Jon,
Thanks for the critique. How about I change "law" to "statute"?
Or maybe we can just leave both out. Your other complaints seem
to be mostly over omissions, not errors. My intent is not to be
all-inclusive, but only to put some meat in a signature. But I'll
look again.
OK. How's do these survive the Jon test?:
************
{In criminal trials, American jurors have complete legal
authority to vote "not guilty" based on nothing more than a
reasonable doubt over the contitutionality of the charge, no
matter the evidence. There is absolutely no obligation to vote
"guilty" in order to arrive at a unanimous verdict and avoid a
mistrial. Get on a jury and help fulfill one of its original
purposes: to counteract unconstitutional / oppressive government
legislation. See www.fija.org . [Please adopt this as your own
signature.]}
************
{In a criminal trial, no American juror is legally bound to vote
"guilty" if he/she has reasonable doubt over the
constitutionality of the charge, no matter the evidence. Nor is
the juror bound to arrive at a unanimous "guilty" verdict to
avoid a mistrial. Get on a jury and help fulfill one of its
original purposes: to counteract unconstitutional / oppressive
government legislation. See www.fija.org. [Please adopt this as
your own signature.]}
-Mark
_____
mark robert wrote:
> Let me know when your bumper-stickers are ready.
They have been for a long time. It's just the page for just our
bumperstickers
that is under construction. You can find most of ours mixed with
others at
http://stickeremporium.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY
<http://stickeremporium.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Co
de=LS&Category_Code=LS0020> &Store_Code=LS&Category_Code=LS0020
> Technically, I'm not sure I see how my signature disagrees with
your
> statements.
One critical way it does is in using "law" to include things that
are
unconstitutional. It encourages the mistake that anything on the
books is law,
when it is only what is constitutional that is law. That is a
critical error.
> I wish you would have obliged my request for a direct
"pick-apart" rebuttal.
> Your suggestion is far too long. But I think I see your beef.
How about this
> one correction?:
>
>
>
> ************
I have inserted some criticisms in [] brackets.
>
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty"
> [in criminal cases -- but informed juries also needed for civil
cases] based on
> nothing more than a reasonable doubt over the
constitutionality [or
> authorization by constitutional statute -- a charge can be
unlawful even when
> the statute is constitutional] of the law the defendant
allegedly violated, no
> matter the evidence. There is absolutely no obligation to vote
"guilty" to
> arrive at a unanimous verdict. Get on a jury and help fulfill
its other
> original purpose: to counteract unconstitutional / oppressive
government
> legislation [or violations of due process rights by
investigators, prosecutors,
> or judges]. See www.fija.org . [Please adopt this as your own
signature.]}
>
>
>
>
>
> Or this 2nd revision:
>
> ************
>
> {No American juror is legally bound to vote to convict if
he/she has reasonable
> doubt over the constitutionality of the law [if it's
unconstitutional it's not
> a law] with which defendant is charged, no matter the evidence.
Nor is the
> juror bound to arrive at a unanimous verdict to avoid a
mistrial. Get on a jury
> and help fulfill its other original purpose: to counteract
unconstitutional /
> oppressive government legislation [See above]. See www.fija.org
. [Please adopt
> this as your own signature.]}
--
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
