John H wrote:
On 3 Mar 2005 09:24:22 -0800, wrote:


John H wrote:


Again, I see that you apparently don't understand "implication".
It
is
a lawfully binding statement, so, that in turn means that those
three
are nothing short of liars.

An 'implication' is a lawfully binding statement? Where did that come
from? Do
you mean to tell me that my 'nose-picking' question is somehow
'lawfully
binding'? How? To what am I bound?

You can be implicated of a crime and thus convicted of a crime, PURELY
by implication, in just about any court in the U.S. Read this:
http://www.crimeweek.com/cja/0603preponderance.html (a preponderance of
implication)
Now, from the U.C.M.J. Article 79: (1) In general. A lesser offense is
included in a charged offense when the specification contains
alle;gations which either expressly or by fair implication put the
accused on notice to be prepared to defend against it ......
Here's one from Missouri, a case of guilt by implication:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/0/81efeb4984c10c9d86256c62007e99ae/$FILE/SC84581%20Bahrenburg's%20brief.PDF
From Kobe Bryant's trial, a ruling by a judge on IMPLIED GUILT: The
woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of rape can not be referred to at
trial as a "victim," according to a ruling by the Colorado judge
overseeing the NBA star's criminal case. In the below decision,
District Judge Terry Ruckriegle sided with Bryant's attorneys, who
argued that the term implied guilt on the 25-year-old athlete's part
and essentially robbed him of the presumption of innocence.

So, you see, you can be guilty, in a court of law, purely by
implication.