Dear Mr. Rubin,

Heil Dubya!

Once again, Hear! Hear!! And I think I'll add another Hear!!!

(Nick) writes:
You could also accurately say that Ken Sloan has (as far as we know)
never been convicted of murder, he has not been PROVEN to be a murderer.

To be even more accurate: "The jury decided that the prosecution had not
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the
specific charge(s) brought against him or her at the criminal trial."

Yes. Similarly, prosecutors haven't proven Ken Sloan beyond a
reasonable doubt to be guilty of murder.

Actually, I'm not even sure that the burden of proof was on the
prosecution in the Sherzer case. It was an uncontested fact that
Sherzer crossed state lines with intent to blah blah. He presented
the affirmative defense of entrapment and the jury accepted the
defense. But (maybe a legal expert can correct me if I'm wrong), I
think I heard somewhere that the burden of proving affirmative
defenses is on the defendant. Therefore, the jury did more than
simply find the prosecution didn't give sufficient evidence and that a
reasonable doubt remained, requiring acquittal. It acquitted Sherzer
because it actually made a finding of fact that he had been entrapped.


Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

From: ospam (Jerome Bibuld)
Date: 07/10/03 15:24 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Dear Mr. Rubin,

Heil Dubya!

Once again, Hear! Hear!! And I think I'll add another Hear!!!

(Nick) writes:
You could also accurately say that Ken Sloan has (as far as we know)
never been convicted of murder, he has not been PROVEN to be a murderer.

To be even more accurate: "The jury decided that the prosecution had not
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the
specific charge(s) brought against him or her at the criminal trial."

Yes. Similarly, prosecutors haven't proven Ken Sloan beyond a
reasonable doubt to be guilty of murder.

Actually, I'm not even sure that the burden of proof was on the
prosecution in the Sherzer case. It was an uncontested fact that
Sherzer crossed state lines with intent to blah blah. He presented
the affirmative defense of entrapment and the jury accepted the
defense. But (maybe a legal expert can correct me if I'm wrong), I
think I heard somewhere that the burden of proving affirmative
defenses is on the defendant. Therefore, the jury did more than
simply find the prosecution didn't give sufficient evidence and that a
reasonable doubt remained, requiring acquittal. It acquitted Sherzer
because it actually made a finding of fact that he had been entrapped.


Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus


Dear Jerry,

At the risk of seeming incorrigibly churlish, I feel constrained to point out
that the gentleman to whom you just proffered not one, not two, but *three*
"hears" was not Mr. Rubin, but, in fact, our old friend Mr. Nick Bourbaki (I do
hope that he will not mind my having described him, thus).

FraternAlly
Mark Houlsby

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message ...
Dear Mr. Rubin,

Heil Dubya!

Hear! Hear!

(Nick) writes:
No. The jury decided that the prosecution had not proved that he did
anything illegal.

Dear Mr. Sloan,

Thanks, I concur. Your statement is more accurate than what I wrote in
haste.

You could also accurately say that Ken Sloan has (as far as we know)
never been convicted of murder, he has not been PROVEN to be a murderer.


(However, paying our taxes and not being members of an underground, fighting
the government, aren't all we United Statesians murderers, throughout the
world, particularly, at this moment, in the east of the Arab world ?)

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 1 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

Dear Jerry, (and also Mr. Rubin)

My sincere apologies for my last post.

It seems that Mr. Rubin's post (to which Mr. Bibuld's was, indeed, a
reply) had failed to appear in my news server, which is why it seemed
to me that Mr. Bibuld was replying to Mr. Bourbaki and not to Mr.
Rubin.

Confused? I know I am.

Fraternally,
Mark

Dear Mr. Houlsby,

Heil Dubya!

The internet servers -- and, indeed, the internet, itself -- are not what they
are pretended to be. Often, I do not see postings on rgc, to which others
refer. Just as often, I do not see my own postings published on the internet.
If I learn they have been posted, it's only because someone has responded.
While I blame most of these failures on AOL, i'm inclined to believe that at
least some of them lie in the "usenet", itself.

My sincere apologies for my last post.

It seems that Mr. Rubin's post (to which Mr. Bibuld's was, indeed, a
reply) had failed to appear in my news server, which is why it seemed
to me that Mr. Bibuld was replying to Mr. Bourbaki and not to Mr.
Rubin.

Confused? I know I am.

Fraternally,
Mark


(Much snipped.)

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message ...
Dear Mr. Houlsby,

Heil Dubya!

The internet servers -- and, indeed, the internet, itself -- are not what they
are pretended to be. Often, I do not see postings on rgc, to which others
refer. Just as often, I do not see my own postings published on the internet.
If I learn they have been posted, it's only because someone has responded.
While I blame most of these failures on AOL, i'm inclined to believe that at
least some of them lie in the "usenet", itself.


Rather than rely on AOL, it is possible to view newsgroups and their
several threads by logging on to groups.google.com and selecting the
desired group, such rec.games.chess.misc.

Hope you get this message!

David Ames

Dear Mr. Ames,

Heil Dubya!

Thank you for the information. I'll give it the old college try.

(Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message
...
Dear Mr. Houlsby,

Heil Dubya!

The internet servers -- and, indeed, the internet, itself -- are not what
they
are pretended to be. Often, I do not see postings on rgc, to which others
refer. Just as often, I do not see my own postings published on the
internet.
If I learn they have been posted, it's only because someone has responded.
While I blame most of these failures on AOL, i'm inclined to believe that
at
least some of them lie in the "usenet", itself.


Rather than rely on AOL, it is possible to view newsgroups and their
several threads by logging on to groups.google.com and selecting the
desired group, such rec.games.chess.misc.

Hope you get this message!

David Ames


Heute uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

(David Ames) wrote in message om...
ospam (Jerome Bibuld) wrote in message ...
Dear Mr. Houlsby,

Heil Dubya!

The internet servers -- and, indeed, the internet, itself -- are not what they
are pretended to be. Often, I do not see postings on rgc, to which others
refer. Just as often, I do not see my own postings published on the internet.
If I learn they have been posted, it's only because someone has responded.
While I blame most of these failures on AOL, i'm inclined to believe that at
least some of them lie in the "usenet", itself.


Rather than rely on AOL, it is possible to view newsgroups and their
several threads by logging on to groups.google.com and selecting the
desired group, such rec.games.chess.misc.

Hope you get this message!

David Ames

David,

Thanks very much for taking the trouble to write. Very often, I *do*
use Google (I'm using it now, in fact), but at other times I am rather
impatient, and reply using AOL before the relevant messages have
appeared in Google.

Cheers,
Mark