretation. We have been left with a fictitious shell of democracy and a totalitarian core. And the anchor of this corporate totalitarianism is the unchecked power of our systems of internal security.

Our corporate totalitarian rulers deceive themselves as often as they deceive the public. Politics, for them, is little more than public relations. Lies are told not to achieve any discernable goal of public policy, but to protect the image of the state and its rulers. These lies have become a grotesque form of patriotism. The state’s ability through comprehensive surveillance to prevent outside inquiry into the exercise of power engenders a terrifying intellectual and moral sclerosis within the ruling elite. Absurd notions such as implanting “democracy” in Baghdad by force in order to spread it across the region or the idea that we can terrorize radical Islam across the Middle East into submission are no longer checked by reality, experience or factually based debate. Data and facts that do not fit into the whimsical theories of our political elites, generals and intelligence chiefs are ignored and hidden from public view. The ability of the citizenry to take self-corrective measures is effectively stymied. And in the end, as in all totalitarian systems, the citizens become the victims of government folly, monstrous lies, rampant corruption and state terror.

The Romanian poet Paul Celan captured the slow ingestion of an ideological poison—in his case fascism—in his poem “Death Fugue”:

 

Black milk of dawn we drink it at dusk

we drink it at noon and at daybreak we drink it at night
we drink it and drink it
we are digging a grave in the air there’s room for us all

We, like those in all emergent totalitarian states, have been mentally damaged by a carefully orchestrated historical amnesia, a state-induced stupidity. We increasingly do not remember what it means to be free. And because we do not remember, we do not react with appropriate ferocity when it is revealed that our freedom has been taken from us. The structures of the corporate state must be torn down. Its security apparatus must be destroyed. And those who defend corporate totalitarianism, including the leaders of the two major political parties, fatuous academics, pundits and a bankrupt press, must be driven from the temples of power. Mass street protests and prolonged civil disobedience are our only hope. A failure to rise up—which is what the corporate state is counting upon—will see us enslaved.

The post The Last Gasp of American Democracy appeared first on We Are Change.

Constitutional rights aren’t all that effective if you don’t know what they are. A new infographic released by Online-Paralegal-Programs.com seeks to help Americans understand what rights they do and don’t have when interacting with an officer of the law.

The infographic is surprisingly detailed and includes information on filming a police encounter, DUI stops and requirements to show ID — which actually varies state to state. 

Explore all the rights you have during a police encounter:

The post Here Are the Rights You Have When Interacting With a Police Officer in One Detailed Infographic appeared first on We Are Change.

The “Just Us” movement is a coalition of media and activists working together to encourage the American public to exercise their civil responsibility of jury nullification.

What exactly is jury nullification?

Simply put, when a law is unjust, it’s the duty of the citizen juror to acquit the case. It was with this idea that the Founding Fathers gave us the right to trial by jury. President Thomas Jefferson stated, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

The most important vote you will ever have the opportunity to cast won’t be in an election. This opportunity arises when one has the honor to serve on a jury, a duty which extends itself over 700 years. The basis of our modern jury system was enshrined in the Magna Carta on June 15^th, 1215, with the principle of Common Law Jury. In effect, this is the basis for our current Constitutional justice system.

In our Constitutional system, there is one body that has more power than Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Supreme Court… that is the jury! Trial by jury under our current United States Constitution has more power than all of these governmental bodies. This is because it has the final veto power over all acts of the legislature that may come to be called laws.

But does the jury’s power to veto bad laws actually exist under our Constitution?

When our Constitution was written, the word “jury” was in reference to citizens given the power to judge both law and evidence placed before it.

This is evidenced in the jury instructions given by Chief Justice John Jay in the first trial jury before the US Supreme Court, State of Georgia v. Brailsford, when he said, “It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision … you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy”.

His comments illustrated not only the power wielded by juries, but the right that is inherently their own. A jury serves with not only the power to review the facts, but a duty to also judge the law itself.

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in US vs Dougherty, said that the jury has an ” unreviewable and irreversible power… to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.”

Once you are chosen for jury duty, no one will inform you of the power you have to judge both law and fact. The judge’s instructions to the jury may likely be to the contrary.

This is explicitly stated in this quote from US vs Dougherty: “The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury’s prerogative, and approval of its existence as a necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors, does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power”.

The court ruled that jurors have the right to decide the law, but they don’t have to be informed about that right. If it truly is the right of the juror to decide the law, then it is the citizen’s duty to be informed of this right.

Armed with the knowledge of this right, it is now time for us to take a stand.

It only takes one jury vote to nullify a illegal act of legislature. That one vote can hang a jury, and the defendant will not be convicted of violating the unjust or unconstitutional law.

When you are selected for jury duty it is your chance to keep the power in the hands of the people and resist the police state. We have the ability to hold our government accountable by not allowing them to deprive anyone of liberty, without our consent.

As a juror, you have the right to not only judge the facts of the case before you, but to also refuse to enforce any bad law that is brought before you. Juries are the last line of defense against the abuse of power by government. Even if a defendant has committed a crime, a jury can legally refuse to convict if they believe the law is unconstitutional, unjust, or being improperly applied.

If a law is unjust, we have a duty to nullify.

Jay Syrmopoulos

We Are Change

Join the “Just Us” Movement

Like “Just Us” on Facebook

Related Video: Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change announces the “Just Us” movement

A National Campaign for Jury Nullifcation

The post The “Just Us” Jury Nullification Movement appeared first on We Are Change.

While browsing the internet on a late October night, I stumbled across two distinctly different covers of the exact same edition of the ever popular TIME magazine.

One was meant for US consumption, while the other was published in every other country except in the United States.

This has led me to question if our government, in concert with the corporate media, is currently running information PSYOPs against the American public.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term PSYOP, it’s military jargon for psychological operation.

The purpose of this type of activity, according to the Department of Defense’s Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, is to convey selective information to audiences in an attempt to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning and ultimately their behavior.

One should legitimately question whether this is, or isn’t, currently going on in the United States.

To the skeptic, these twisted attempts at controlling a country’s citizens have only occurred in countries like the Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.

The graphic above features both the cover of the September 2013 international edition of TIME magazine compared with the September 2013 United States edition of TIME magazine.

The United States’ TIME magazine cover features a college football player with the following caption:

“It’s time to pay college athletes”.

The cover of the international edition states:

“America’s weak and waffling, Russia rich and resurgent”.

Attempts to manipulate perceptions of world affairs is an insult to the dignity of the American people.

It remains our job to question, to remain vigilant and not be lulled into complacency.

Ongoing awareness is vital for our survival as a free people.

Jay Syrmopoulos

We Are Change

The post Time Magazine PSYOP: Putin Vs. College Football appeared first on We Are Change.