Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:53:01 GMT, Ken Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Jon Beaver wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 11:00:25 GMT, Ken Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Larry wrote:
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ken Smith
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >  Identify even one thing that a lawyer can do for me that I
couldn't
> >> >> >do for myself (presuming, of course, that I am alive to do so).
Just
> >> >> >one will do.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's of great credit to our system that there is nothing a lawyer
can't do
> >> >> for you that you can do for yourself.
> >> >>
> >> >> You'd be the first to complain, I would think, if someone was
REQUIRED to
> >> >> go out and hire a lawyer for a task that they were forbidden from
doing
> >> >> for themselves.  It would be a power grab from the elitest
conspiracy,
> >> >> wouldn't it?  But under our system, one is always free to represent
> >> >> himself, maanage his own legal affiars, and enter into his own
legally
> >> >> binding agreements.  Of course, one does so, as with anything else
in
> >> >> life, at his own peril.
> >> >>
> >> >> >  Dazzle me with your brilliance, Nipper.  Tell me what you would
> >> >> >have done that one of the state's best lawyers didn't do.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm guessing that a petition for cert is somewhere on his list...
> >> >
> >> >  Why file a petition for cert unless and until it is actually
necessary?
> >>
> >> The 10th Circuit says it's necessary.  Please pay attention, Ken.
> >
> >  You mean, the very same Tenth Circuit that said that they didn't have
> >jurisdiction to decide the matter?  Once they say that, anything else
they
> >might say isn't worth the powder to blow to Sacramento.
> >
> >  Please pay attention, Jon.
>
> Yeah, okay.  I understand you are angry over what the Bar did to you.
> But look at it in a larger sense.  You can't always be an advocate for
> what you believe in and adequately represent someone else's point of
> view.  The only reason we license lawyers is because other people need
> the means of adequately expressing THEIR views and vindicating THEIR
> rights.  You have to decide whether you want to be a lawyer or a
> crusader.  Just being "right" is never enough.

In short, you're asking that he be a bottom feeder like yourself?

Ken, I can say right here and now. That I would rather have you represent me
than having to live with Jon representing me. Jon seems to be more
interested in expedience than in justice.

After all, he seems willing to have an innocent man convicted under an
Unconstitutional statute rather than even consider having the jury consider
whether that law is Constitutional.