WhiteDove

Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion ,unless you have not read as I have written. But I'll be happy to correct your assumption. First I have never said testomony was not evidence, what I have said was it was not automatic proof of guilt just because someone says so, Like all forms of evidence it must first be admissible and then procede through the measures of law to challenge and prove truth or not. Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof. There are many issues that surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtle nature, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it. An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, or evidence that suggests truth as opposed to evidence that directly proves truth. Many have seen this line to be less-than-clear and significant arguments have arisen over the difference.

If you want to continue to misrepresent what I said here which by the way is against the rules. I think you will see noted that I have never rendered any words of guilt or innocent, I have consistently said it was undetermined ,undocumentable. By the way I thought you were ignoring posts in blue, or was that another misrepresentation?

I thought we covered the libel issues as well Potato but it seems that a refresher course is in order Contrary to your theory that celebrities can't sue for libel it is quite clear that they can and do......You seem to think extra burden of proof means impossible to prove it does not, it happens all the time . So one would ask why would I want to repeat those things after you. They don't prove your point, they negate no libel issues. as evidenced by the documentation provided / as opposed to the documentation that you seem to miss providing to support your theory. Well other than I say so which counts as nothing. Actress Stone sues plastic surgeon in La for libel LOS ANGELES, Dec 15: Actress Sharon stone wants you to know her face is real. So she has sued a Beverly hills plastic surgeon for defamation and libel for falsely claiming that he gave her a facelift. Arthur Barens, lawyer for plastic surgeon Renato Calabria, says the star of "basic instinct" can relax. He said his client never represented to anyone that he performed plastic surgery on stone 46. "All he has ever done is discuss vertical face surgery, a technique he innovated and articles have speculated that stone had the procedure," the lawyer said. US weekly printed an article in an August issue headlined "did Sharon stone have surgery?" And in touch magazine had a similar piece quoting Calabria, although he refuses to comment on stone in the article. According to the suit filed in Los Angeles superior court on Monday, "stone has never undergone a facelift in order to improve her physical appearance. ... Stone prides herself not only on her acting ability and other talents, but also on her natural physical appearance." She is seeking unspecified damages. (AGENCIES) Carol Burnett drew attention in 1981, when she sued the National Enquirer for libel after the tabloid newspaper described her alleged public drunkenness, purportedly with Henry Kissinger. Carol was particularly sensitive to the accusations because of her parents' own alcoholism. The case was a landmark for libel cases involving celebrities, although the unprecedented $1.6 million verdict for Burnett was reduced to about $800,000 on appeal, and eventually settled out of court. Indeed, but you are not allowed to determine what is and is not true, that is what the court decides in a libel case not you. No one gets to predetermine that something is true going into a case, otherwise there would be no cases. You seem to be forgetting Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. 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.

We have a law against liblel

Now which is it again you seem to waver?, do we have to be geographicly present? or can we speak with just the accounts of friends to verify our point? By the way by the time you were just attending fellowships in 1979 I had more hours than I can count working at root locals, You have no idea of what you speak.

No it is stating the truth! There is insufficient evidence to determine or render a decision of guilt in a crime either way. For that to happen one would need both sides of the story which we do not have for comparison. This indicates that no one is lying ,just the fact that the evidence is not there to make judgment. It is entirely possible that any statement may be true in nature, once proper evidence to render a decision is completed an answer may be forthcoming

You are correct they may be guilty of an act ,but one can not claim guilt in public comment where no guilt is found. Which is why have consistently said that there is insufficient evidence to indicate either way, as all we have presented is one side of the story. It is undocumentable you said it yourself, it is an if? Now everyone can offer opinion as to what they believe that If may or may not be. many will based on like or dislike. I choose not to speculate or guess. If and when due process produces a verdict then the IF will be clarified until that point it is an IF. Your post indicates that you have already made judgment. I wonder how it is that you can do what no jury has done with assurance? The people have spoken and loudly rejected such thinking. In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated. Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. 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.

Then by your logic I can discuss any first person stories as evidence to the contrary without being present just as you were not. By the way I have never indicated anyone was a liar nor have I said I did not believe any testimony. What I have consistently said and you have consistently misrepresented is that there is insufficient evidence to indicate either way, as all we have presented is one side of the story. That is a correct statement. like it or not.

Exactly why would I consider that you would do such ? You obviously believe what she says by your posts. There is an infinate amount of things one might do. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to think of every possibility that every human might or might not do then all and consider them.

Perhaps you did, but not everyone I know hundreds of people that would tell you the same. What happened in the 90s on excluded. I have heard here that things like that went on during that period but that was not the norm during the early years. No one ever scrutinized your paycheck and your checkbook.

It was a statement of fact, not permission You are free to do so..... I never spoke to her credibility in my post, only to your suggestion that you conducted a lie detector test. Speaking of judges smelling BS a mile away. Trying to prove your point by false claims is also not endearing to a judge

Yes it is evident from your speech. that demenstrates intent Then you would be prepared to offer such test as evience? I thought not What we try to make up when e have no point...... You can draw whatever conclusions from your experiance you want as opinion. I think it is you who don't get it Crimes are charged according to law, that in this case would be USA for any one would wish to attribute to VPW. This contrary to your belief has nothing to do with the internet. Which is a place to post opinions not fact of guilt which have yet to be established

I have never attempted to silence anyone, what I have fought for is to call what is guilty, guilty, and that which is OPINION of guilt as such. When you have a charge ,due process of law, and verdict then you have guilt established. Until then although it may have occurred as a crime , there is no documented guilt. You can tell whatever story you want as long as you don't pass off your story as fact until it is.[/color] Sure you have Dove, my story is a fact to me. I can talk about other folks stories that are facts for them. You are the one unqualified here to list any of that as opinion because it was never YOUR experience. You talk about your experience in your area in the programs that you participated in with the people that you interacted with.....I talk about mind, others here offer their experiences.....and together, we come up with a bigger picture of what twi was outside of any one small geographic area. No you confirm guilt by reading other stories that you have no part in. you are unqualified here to list any of tha because it was never YOUR experience. You simply decide it was true because it fits with what you choose to believe.

Just for the record Actually what I asked you was (and by the way no reply) was how many of the crimes that you like to accuse someone of guilt for, did you actually witness? The reason being since you seem to require first hand observation from some before they are qualified to speak ,I assume the same would hold true for you. So if you did not witness a rape for instance then you have no more authority to pass off your view as truth than I do as you were not geographically there either. Yes? By the way No it is doubtful that free will contributions to charityor other free will decisions that one may make,or not are considered extortion by legal definition.

As I have stated in the past it's reasonable to accept normal, routine experiences as matter of fact spoken of, for instance your example, However a criminal charge such as the ones battered about here are a different matter they carry a weight of burden of proof. He has been rendered as guilty of crimes. He has been referred to as guilty of such crimes with no burden of proof met. Opinion of such would be acceptable not declaring as judge and jury without fair process of law . That would be the difference ,but then you probably knew that already and just wanted to misrepresent things as is in my opinion the normal case of your posts at least in my experience.

I have never attempted to silence anyone, what I have fought for is to call what is guilty, guilty, and that which is OPINION of guilt as such. When you have a charge ,due process of law, and verdict then you have guilt established. Until then although it may have occurred as a crime , there is no documented guilt. You can tell whatever story you want as long as you don't pass off your story as fact until it is. Because it would be incorrect. Supporting peoples rights in an internet court of guilt is not worship. You asume because you want to the truth was told there is no proof that it was or was not. You have offered no evidence of such claim, It remains to be seen ,undocumented......

Yeah apparently any disgruntled former member can decide it all on their own. Who needs the law? With information printed in a book published that renders money to the author no less So let me get this right we are to accept any accusers story as truth and declare guilt based on such ? That somehow does not seem to fit with our constitutional rights.

If you note he was the one that brought up biblical standards, not me ,take up your complaint with him . I responded to the question in the context he issued it in .Unlike you who tried to misquote it out of context to lecture me with. Nice Try.... Presumption of innocence is used in CRIMINAL LAW, not internet forums, and there is no actual statute to require any of US EX-TWIERS to adhere to it on the internet. . . you continue on as if there actually is. Show me the statute.. . cite it. Correct and when you accuse someone of being guilty of a crime a charge, you now enter the criminal law system from the internet version of it's my opinion. Please don't confuse crimminal law with civil statutes either. . . the burden of proof differs. . . .it would be hard to prove libel here and it is doubtful crimminal libel charges would ever even be considered. I have already explained that burden in relation to public figures. Agreed it would be on both counts However the level of difficulty or if it is pursued does not nullify that libel was committed either. You seem to think that because no one pursues it it did not exist, by that standard the crimes you seek to discuss fall into that same category, they were not pursued either, nor is the level of difficulty easy in their case. We are not required to bring crimminal charges before we discuss these issues of abuse and suffering at the hands of men we once trusted. No matter how hard you want it to be so. Again as i said discussion is not declaring guilt, opinion noted as such , of guilt is proper. All are entitled to their opinions However opinion is not necessarily fact.. BTW. . . The presumption of innocence is a principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence. Not that they are innocent until proven guilty, but they don't have to prove their innocence, the government has to prove their guilt and there is due process of law! We are not the government here. . . just the victims of a giant UGLY scam. "The presumption of innocence, is an ancient tenet of criminal law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence. The presumption of innocence principle supports the practice of releasing criminal defendants from jail prior to trial. However, the government may detain some criminal defendants without bail through the end of trial. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that excessive bail shall not be required, but it is widely accepted that governments have the right to detain through trial a defendant of a serious crime who is a flight risk or poses a danger to the public. In such cases the presumption of innocence is largely theoretical. Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody — the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer — believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court." You can't just ignore what the law actually means in favor of what you want it to mean. . . . just makes it your interpretation. You can think whatever you like about the presumption of innocence. Where it applies. . . what it is. You can get it all mixed up in your head and have it come out in the words you post. That is fine. . . go for it. But, when you try to impose this private standard on others. . . someone will call you on it. Especially here. Ex-cult members tend to spot this tactic a mile away. I wonder why? INNOCENCE, PRESUMPTION OF - The indictment or formal charge against any person is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the person is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a person to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The Government has the burden of proving a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so the person is (so far as the law is concerned) not guilty. A legal indictment is NOT evidence of guilt , much less an internet one In short you have no guilt established. You seem to have omitted a part of the definition as well. It goes way beyond bail issues. In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated. Nevertheless, the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. 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. Exactly.......

I have never confused the two. opinion passed off in the absolute is what I have challenged unless you have a guilty verdict in public you can not refer to one as such. When you go beyond that opinion and state so and so is a thief you better have documentation. and more than I say so. Don't know he was not in America you would need to check the records in Guiana. I believe they took some action.

Actually Not!

Sorry for you ! one would think that someone that had a background in learning and living a standard of truth and moral values would continue in such. ( Cue America The Beautiful in the background here) those values start in those itty bitty places and continue into the expanse each injustice is as important as the next, the small as important as the large. Is one man's freedom and rights expendable anothers not? What determines this injustice? Who chooses the one that looses? Not me, with every breath I'll fight for truth justice and the American way. Stand up, stand up I say and fight, for those rights so many have given life for. Awake from the slumber of apathy, Take a stand, fight for your right to party. Live long and prosper! Free the whales and kiss a kitten. Seek truth here and everywhere......

I don't share your view that it is juvenile to speak up for presumption of innocence. IMO it is juvenile to argue that one should not support our rights. Public opinion is not the same as declaring guilty without due process. accusing one of a crime requires documentation. I have not seen him for a number of years but you can reach him through CES/ John Lynn he fronts their group in Wichita or at least last I knew.

but you have not challenged it. ... Why? What's to challenge it is libel but just because no one fights the battle does not change the fact. Oh by the way, _I_ haven't 'dragged' you into anything. _You_ decided to respond of your own freewill. Take responsibility for what you do. Just keeping the record straight that it was not me who started this conversation, because I knew that eventually someone would post something just as this below. I was not bothered at all until you brought up the subject but since you chose to include me in a conversation that I had not been involved in I responded.. Nice try but No , we have laws and truth to uphold and we are to obey those laws also a biblical principle.

Exactly the point you comment based on accounts YOU READ yet you question validity supposedly based on second and third hand accounts where you arrived at that conclusion one will never know. Somehow that voids my right to post yet insures yours ,in your mind. Your commenting on something you have not witnessed, yet seem to think I need to post under different rules. My documentation at the least is the same as yours first hand accounts. At the best it is my own observations first hand. Somehow you seem to think I need to be geographically present to have a valid post ,yet you can simply read an opinion and follow along the crowd and we are supposed to not question your validity.