On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:33 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 5809 D 0 2.0 Murphy Unification > VERY STRONGLY AGAINST. Better to force judges to actually think about > why exactly the defendant is not guilty, rather than judge INNOCENT > and hope nobody appeals it. The role of concrete rule-defined > obligations has already been dumbed down with equity cases and > support-requiring criminal cases.
If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR). --Warrigal of Escher
