The presumption of guilt
Immortalist
innocent - is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in
many modern countries. The burden of proof is thus on the defense,
which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to
convince the trier of fact, who are restrained and ordered by law to
consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally
admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is
innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the
accused is to be condemned. This presumption is seen to stem from the
Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui negat non qui
dicit, (the burden of proof rests on whoon who denies not asserts).
Strabo
Nemo malus nisi probetur.
(No one is to be considered guilty unless it should be proved.)
"The God who gave us life also gave us liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson
Michael Gordge
A very fucking handy invented principle for when ewe fucking leftist
and right wing retards have invented all your fucking victimless laws
isn't it?
Guilty of a crime that has been invented now prove ewe are not.
What will ewe fucking disgusting leftist wankers invent next?
MG
Zerkon
> The presumption of guilt
essentially anointing the state as having innate virtue. Essentially
rolling civil law back to before Magna Carta making law a mere whim of
the state now accepted as crown.
EX: "Man For All Seasons"
====================
-Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
-Yes, what would you do? Cut a road through the law
to get after the Devil?
Yes. I'd cut down every law in England
to do that.
And when the last law was down,
and the Devil turned on you...
...where would you hide, Roper,
the laws all being flat?
This country is planted with laws
from coast to coast.....Man's laws, not God's,
and if you cut them down....and you're just the man to do it...
...do you really think you could stand
upright in the wind that would blow then?
Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
=======================
TruthSlave
[You've succeeded in forcing this double-take. ]
Are there any countries which actually, [ie legally] practices
this presumption of guilt?
Perhaps this is so in some parallel universe, where i imagine
the inhabitants, from the day they are born to the day they
die, learn to account for every sleeping and waking moment,
just so they have an alibi should that need arise. In our
reality, this presumption of guilt would so easily be flawed.
'You are guilty, now prove you are innocent of the charges,
or the accusation'.
Of course we've been down this road before. Our history of
Witches and witch trials strikes me as one of those examples.
Even then our 'modern' play of justice sometimes amount to
the same thing.
The fact that a trial is brought, brings with it a presumption
there must be enough evidence for the charges. Evidence
even when it has yet to be refuted, would be taken as a
presumption of guilt.
Like the days of witches, you don't side with the accused.
Not without the risk becoming contaminated by that same
accusation. Our gravy trails by media, takes this another
stage, as the sensationalism of these trail is often one
based on the presumption of guilt. This prospect, is what
carries the audience. Rarely is there the thought of an
innocently accused person.
And after the media has had its sway, and the verdict comes
in, Innocent, there is still the lingering thought that 'not
guilty' doesn't necessarily mean innocent. The verdict when
it comes, is never equivocal enough to declare the person
innocent.
These media trials are never like the movies or the tv
melodrama where the Dependent turns the case on its head
to reveals the truly guilty parties. If anything the
not guilty verdict comes as an anticlimax, with our modern
take on the colosseum left baying for blood.
So yeah, this presumption could be taken as one of guilt,
dispite our declarations - innocent until proven...
ck
As an added thought, this presumption of guilt, if it were
ever so, would mean we were all guilty before the facts.
Strabo
FYI
A correction is needed.
"Our history of witches and witch trials" consisted of ONE
settlement in Massachusetts operating outside established
law for a period of about two years.
The governor investigated and took away their charter.
That was the beginning and end of Puritanism in America.
It was an incident but certainly not the general condition
in the colonies that you were taught. American common law
never used the presumption concept.
In this instance, the presumption of guilt concept was European,
not American, and tied to the Catholic Church.
<snipped>
TruthSlave
OK, i'll accept that as an American you'll have a particular
idea for history, that said in Europe the persecution of these
unfortunates accused of Witchcraft, goes back to least the
Elizabethan times. Looked at objectively one could see this
invention as a reasons to fear the old, to fear knowledge.
Also what you speak of is what survives as history, IE that
which could not be suppressed as history. This is not to say
other example of the puritan are not to be found if one looks
for it.
The point is the accusation was tantamount to a sentence.
We are talking of systems which allowed no place for reason,
systems of belief and fear, exploited by the power brokers
of their time. Never mind what any individual might think,
this was about the power to manipulate the herd.
tooly
thank you there Zerk. Looks like you are finally seeing the truth
that government acts in it's own interest and not the people's...and
if allowed too much power [as in socialistic programs], it almost
automatically becomes corrupted. I realize there are ills in the
corporation also, but not nearly so dangerous and all powerful as what
government's propensity can be. The people should at all times work
to limit government...not just to stave off high taxation, but to
preserve their innate freedom as creatures. Whenever you hear emphasis
of value upon the 'collective' or the 'state'...perk your ears and be
intently aware, for there you most asuredly will find the devil
himself speaking into the ear of the provocateur.
Demon Buddha
> This presumption is seen to stem from the
> Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui negat non qui
> dicit, (the burden of proof rests on whoon who denies not asserts).
I'm not at all sure what relevance this has to economics, but in
passing I will say that the above quoted phrase demonstrates what
retards the Romans really were.
Demon Buddha
> Immortalist wrote:
>> The presumption of guilt - being considered guilty until proven
>> innocent - is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in
>> many modern countries. The burden of proof is thus on the defense,
>> which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to
>> convince the trier of fact, who are restrained and ordered by law to
>> consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally
>> admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is
>> innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the
>> accused is to be condemned. This presumption is seen to stem from the
>> Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui negat non qui
>> dicit, (the burden of proof rests on whoon who denies not asserts).
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
>
>
> [You've succeeded in forcing this double-take. ]
>
>
> Are there any countries which actually, [ie legally] practices
> this presumption of guilt?
Try France. Guilty until you prove your innocence.
France is, of course, a grand shit hole. Given that they are this
retarded, it is no wonder the Germans kicked their manky quiche-eating
carcasses with both hands tied behind their backs.
Tim
> On Dec 30, 12:10 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The presumption of guilt - being considered guilty until proven
> > innocent - is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in
> > many modern countries. The burden of proof is thus on the defense,
> > which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to
> > convince the trier of fact, who are restrained and ordered by law to
> > consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally
> > admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is
> > innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the
> > accused is to be condemned. This presumption is seen to stem from the
> > Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui negat non qui
> > dicit, (the burden of proof rests on whoon who denies not asserts).
>
> A very fucking handy invented principle for when ewe fucking leftist
> and right wing retards have invented all your fucking victimless laws
> isn't it?
Bwwaaa haaa ha, like you are not a rightard randroid idjut with an IQ
way smaller than the number of sheep you have shagged. Change the
record ya doss cunt.
Michael Gordge
>
> Bwwaaa haaa ha, like you are not a rightard...................
What have I ever written to suggest I am right wing?
My contempt for right wing politics is matched by my contempt for your
fucking disgusting anti-human leftist mob, both political ideologies
demand sacrifice of the human individual's liberty for bogus fucking
nonsenses, the only difference is who and how much to steal from and
who and how much to give the stolen proceeds to.
Give just one example of right wing political ideology in the US today
(in any western mobocracy for that matter) that is fundamentally /
philosophicallly different to your fucking leftist anti-human mob?
MG
Tim
> On Jan 3, 8:02 am, Tim <tbees...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bwwaaa haaa ha, like you are not a rightard...................
>
> What have I ever written to suggest I am right wing?
What have you ever written to suggest that you are not a rightard
randroid?
>
> My contempt for right wing politics is matched by my contempt for your
> fucking disgusting anti-human leftist mob,
What have I written to suggest that I'm left wing?
What have I written to suggest that I'm a Kantian?
You've got some fucking nerve there, dumb cunt.
<right wing randroid nasal whining broken record removed>
Immortalist
Immortalist
I made up the latin phrase its not roman.
Day Brown
Buren county AR. One of the issues is the new dwarf/bonsai strains of
marijuana.
The way the asset seizure law works, the landowner has to prove he didnt
plant the weed (so small now nobody would notice it but a dope sniffing
dog) and didnt know it was there. It is a hidden tax on land, worth well
over a million in the Federal court Eastern third district every year.
Even if you get to keep your property, you need to hire a lawyer, which
is what most of the 'drug war' is about. Full employment for lawyers.
The newspapers dont say anything about it because drug busts make such
juicy copy and they dont want to anger law enforcement. This adds up to
effective jury tampering because the voters dont know about the asset
seizure nor the innumerable studies on medical marijuana. Unless you are
online, which increasing numbers are, so I'll see whether I will get
jury nullification or not from members of the jury pool that are online.
Would it be tampering if the posters on the blogs and here took it upon
themselves to inform the voters since the corporate media will not?
Michael Gordge
> What have you ever written to suggest that you are not a rightard......
Onus of proof is upon ewe.
> What have I written to suggest that I'm left wing?
> What have I written to suggest that I'm a Kantian?
Your attacking of Rand's political ideas promoting freedom from
initiated force and your embracing of AWG clealy show ewe to be either
a left or right wing (degrees of evil matter not) knuckle-dragging
Kantian bone-head.
MG
Strabo
It started long before Elizabeth.
The Catholic Church began the 'witch craze' with the Inquisition
in Spain. The practice spread throughout Europe and lasted long
after the Catholic Inquisition was stopped. By 1700 persecutions
slowed with sporadic instances until about 1750.
The psychological makeup of Europeans until the modern era
differed considerably. In short, if you were transported to
the 15th century you would no doubt think them quite insane.
If you do go back in time I recommend a Colt .45 auto and a
cyanide pill.
>
> Also what you speak of is what survives as history, IE that
> which could not be suppressed as history. This is not to say
> other example of the puritan are not to be found if one looks
> for it.
>
For a comprehensive history and case studies check the 3 volume
History of Witchcraft by H. C. Lea. He was a professor at the
University of Pennsylvania who used primary source records. Not
for the squeamish. A knowledge of Latin is helpful.
>
> The point is the accusation was tantamount to a sentence.
> We are talking of systems which allowed no place for reason,
> systems of belief and fear, exploited by the power brokers
> of their time. Never mind what any individual might think,
> this was about the power to manipulate the herd.
>
I don't dispute that. The presumption of guilt was built into
Roman ecclesiastical law as a control/terror mechanism and
later carried over to civil and criminal law until the advent of
the Enlightenment and common law.
Strabo
Not the Romans. Roman ecclesiastical law or Catholic Church law.
The European presumption of guilt was instituted through Papal
infallibility on the belief that 'the Devil' could posses humans and
animals and control thought, behavior, weather, famine, etc. Hence,
once possession was established, whoever was possessed was presumed
guilty of the acts in question.
Strabo
It's administrative not criminal law.
>
> Would it be tampering if the posters on the blogs and here took it upon
> themselves to inform the voters since the corporate media will not?
>
Information on law is not tampering.
Juror�s Guide
1. On the Grand Jury
2. Juror�s Handbook
3. Current State Constitutional Authority for Jury Veto
4. If You Are Called For Jury Duty
5. If You Are Facing Charges
Tim
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ff569064-8ba5-4b21...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 3, 8:31 am, Tim <tbees...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
> What have you ever written to suggest that you are not a rightard......
Onus of proof is upon ewe.
> What have I written to suggest that I'm left wing?
> What have I written to suggest that I'm a Kantian?
Your attacking of Rand's political ideas promoting freedom from
initiated force
----------
Where did I do that?
---------
and your embracing of AWG clealy show ewe to be either
a left or right wing (degrees of evil matter not) knuckle-dragging
Kantian bone-head.
---------------\
Where did I embrace AWG? You live in a dream world; you are so stupid you
think you can make up lies abouty people you enage with here and get away
with it. Once again, you are a broken record foaming at the mouth about
Kant, the philosopher you never read and couldn't hope to understand,
remember all those posts were you couldn't get past the fisrt page of the
intro. of the CPR. You're a fucking bad joke shagger, give up, you are beat.
Demon Buddha
> Demon Buddha wrote:
>> Immortalist wrote:
>>> This presumption is seen to stem from the
>>> Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui negat non qui
>>> dicit, (the burden of proof rests on whoon who denies not asserts).
>>
>> I'm not at all sure what relevance this has to economics, but in
>> passing I will say that the above quoted phrase demonstrates what
>> retards the Romans really were.
> >
>
> Not the Romans. Roman ecclesiastical law or Catholic Church law.
Even worse.
>
> The European presumption of guilt was instituted through Papal
> infallibility on the belief that 'the Devil' could posses humans and
> animals and control thought, behavior, weather, famine, etc. Hence,
> once possession was established, whoever was possessed was presumed
> guilty of the acts in question.
Which I suspect the innermost cabal of the church always knew to be a
load of crap. But it sure made for some good control.
>
Day Brown
>> Would it be tampering if the posters on the blogs and here took it
>> upon themselves to inform the voters since the corporate media will not?
> Information on law is not tampering.
>
> Juror�s Guide
>
> 1. On the Grand Jury
> 2. Juror�s Handbook
> 3. Current State Constitutional Authority for Jury Veto
> 4. If You Are Called For Jury Duty
> 5. If You Are Facing Charges
>
>
> http://fija.org/
The first time they searched, in 1969, was when my friend Bill McMurry
moved in next door and we had joint house parties. Bill was busted for
drugs. We didnt know the previous tenant was a dealer, and left some.
The Tampa Tribune ran the story with his photo- "middle school teacher
busted for drugs". When I wrote the editor to explain, they ignored me.
So, I went to the local college (USF) underground antiwar newspaper, who
printed the truth. They searched the paper's office a couple weeks later.
After graduation, I moved to New Orleans, and that local underground
paper printed my reports. LEO searched that paper's office twice. As
well as searching the various places I lived five times in 5 years.
One time, they busted me for drugs guests dropped on the floor when LEO
burst in on a Halloween party. The judge threw that case out. The other
4 times, LEO and the State drug taskforce and/or the FBI found NOTHING.
Then, in 1998, they searched my barn in Searcy County AR. Since my house
had burned down, I didnt live there. Since nobody lived there, there was
no way a 'confidential informant' could have been invited in. They found
my lab equipment for herbal compounds and tinctures, which the local
paper spread all over the front page on the Aug 8, 1998 edition of the
Marshall Mountain Wave as the "Biggest meth lab ever in NW Arkansas."
No illegal drugs were found, there were no charges. but again, the local
paper would not print the truth. Does anyone here see a pattern, of LEO
being PROTECTED by local media, no doubt in large part because it
provides them with sensational stories that build ratings?
So now, the local paper, the Van Buren County Democrat has not said
anything at all about my pending medical marijuana test case. Since the
local media will not report the truth, is it "jury tampering" to try to
use the Internet to inform the public?
Another case I know of, that of Joe Honea, who is now in jail convicted
because the jury thot that Joe knew about a pot patch. Got that? Joe is
convicted on the basis of what they think he thought. Orwell had a name
for this: "Thought Crime".