-> EC> It is a military court, and it acquitted
-> EC> him.  Notice the word "acquits" above.

-> Was it? If so, why was the verdict referred to the "court martial"?

Are you pretending you didn't read the part that quoted the Code of
Military Justice?  "Any definitive verdict of either acquittal or
condemnation, issued by the Military Judges of First Instance, shall be
routinely reviewed by the Superior Court, and such judgment may be
appealed."  The superior court in the military realm was the Venezuelan
Court Martial.  It heard the appeal from the initial military court
precisely BECAUSE he got a DEFINITIVE verdict of ACQUITTAL.

By the way, acquittal is not a conviction.  You still haven't admitted
that you made up the part where you claimed he was CONVICTED.  And you
probably never will.

-> was overruled by the Court Martial.

Another made-up "fact" from Bob Klahn, a bottomless pit of made-up
stories.

-> We all have failings, yours is lying.

You keep mumbling this without a single example, but in this new droning
you are suggesating that I fail at lying.  Since everything I have said
is truthful, your empty muttering is irrelevant, but it is interesting
that the flip side would be you thinking that you SUCCEED at lying.
That is almost as hilarious as your "if it takes one to know one"
blunder.  Or was it a confession?

--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10