The presumption of innocence – being innocent until proven guilty,

[Ham]

And get back to me when you have a court decision until then it is not established it is testimony subject to the process of law.

Yep much like the accusations have none of the above to substantiate them . You have nothing but unproved accusations.

no, I have an OPINION. And it usually takes me a lot of consideration to form one.. but post after post after post.. that's what you come off to me as..

a NOVICE. The arguments.. could be easily debated by a freshman in high school..

I'm not calling you an idiot, or bad names here.. it's just, if people had that perception of me, I would want to know.

I'm really being polite here..

[WhiteDove]

no, I have an OPINION. And it usually takes me a lot of consideration to form one.. but post after post after post.. that's what you come off to me as..

a NOVICE. The arguments.. could be easily debated by a freshman in high school..

I'm not calling you an idiot, or bad names here.. it's just, if people had that perception of me, I would want to know.

I'm really being polite here..

Thanks ,but if I cared what anyone thought I might be concerned, but I'm not.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

Obviously...your desire to defend VP Wierwille is apparent to all...

A plagiarist, a liar, a drunk and an adulterer....this is the path YOU have chosen...it should be obvious to you that you are in an anti twi website...why bother?...

[WhiteDove]

wheras in the first part of the argument for the plaintiff Mr. VPW, WD again puts forth the claim that the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of the plaintiff have fabricated their testimony, yet fails to offer any evidence of his claim:

Never happened, pure fabrication show me that argument.

being as their testimony is full of facts, and that consistent testimony is given into evidence, said evidence is accepted as factual in the absence of contradicting evidence.

wheras in the second part, WD confuses the process of law with the facts of case, and we the people offer into evidence testimony by Mr. Webster that proves someone CAN be guilty without ever stepping into a courtroom:

Webster says:

Yeah here is another definintion

1. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender

Webster's New World College Dictionary

Here are some Synonyms

Convicted

found guilty, guilty as charged, condemned, sentenced, criminal, censured, impeached, incriminated, indicted, liable, condemned, proscribed, having violated law, weighed and found wanting, judged, damned, doomed, cast into outer darkness

note the reocurring theme - proof,found guilty,guilty as charged,legaly judged, Need I say more...... Oh Yeah I missed I said so in the definition.

[WhiteDove]

Obviously...your desire to defend VP Wierwille is apparent to all...

A plagiarist, a liar, a drunk and an adulterer....this is the path YOU have chosen...it should be obvious to you that you are in an anti twi website...why bother?...

No I have defended our rights as Americans

[doojable]

Is this a court of law? NO

Is the government looking to convict someone because of what is said here? NO

Is anyone entitled to their opinion? YES

Are the things I'VE witnessed and I'VE heard first hand "testimony"? YES

Now- is there really a reason to go further?

I think not... <_<

[WhiteDove]

Is this a court of law? NO

Is the government looking to convict someone because of what is said here? NO

Is anyone entitled to their opinion? YES

Are the things I'VE witnessed and I'VE heard first hand "testimony"? YES

Now- is there really a reason to go further?

I think not... <_<

I've been expecting you I was wondering when you might show up.

As long as you don't pass off opinion as a charge of guilt in a crime No

Edited February 19, 2009 by WhiteDove

[potato]

Never happened, pure fabrication show me that argument

.

you said it when you said their testimonies were non-factual. if they are non-factual, then they are fantasy, so must be fabrications or hallucinations.

Yeah here is another definintion

1. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender

Webster's New World College Dictionary

weird, this is what it says when I look it up:

guilt (gilt)

noun

1. the state of having done a wrong or committed an offense; culpability, legal or ethical

2. a painful feeling of self-reproach resulting from a belief that one has done something wrong or immoral

3. conduct that involves guilt; crime; sin

Etymology: ME gilt < OE gylt, a sin, offense

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.

Here are some Synonyms

Convicted

found guilty, guilty as charged, condemned, sentenced, criminal, censured, impeached, incriminated, indicted, liable, condemned, proscribed, having violated law, weighed and found wanting, judged, damned, doomed, cast into outer darkness

note the reocurring theme - proof,found guilty,guilty as charged,legaly judged,

Need I say more...... Oh Yeah I missed I said so in the definition.

naturally synonyms for "convicted" would be of interest here if the word "convicted" was relevant.

[JeffSjo]

Yeah here is another definintion

1. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender

Webster's New World College Dictionary

Here are some Synonyms

Convicted

found guilty, guilty as charged, condemned, sentenced, criminal, censured, impeached, incriminated, indicted, liable, condemned, proscribed, having violated law, weighed and found wanting, judged, damned, doomed, cast into outer darkness

note the reocurring theme - proof,found guilty,guilty as charged,legaly judged, Need I say more...... Oh Yeah I missed I said so in the definition.

This is the definition of guilt from Webster's New World College Dictionary; on-line

1. The state of having done a wrong or committed an offense; culpability, legal or ethical

2. a painful feeling of self-reproach resulting from a belief that one has done something wrong or immoral

3. conduct that involves guilt; crime; sin

__________________

From the same dictionary....guilty

1. having guilt; deserving blame or punishment; culpable

2. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender

3. showing or conscious of guilt

4.of or involving guilt or a sense of guilt

___________________

You cherry pick the dictionary to fit your premise W.D.

Personally, I feel that if Wierwille felt the normal human pangs of consciousness you wouldn't now be in this predicament.

I can judge Wierwille guilty without having a jury say so. He deserves blame. See def. #1

[WhiteDove]

.

you said it when you said their testimonies were non-factual. if they are non-factual, then they are fantasy, so must be fabrications or hallucinations.

More fabrication I said they were not necessarily fact you see there is usually two differing ones, as such both can't be fact one or both could be right,part right or wrong. that would be why facts need to be proven to see what is correct. This is police 101.

weird, this is what it says when I look it up:

naturally synonyms for "convicted" would be of interest here if the word "convicted" was relevant.

Convicted was a synonoym

This is the definition of guilt from Webster's New World College Dictionary; on-line

1. The state of having done a wrong or committed an offense; culpability, legal or ethical

2. a painful feeling of self-reproach resulting from a belief that one has done something wrong or immoral

3. conduct that involves guilt; crime; sin

__________________

From the same dictionary....guilty

1. having guilt; deserving blame or punishment; culpable

2. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender

3. showing or conscious of guilt

4.of or involving guilt or a sense of guilt

___________________

You cherry pick the dictionary to fit your premise W.D.

Just as potato did which was my point dictionaries are only good for so much.

Personally, I feel that if Wierwille felt the normal human pangs of consciousness you wouldn't now be in this predicament.

I can judge Wierwille guilty without having a jury say so. He deserves blame. See def. #1

You can offer your opinion any conformation of guilt must have proof or it's alleged well if one speaks correctly anyway.

[potato]

More fabrication I said they were not necessarily fact you see there is usually two differing ones, as such both can't be fact one or both could be right,part right or wrong. that would be why facts need to be proven to see what is correct. This is police 101.

ok, I misunderstood you. after re-reading your opinion, I see that you mean one can take the testimony as factual OR non-factual, not that you take it either way.

Just as potato did which was my point dictionaries are only good for so much.

actually, what I did was paste in the entire definition, so that people could see that guilt is not just a legal term, but can be a point of fact. I did not cherry-pick the definition that fit my argument, which you did, and apparently improperly cited as well.

Convicted was a synonoym

for what?

[waysider]

Here's a question that seems to have been lost in the shhh----uffle.

"Do you suppose Wierwille ever considered that summoning someone to HQ, from another state, for the purpose of having sex with them, might violate The Mann Act?"

[Ham]

Thanks ,but if I cared what anyone thought I might be concerned, but I'm not.

ever consider that's why you get the "reception" you do here? That is EXACTLY what was wrong with the old ministry.. loy didn't care, the vicster didn't care who he gut stripped..

they KNEW what their actions would produce.. and they simply did not CARE what kind of effect they had..

now this is just an observation.. I've SYSTEMATICALLY seen you draw out the worst sarcasm from the gentlest people here..

and a further observation.. GENERALLY, the sarcasm is deserved..

but you don't care. It's your life..

[rascal]

Well said Ham, *not caring what their actions produce*. TWI doctrine made it excusable and acceptable when vp was drugging and raping....on the leaders when preying on and stealing from and then turning their backs on the very people they promised to help....and now decades later in the tactics engaged in the attempted cover up of the sins and crimes committed....The doctrine even gives them God`s seal of approval.

What a legacy.

Edited February 19, 2009 by rascal

[GarthP2000]

Why does it seem that Whitedove's unraveling argument here have all the similarity to watching one of those old WWII movies where the fighter plane is in combat, and you start to see smoke coming out from the tail, and you hear the increasing whine of the engine as the fatally damaged plane starts its death roll towards the earth below.

"Deploy the flaps! Deploy the flaps!! ..... BAIL OUT!! BAIL OUT!!!"

[WhiteDove]

ever consider that's why you get the "reception" you do here? That is EXACTLY what was wrong with the old ministry.. loy didn't care, the vicster didn't care who he gut stripped..

they KNEW what their actions would produce.. and they simply did not CARE what kind of effect they had..

now this is just an observation.. I've SYSTEMATICALLY seen you draw out the worst sarcasm from the gentlest people here..

and a further observation.. GENERALLY, the sarcasm is deserved..

but you don't care. It's your life..

Actually I think Groucho post was more to the point. This is an anti twi website, although had I said that it would have been opposed as not true , at least one person has the honesty to admit it. Therein lies the problem, reason and rationality depart in favor of a mission, an agenda. No good statement must be tolerated. Of course, I upset the apple cart of those who wish to stay in the past and relive day after day any bad experience in the way. I make no apologies for honest and fair treatment of people, for upholding the rights we have as citizen's of this country. Bias does not allow me to remove such from anyone.

[rascal]

This is not an anti twi site, I think that is a dishonest statement.

What it IS...is a place to tell what happened to us in twi...tell our stories. If twi had been a place of blessing and growth, then that is undoubtedly what we would be writing about here.

Unfortunatelty, many of us experienced privation, abuse, and had crimes committed against us....so THAT is what is discussed by those whom experienced it.

Gosh....If twi had been the God centered group that we had been led to believe, (and don`t we all wish that it HAD been) we wouldn`t have anything to talk about here now would we?

Dove, maybe what you ought to be asking yourself is....Why you would need to come to a site and spend a decade trying to discredit the experiences of other posters. The whole site isn`t a lie, the participants aren`t all liars....

Maybe the error is in your perception of what you understood twi to be.

This place is for talking about twi ... good, bad or indifferent....too bad more of us weren`t better treated, the flavor of the place would be a little different.

Edited February 19, 2009 by rascal

[Ham]

I upset the apple cart of those who wish to stay in the past and relive day after day any bad experience in the way.

I think you over rate yourself..

and I think you don't "read" people very well either..

it isn't that they relive the past day after day, every bad experience in da way.. it's more like they won't put up with the same bad behavior..

the "reception" you get here.. the razzes, the hisses, the sarcasm, etc.. doesn't that tell you something?

and it isn't limited to this little neck of the woods either.. I've seen the same kind of authoritarian posturing met with the same kind of reception in very different venues..

[rascal]

*...and relive day after day any bad experiences in the way....*

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeey wait a minute now....is that an actual ADMISSION from Dove that there WERE bad experiences to be endured by participants *in the way* to be relived??????

Golly....you mean that we aren`t all liars and exaggerators, possibly deserving of the treatment we recieved???

I think that you may have made a breakthrough today friend ;)

Edited February 19, 2009 by rascal

[skyrider]

Actually I think Groucho post was more to the point. This is an anti twi website, although had I said that it would have been opposed as not true , at least one person has the honesty to admit it. Therein lies the problem, reason and rationality depart in favor of a mission, an agenda. No good statement must be tolerated. Of course, I upset the apple cart of those who wish to stay in the past and relive day after day any bad experience in the way. I make no apologies for honest and fair treatment of people, for upholding the rights we have as citizen's of this country. Bias does not allow me to remove such from anyone.

WD.....you continue in this black/white mentality.

Its YOU against GS.......every statement, every opinion challenges you. Had you gone WOW or inresidence corps, or left your state......you might have more exposure to the ills and abuses in twi.

Even I have stated that there was some good in twi.....else, why would so many of us have stayed there all those years? When you, WD, make blanket statements like "no good statement must be tolerated"......you simply expose your lack of critical thinking skills and your defensive posturing for wierwille/twi. Life just isn't that simple.....all black or all white.

Isn't it time to move away from this juvenile black/white mentality?

[JeffSjo]

Yeah here is another definintion

1. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender

Webster's New World College Dictionary

Here are some Synonyms

Convicted

found guilty, guilty as charged, condemned, sentenced, criminal, censured, impeached, incriminated, indicted, liable, condemned, proscribed, having violated law, weighed and found wanting, judged, damned, doomed, cast into outer darkness

note the reocurring theme - proof,found guilty,guilty as charged,legaly judged, Need I say more...... Oh Yeah I missed I said so in the definition.

This is the definition of guilt from Webster's New World College Dictionary; on-line

1. The state of having done a wrong or committed an offense; culpability, legal or ethical

2. a painful feeling of self-reproach resulting from a belief that one has done something wrong or immoral

3. conduct that involves guilt; crime; sin

__________________

From the same dictionary....guilty

1. having guilt; deserving blame or punishment; culpable

2. having one's guilt proved; legally judged an offender

3. showing or conscious of guilt

4.of or involving guilt or a sense of guilt

___________________

You cherry pick the dictionary to fit your premise W.D.

Personally, I feel that if Wierwille felt the normal human pangs of consciousness you wouldn't now be in this predicament.

I can judge Wierwille guilty without having a jury say so. He deserves blame. See def. #1

I think it was pretty cool that Potato immediately went to check out the dictionary that you supposedly quoted from W.D., as I did. As soon as I saw your supposed quote of the dictionary I suspected that you were cherry picking the definition of guilty. And then I proved it.

But not only did you cherry pick. You lied. Definition #1 is not what you said it was at all. Definition #1 of "guilty" has nothing to do with the legal system. Why did you lie by making definition #2 into definition #1 White Dove?

This touches directly on my concern for you White Dove. It's all to easy to imagine you as someone who is just not willing to let go of your unrealistic view of what TWI and Wierwille were. If these things go against your inner sense of loyalty or purpose then I feel compasion for you. As Rascal said, you've been at the Greasespot for a long time arguing your case.

But I take it as a warning when your beliefs move you to LIE AS YOU DID WHEN YOU MADE DEFINITION #2 TO BE DEFINITION #1. And even though I feel compasion for you if you really are motivated by loyalty, I assure you that I feel more compassion for those who had their lives ruined in TWI, and not just had to suffer through just listening to people come to conclusions that I might find to be disagreeable, as you seem to be doing right now.

I don't need to lie now, even though I have sinned too. If you have to lie, then you are really only hurting your cause White Dove. And I wouldn't tend to believe you even if you had a sound point because of the lie.

When I was new to TWI I met someone from the American Freedom Foundation, which I believe was a group that was promoting deprograming. And if I knew then what I knew now I would have some empathy for how this person freaked out when at our chance encounter I told him that I was with TWI. But because he freaked out, I thought that any anti-TWI person must be a nutjob too. And for the record, no matter what the motivation deprogramming is wrong and most often only backfired on the deprogrammers anyway.

In similar fashion, your argument fails because you lied about the defintions, thus hurting your own case.

(edited for grammar)

Edited February 19, 2009 by JeffSjo

[JeffSjo]

Actually I think Groucho post was more to the point. This is an anti twi website, although had I said that it would have been opposed as not true , at least one person has the honesty to admit it. Therein lies the problem, reason and rationality depart in favor of a mission, an agenda. No good statement must be tolerated. Of course, I upset the apple cart of those who wish to stay in the past and relive day after day any bad experience in the way. I make no apologies for honest and fair treatment of people, for upholding the rights we have as citizen's of this country. Bias does not allow me to remove such from anyone.

Your bias allows you to lie about the dictionary defintion White Dove.

The only question I have now is how far you will go in distorting things to get your own way?

(edited for grammar)

Edited February 19, 2009 by JeffSjo

[Tzaia]

Actually I think Groucho post was more to the point. This is an anti twi website, although had I said that it would have been opposed as not true , at least one person has the honesty to admit it. Therein lies the problem, reason and rationality depart in favor of a mission, an agenda. No good statement must be tolerated. Of course, I upset the apple cart of those who wish to stay in the past and relive day after day any bad experience in the way. I make no apologies for honest and fair treatment of people, for upholding the rights we have as citizen's of this country. Bias does not allow me to remove such from anyone.

Consider this WD: Had TWI allowed reasonable discourse and a reasonable means to deal with issues - there would be no GSC. As such, the few pro-TWI message boards that do exist do NOT allow anyone to speak badly about TWI. While I'm reasonably sure there are more than a few here who wish you'd put a sock in it, you have been largely unmolested and have suffered very little in the way of personal attacks on this board.

I find it fascinating that you continue to try to create compelling arguments about things that are out of the realm of possibility about a guy who most here think is a scum bag. Very few here are going to have an epiphany about the guy because they already have. I guess that makes you the eternal optimist.

[potato]

<snip>

I make no apologies for honest and fair treatment of people, for upholding the rights we have as citizen's of this country. Bias does not allow me to remove such from anyone.

</snip>

I've been doing quite a bit of reading on the "presumption of innocence", both from philosophical/legal and practical points of view to try and understand why you so bull-doggedly hold fast to the doctrine.

here's what I've learned:

1. because vpw is dead, he has no constitutional rights.

2. because vpw is dead, he is not entitled to "presumption of innocence" because he cannot face his accusers in a court of law, should anyone wish to press charges.

3. "presumption of innocence", in actual fact, is a presumption of "not guilty until guilt is proven beyond a shadow of doubt in a court of law".

4. "presumption of innocence" does not assume no crime has been committed.

5. "presumption of innocence" is not a legal right, it is common-law rule of the court.

6. "presumption of innocence" does not trump the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

7. "presumption of innocence" is not a requirement of civil life, otherwise no one could be suspended pending an investigation, and no one could criticize the actions of elected officials.

8. victims of crimes are not required by law to press charges and face the one who committed a crime against them in court. it is their right to NOT go to court, but exercising that right does not nullify their constitutional right to freedom of speech regarding what they experienced.

9. if the person who committed the crime (or the representative of that person if they are deceased) doesn't like the victim talking about what happened, the burden is then on them to press charges in criminal court, where the burden will then be on them as the plaintiff to prove that a crime (slander, libel) has been committed.

But not only did you cherry pick. You lied. Definition #1 is not what you said it was at all. Definition #1 of "guilty" has nothing to do with the legal system. Why did you lie by making definition #2 into definition #1 White Dove?

good catch, Jeff!

[potato]

oh yeah, and one more thing on "presumption of innocence" under .4... add "otherwise courts would not have discretion to refuse bail."