WhiteDove

Pure fabrication ,never stated such what I said was I'm not by the way seeing many here posting. You seem to be claiming guilt exactly how many rapes did you witness? I thought so you read an opinion and decided you like it.

Strawman--------I never claimed to have witnessed a rape.

Do you have a vested interest in the controversy you incite?

Exactly so you were not present which means you don't really know what occured you picked a story you liked. Since you were not there geographicaly then you are not qualifed to speak I think that is the standard here.

There have been many first hand accounts written here and at other web sites concerning the crimes that wierwille and his fellows committed..and no not all the accounts have been nameless and faceless....To suggest otherwise Dove, IS a fabrication.

I can only figure that it is manufactured to minimalize the credibility of the numerous people whom have shared their experiences. These crimes have been acknowledged by more than one leader as to having occured.

Again you fabricate words for me read what I said I never stated " all " I said many and that is factual. There are also first hand accounts of people that were fine with the arangement. One picks which they choose to believe.

You say no one here was present during the commission of a crime. That assumption is in error.

Exposing children to pornography is a crime in Ohio. People have testified that they were personally present when Wierwille did so. Providing alcohol to minors is a crime in Ohio. Same deal. Transporting people across state lines for the purpose of debauchery is a federal crime. People have given first hand testimony. It is against the law to drug a person and then have sex with them. People have given first hand testimony. These are crimes. People here were personally present. All this is moot anyway because Wierwille is dead. The people who you are insinuating to be liars are alive. You are the accuser, not them. As such, it's up to you to prove they are lying. Oh, yes, I know you never directly called them liars. Irrelevant. That's your implication. Now do a little tap dance and sing a song about how you are really a noble freedom fighter protecting the world from injustices. Riiiight.

Pure fabrication ,never stated such what I said was I'm not by the way seeing many here posting. You seem to be claiming guilt exactly how many rapes did you witness? I thought so you read an opinion and decided you like it.

Here's what I would like to know.

Are you engaged in any sort of business activity that might experience a revenue decrease (or increase) if Wierwille's true nature was exposed?

Oh, wait. That would call for some speculative thinking on your part.

Are you engaged in any sort of business that receives revenue from the sale of Way materials?

I've been considering for quite some time to do about this perspective of White Dove's. WD has the right to state an opinion. And no matter how ably, IMO, many of you respond to this opinion WD will not cease to share this opinion. And simply put, it is beyond my authority to force anyone here to cease from stating opinions that I happen to find disagreeable.

I am thankful for those of you who ably and willingly answer WD every time that this opinion is put forth. While tiresome I'm sure, I suppose it is most necessary that an answer is provided. And speaking for myself, I'm glad each and every time that someone points out legal standards are irrelevant here at the Greasespot, unless of course someone wishes to make a legal case out of something that I've said. In that case I would be most happy to have a trial where my accuser is faced with a legally appropriate burden of truth.

But my real concern is that many TWI victims may not feel up to facing their experiences being called into question by WD or anyone else for that matter. I am most thankful for those of you who have shared in spite of the opposition even here at the Greasespot.

So for those of you TWI victims who may like to share your experiences, I freely encourage you to do so and add to the many credible testimonies and documented perversities of Wierwille and his hand-picked children who unfortunately have fooled many and destroyed many lives too.

And from here on out, EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE POSTS THAT IMO TEND TO DISCOURAGE SHARING AND HEALING I WILL SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY BE READING THESE POSTS.

PLEASE FOLKS, IGNORE THE OPPOSITION AND FEEL FREE TO SHARE YOUR STORIES. GREASESPOT POLICY ALLOWS YOU TO PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY. FEEL FREE TO DO SO IF YOU WISH.

You assume I have called any story into question ,I have not. I have expressed no desire for anyone to not speak. Pure fabrication! What I have pointed out is that no guilt of crime has been documented or established. Unless you have some case number that you would like to contribute, then any discussion of guilt beyond opinion is not proven. You want to post an opinion feel free, declaring guilt when none has been established is a different matter.

the only thing I can see in all this.. being a "victim" disqualifies one from being a juror in the case the accused, or perpetrator is tried. Presumption of innocence is usually included in instructions to a JURY, if I'm not mistaken.

if you're trying to drum up an impartial jury wd.. may I suggest, look in another place than Greasespot?

I'm sure you can find a few. twi was a small, small speck on the map.. doubtless there are MILLIONS of people who never even heard of vic, loy.. rosie.. or even heard of the lawsuits against da "ministry"..

all of this "confrontation" and all.. makes as much sense as putting the families and survivors of those whom capone murdered.. in a jury box, and trying to convince them they oughta give capone the benefit of the doubt..

Actually

Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt is certain. For example, they use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, and use "allegedly" when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of.

I think we covered victims already. I'm not by the way seeing many here posting, just a bunch of internet wannabees who read a story and feel inclined to pass some judgment on something they were not present for .Tell me again exactly how many rapes were you present for? Those would not be victims by definition. Nope those are people stating opinions.

I understand there is something there he feels he needs to protect (either that or he's simply a glutton for punishment). I just am curious as to why.

Well perhaps your agenda precludes you from seeing basic human rights.

The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

No, it means claiming LEGAL guilt of said crimes is not provable. And trying to apply LEGAL standards to evaluation of the life of a deceased man is delusional. And you keep trying to steer the evaluation towards the LEGAL arena where it does not apply. The LEGAL arena could apply to the current behavior of TWI current leadership, and that is probably why they refuse to do much of anything in public.

It's very transparent that you have some kind of view of VPW that you are personally attached to that you need to preserve. This is why instead of allowing the public MORAL evaluation of VPW's life you try and discount his victims saying they present opinions only not fact, trying to steer the whole evaluation criteria under the purview of LEGAL standards. That is what is delusional.

I can judge VPW's life by whatever standards and criteria I damn well please. And 20+ years after his death his legacy is looking more and more like that of a drunken lecher that latched on to the Zeitgeist of the "free love Jesus movement" and took it for a ride for about 14 years from 1972 to 1986. And there's a reasonable case to be made that his totalitarian style of leadership combined with sexual deviancy is the primary thing that has been passed along to subsequent leadership administrations in TWI. These damn people act like they are more of an intermediary between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ than a Catholic priest you have to confess your sins to.

We are not judging VPW guilty of LEGAL crimes. At times there is speculation as to how the man actually survived without any LEGAL consequences. Or get shot by someone he abused's relatives.

We are judging VPW guilty of MORAL crimes, based upon the testimony of many firsthand victims. He was a MORAL deviant. He was a totalitarian. LCM followed in his footsteps, and the current idiots also.

Last I looked Rape is a legal crime, it is against the law Note the word LAW. that is exctly why it is in the legal catagory.

Totally irrelevant.

Prove your accusation.

Yeah his point is totaly irrelevant he needs to prove his ,it was not my point. I agree.

QUOTE (WordWolf @ Feb 27 2009, 12:53 PM)

* FEBRUARY 27, 2009

Presumed Innocent? Bernie Madoff?

Unless you're a juror, there's no reason to suspend judgment.

By DAN ABRAMS

People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.

I don't presume that Bernie Madoff is innocent. The same goes for toddler Caylee Anthony's mom Casey, or for any of the alleged mobsters on trial in New York, or most other high-profile defendants. Certain defense attorneys (or former Illinois governors who effectively decide to represent themselves) would have you believe that is somehow shameful, maybe even anti-American.

As a citizen -- or even a TV legal analyst -- am I required to presume innocence, i.e., that the authorities arrest the wrong person in every case? Not a chance. Imagine how this might play out on television:

"So Dan, how bad is it for (insert name of minor reality-show celebrity here) that the authorities found a pound of cocaine and four ounces of heroin on his person and in his car, the entire arrest was captured on videotape and the defendant confessed the drugs were his?"

"Bad? Bob, I have to presume the defendant innocent, so I'll presume those drugs were planted by corrupt police officers well before the car came into focus on the tape. And that confession? Well, it must have been coerced." That would hardly reflect an effort to assess and evaluate the legal strategies and evidence as fairly and objectively as possible.

While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.

Traced back to Deuteronomy, and reportedly embodied in the laws of Sparta and Athens, the presumption ensures that government, which has the enormous power to take away someone's freedom, assumes the burden to prove its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, the properly demanding legal standard in criminal proceedings.

Essentially we stack the legal deck in favor of the defendant. After all, the potential consequence (in most cases prison time) is so grave that we say we would rather let "10 guilty men go free than convict an innocent one." But unless I am sitting in the jury box armed with that power I, and any other nonjuror for that matter, have no obligation, moral or legal, to embrace that legal fiction.

The same applies, for example, to hearsay evidence. It's generally inadmissible in court, and yet most of us live our lives based on what people we trust tell us they heard or learned.

Some claim that, because legal banditos like me refuse to presume every defendant innocent, the prospective jury pool is polluted, thereby making it impossible for jurors to presume innocent a defendant in a high-profile case. Malarkey. That is why we have jury selection.

The goal is not to find jurors who necessarily know nothing about a case, but to find jurors who can fairly evaluate evidence and determine guilt or innocence. No question, extensive media coverage can make the selection of a jury take longer. In a worst-case scenario, a change of venue would be the remedy. But defense attorneys who complain about poisoned jury pools are often really just saying that they think prospective jurors are lying when asked what they've heard about the case in the media.

Watching jury selection during the O.J. Simpson civil case in Santa Monica in 1996 served as a reminder that, lo and behold, not everyone follows news that closely. Did every juror know about the criminal case that had concluded in downtown Los Angeles months earlier? Of course. Did they know some of the facts? Surely. But they were also not O.J. junkies who had followed the ins and outs of the case. They were open to rendering a verdict based on what they heard in court.

What about those like CNN's Nancy Grace who seems to presume every defendant guilty? Criticize her if you like, but such behavior doesn't mean the rest of us must feign ignorance. We can question police and prosecutors without necessarily presuming they are corrupt or misguided.

Early in the investigation of the Duke University lacrosse players accused of rape in 2006, some of the very same people who suggest that the presumption of innocence be applied in all aspects of society demanded that action be taken immediately against the students. The case is now regularly cited as an example of how important it is to presume all defendants innocent in the media as well.

But that misses the point. Those of us who examined the evidence, even superficially, quickly realized the case was flimsy at best. The lesson there was not about presumptions but about the need to critically evaluate facts.

Demanding that all of us presume every defendant innocent outside of a courtroom is to demand that we stop evaluating facts, thereby suffocating independent thought and opinion. There is nothing "reasonable" about that.

Mr. Abrams is NBC News chief legal analyst and the CEO of Abrams Research.

Dentist Claims Breast Massage Necessary Treatment

Here

So I guess we have established that professionals just like the rest of us have opinions ,that does not make them true necessarily ,nor confirm a point.

I have the proof needed for a lot of things, including you wd.

Why does anyone talk to you?

I don't recall saying anyone did. When you have some to offer then you can make claims.

You have become the accuser.

You, in essence, are accusing people of making false statements about a dead man.

Do you have proof those statements are false?

Well you see that is where you are wrong and by the way you have offered no proof of your claim. You don't because there is none, it is fabricated. Misrepresenting someone is against the rules here by the way and I have clearly over the years been consistent in my statements not to mention on this thread alone. You continue to misrepresent my words. I'll state it one more time after that I'll assume you wish to deliberately disregard the rules.

I have accused no one of making false statements, rather I have consistently stated that any statements made were in fact just that words, on the internet no less, made by largely people that remain nameless. testimony on the other hand is documented with the party giving it documented by name. There has been accounts given of two sides to a story one of rape one of willing relationships both remain undocumented with anything more than "I say so" one is free to pick which ever they choose, flip a coin ,make a guess, but in the end it is a choice based not on any proof physical evidence, but opinion on the internet. With the exception of those who were directly involved in which case only they know what actually happened. There has been no record of any charges filed so no burden of guilt has or can be confirmed, as such no claim of guilt may be made, there is none to claim legally. Since no legal crime has been committed, accused, charged, found guilty, had due process of law then one is free to offer an opinion on any matter they want ,including why they think one might be guilty. Others are free to point out that no guilt has been established and offer reasons why such accounts may be influenced by bias. As I stated undocumentable. What anyone believes one way or the other is an opinion, it does not prove or disprove any record, it is simply one choice in the matter.

What I said remains true and that is the claims have not been, nor can they be proven or disproved with the vocal words we have presently, they are undocumentable. They are so because what you have and choose to believe are one side of the story the other has not been told, nor is it likely to for obvious reasons. What you or I choose to believe or accept does not guarantee truth it may or may not be so . It is neither proved right or wrong it is simply a testimony that has yet to be supported with actual factual evidence, nor stood the test of law. Your choice to accept it because of your bias toward the group does not make something true. No more so than someone's support of the same does. What you or I choose to believe is simply that what we choose to believe, that is not necessarily the same as true. Because it has not had the benefit of factual documentation, with due process of law, I choose to take a neutral position not pass judgments on undocumented personal testimony because there is neither enough weight to sway the scale of justice in either direction. Another words innocent until proven guilty. As such I can render the information neither true nor false so it remains undocumentable. (proven neither true or false) despite what one may believe one way or another.

That is true that there are undocumented claims by physical evidence. So because VPW is deceased, he doesn't seem to have anyone to be able to respond with facts to be able to refute the claims laid against him. Many people who were around during the timeframes of these accusations can provide corroboration of facts involved in the stories. Of course, it is very available for any of VPW's relatives, or current members of TWI to come forward in public and provide facts that would discount stories.

Trying to hold these claims to some level of legal standard is ludicrous. There is no court case as there is no defendant. That means there are no depositions, or any of the other legal artifacts that are a byproduct.

Which means that someone trying to apply those standards is delusional.

Which means claiming any guilt of a crime that was not, by your standards is delusional. It seems none has been established since no legal artifacts have been met. Therefore it is opinion.

you're wrong. vpw's victims are not under burden of proof. they have the constitutional right to tell their story without synthetic obstructions like your so-called presumption of innocence.

Their right gives them the oppertunity to state their opinion not confirm guilt with out others rights being protected just as theirs are.

We are no longer talking about accusations against Wierwille.

We're talking about the accusations you are making against his victims.

Prove that their claims are false or stop accusing them of wrong doing.

The burden of proof has shifted to you.

Last I looked I started this thread and that is not the topic I have no obligation to proove your claims. I'm discussing accusations against Wierwille here.

The man was a drunken pervert with a heart of stone.

He duped you just like he duped all of us.

Get over it.

WOW we have no point, so we have reduced ourselves to silly rhymes impressive......

You are mistaken, sir.

The burden is on you to prove the claims against Wierwille are false.

You are mistaken, sir.

The burden is on you to prove the claims against Wierwille are false.

Wrong I'm not the one claiming him guilty of a crime .

QUOTE (potato @ Mar 4 2009, 11:11 AM) *

actually, for the record, the claims have been documented.

methinks you should go back and read the federal rules of evidence again.

at this point, in a court of law, the documented testimony of vpw's victims would have to be proven false, so this entire discussion is based on an ignorant and/or misinformed assumption of what VPW's rights are as a deceased citizen of the US.

*****************************

WD said:

No they don't the burdon of proof is on the accuser.

********************************************************

In an odd twist of irony, you fail to recognize that you, sir, are the accuser.

You are accusing people of making false statements about Wierwille's nefarious deeds.

Since Wierwille is dead, that places the burden on you to prove their statements are false.

Your confused again, I never accused anyone of such rhetoric, what I did say and the record will bear out, is that one side of the story has been told only , and on the internet no less, and as such they are undocumented claims that have no hard physical evidence to establish them as fact or not, unless you have some you wish to offer of said claims. as such no claim of guilt has been established , Wierwille's state of life or death has nothing to do with documentation, one either has the evidence or not to present. Those that claim him guilty of crimes must satisfy their claim with the burden of proof. Other wise it is an opinion not conformation of guilt and should be noted as such.

Actually, it was one PROFESSIONAL's opinion.

We can discuss medicine all day, but when someone can bring in a

medical PROFESSIONAL's opinion, that carries more weight.

Nobody on this thread is a legal PROFESSIONAL,

but one was quoted as speaking on this subject, in context.

If you have an article from a different PROFESSIONAL,

say, one that figures first or second in the ratings,

that refutes this PROFESSIONAL,

feel free to post a link.

So because he is a professional and has one opinion that makes him the authority? Really? then by that logic this man is also a professinal does his one opinion also count as right? There are lots of professionals last time I looked that did not qualify you as the authority on truth alone.

Speaking of medical professionals........

Dentist Claims Breast Massage Necessary Treatment

Story

He's tired of non-professionals who misunderstand his job, and how

presumption of innocence works, who seek to dictate it to him anyway.

How would you like it if someone ignorant of your job sought to explain

to you how to perform it?

I don't see where he specified non professionals , yoiu assume that because it goes along with your point.

Dear Tzaia,

The reason, as I stated, is because of the false accusations that my splinter group leadership held against me.

And after reading White Dove's concern that we hold TWI leadership to be innocent until proven guilty it seemed like a fine time to point out what many of us already know to be true. I believe that TWI leadership was willing to throw about any accusation that served their purposes without the benefit of the courts that White Dove is so keen on expounding on the virtues of.

Assuming you are correct for a moment, So do you want to be like them? Is that your standard to follow the crowd, right or wrong ?or will you stand for ones rights?

Except for their total disregard of the truth and what clearly appears to be the worst possible motives that I can imagine they do deserve a fair hearing still. I think the Greasespotters have given them this and justly point out guilt and corruption.

Really? reading one side of the story on the internet by faceless avatars that's your idea of a fair hearing?

Does that explanation spell out why I think my post was on-topic?

I know that feeling Rumrunner.

I often feel that my former splinter group leadership was sooo bad that accusing me of having a devil quite possibly means that I was doing something right.

actually, for the record, the claims have been documented.

methinks you should go back and read the federal rules of evidence again.

at this point, in a court of law, the documented testimony of vpw's victims would have to be proven false, so this entire discussion is based on an ignorant and/or misinformed assumption of what VPW's rights are as a deceased citizen of the US.

No they don't the burdon of proof is on the accuser.

Actually you have "passed judgment." It is your judgment (opinion) that you can't say someone is guilty of a crime unless that person has been tried and convicted in a court of law. In your eyes that person is innocent and evidence is not factual unless it has been "proven" through the process of litigation. You also assume that only the legal system can determine fact or truth. It's an interesting standard, one which I don't believe is practical. Do you apply that standard to every situation?

Not my judgement it is correct speaking and the law as well.

It comes back to what i said before it is the standards in which one chooses to form their decisions.

Exactly right, some people like to have factual documentation , some just accept whatever someone's says as fact, especially if it fits with their agenda.

I personally find it surprising that people are willing to call hundreds of posters liars whom have related their personal experiences, people they don`t know all in defense of men whom the accusers in all likely hood never met or spent time with on a personal basis either.

The finger pointers don`t know the guys they are defending any better than the people they are accusing of false hoods....yet it is a lot easier to label the victims as liars then to examine ones critical thinking and perceptions of beliefs.

I find it surprising that some continue to misrepresent others point of view despite numerous times it has been clarified. It has been well established that I have never made claim that anyone was a liar, nor have I said anyone was. My claim has been consistent the information is not documented by any hard evidence.

But for the record I'll clarify again. What I said remains true and that is the claims have not been nor can they be proven or disproved they are undocumentable. You may choose to believe one side of the story the other has not been told, nor is it likely to for obvious reasons. What you or I choose to believe or accept does not guarantee truth it may or may not be so . It is neither proved right or wrong it is simply a testimony that has yet to be supported with actual factual evidence, nor stood the test of law. You choose to accept it because of your bias toward the group that does not make something true. No more so than someone's support of the same does. What you or I choose to believe is simply that what we choose to believe, that is not necessarily the same as true. Because it has not had the benefit of factual documentation, with due process of law, I choose to not pass judgments on undocumented personal testimony. Another words innocent until proven guilty. As such I can render the information neither true nor false so it remains undocumentable. (proven neither true or false) despite what one may believe one way or another

I'm not sure where you get the "exactly" part. WD has been saying that no one can properly use the terminology that VPW is guilty as he has not been tried and found guilty in a court of law. The article link I shared, and wordwolf posted, refutes that premise. Even if he was tried and found guilty - that is also (in legal vernacular) an opinion.

The article you posted is one persons opinion, It does offer a hint as to why NBC news finishes a poor third in the ratings

People constantly complain to me about news coverage of criminal cases. "What happened to the presumption of innocence?" they ask at almost every turn. Well, I'm tired of it.

Well he may be tired of it that people call him on poor reporting, but it does not change the fact that apparently others constantly see it as a problem. Perhaps he should ask himself why that is?

I have to say WD, after your last post to me. . . . I have really learned something.

This is exactly how we fell for and defended TWI's convoluted and weak explanations of controversial doctrines and scripture.

Arguing incessantly over words. . . trying to give them new definitions and meanings. That is how we missed the most basic and obvious understanding of scripture. Legalese which really was a TWISTING of their intent and meaning.

That is how we missed the revelation of God in scripture. We could never let the words speak to us. . . we spoke for the words.

It is a bad mindset if you are searching for the hidden things of God. They remain hidden.

I take it you still think VP actually taught you the bible? Rightly divided word?

Go back, and with open eyes read your twisted understanding of law. Then take that revelation and with new eyes, apply it to how you read the bible. . . . .

You will have some great deliverance.

I wish you well with it. . . it is a good chance for you to wake up!

And just to add: I actually have spent a great deal of time in courtrooms and with lawyers. . . DA's . . . and judges. . . I advocate for prisoners. They read the letters I write. . . right at the bench and consider them when rendering a verdict. More than once, I have gotten a judge to change their mind on something, by simply testifying to a few simple truths. You are clueless how things really work.

Arguing incessantly over words. . . trying to give them new definitions and meanings. That is how we missed the most basic and obvious understanding of scripture. Legalese which really was a TWISTING of their intent and meaning.

Gee sorry those definitions get in your way, good luck with letting the words speak whatever you like to hear.

Yep more change we can believe in..........

I agree our rights are slipping away. Exactly why we must speak up.

we have no reason not to believe anyone is lying about their story unless it can be proven they are. for instance, I don't assume you're lying about being at Emporia, or that your wife worked for vpw at HQ, although I have no way to corroborate your testimony. I just don't have any facts on which to claim your statements are untrue. I also have no reason to believe that the women who've told their stories about being raped by vpw are lying, therefore, like rascal, I will accept them as factual unless I have good reason to believe they aren't.

Your choice, and in general as I have stated many times I believe that routine things generally people are truthful in ,but matters of crimes I require more,while you may not,your choice. People here want to see bad they thrive on it, lots of reasons to give them what they want, to be the poster that shared some new juicy tidbit, other motives as well. one just never knows. I've seen things embraced as truth only a few pages later to be fished out as bull. Sorry I wont lay blame of criminal guilt with that kind of record.