By golly I think we've got it. And it's shorter too. Can't beat
that!
************
{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 government abuse. See
www.fija.org. [Please adopt this as your own signature.]}
_____
>
> {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 [or other abuse]. See www.fija.org . [Please adopt
this as your own
> signature.]}
Better, but see my small addition. Need to remind people that
oppression can take
the form of executive or judicial action as well as legislative.
Perhaps others in this forum would like to chime in to suggest
pithy language that
conveys the key ideas involved here.
-- Jon
_____
[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/
