Re: jury nullification, jury veto, jury pardon

"Yardpilot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Jon Beaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:57:44 GMT, "Yardpilot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Yardpilot"
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >"Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ken Smith
> > >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >(Whether
> > >> >> >Bush was busted for cocaine possession is debatable, but I tend
to
> > >> >> >accept the assertion as fact, given that the document which would
> > >> >> >have indicated that fact has mysteriously been destroyed.)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You accept it as true because the document that would prove it to
be
> > >true
> > >> >> has been destroyed?  What would you think if the document
> existed?!?!!
> > >> >
> > >> >The argument that "it must be true because there is no evidence"
> sounds
> > >very
> > >> >much like a J. Edgar or J. Reno sort of spin. It is also the
argument
> of
> > >a
> > >> >great many conspiracy theorists.\
> > >>
> > >> Which makes sense, since Ken (i) is a conspiracy theorist, and (ii)
> thinks
> > >> he was denied a law license on the basis of protected first amendment
> > >> speech, something for which there is simply no evidence.
> > >
> > >Evidently. I'm underwhelmed by his arguments.
> >
> > That can only mean you are part of the conspiracy!
>
> Hey, what can I say? I'm a joiner.

or a follower, well follow this choad face.