Wall Street Journal article on the trial of Vernon Hershbeger and the inconsistency of one of their four determinations.

Date:   5/29/2013 3:53:17 AM ( 11 y ago)

The Wall Street Journal reported: "Jurors found Vernon Hershberger, a 41-year-old Loganville, Wis., farmer, innocent of producing milk without a license, selling milk and cheese products without a license, and operating a retail establishment without a license. He was found guilty of one count of breaking a holding order issued by the state in June 2010, which barred him from moving any of the food he produced without a license.":
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324125504578509453007615858.html


I invite you to look at this one sentence, (quoted above from the Wall Street Journal), just for now (not necessarily excluding the whole entire article and all that it represents).

Note that the jury found Vernon innocent of not having a license to produce and "sell" milk. Then consider that the jury found him guilty of not having a license to "move" the his milk and milk products out of his refrigerator/s. Notice the inconsistency between the three "innocent" rulings and the one guilty ruling - yet all of them regarding not having related licenses. Now consider this question: What is the logic in finding him guilty of "moving" his food out of his refrigerators?

How did this jury reason their inconsistency and apparent illogical determination among themselves? We may never know.

Let's pretend that the jury has a logical basis for their one "guilty" determination. Then the question becomes: "How did the jury determine that Vernon was actually subject to obeying the order? Once again, we may never know the answer to that!

 

Popularity:   message viewed 1889 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=2069791

<< Return to the standard message view