Testimony is not proof of anything?? Except it is admissable in a court of law as evidence. That is what testimony is. . . . proof!!!!!!
Exactly right it is not proof it is evidence to be considered it may be proof it may turn out to be a lie. If it is a lie it is proof of nothing.
This is just getting beyond ridiculous now. What court in the country does not accept testimony as evidence to prove guilt. No court says it is an undocumented collection of words. .. . until proven. . . OMGosh. . . that is why people TESTIFY under oath and the penalty of perjury.
Evidence to proveis not the same as proof. Proof is established when the evidence presented has been through the process of law.
Get a clue.
Good idea perhaps you should.....
You don't testify an accusation, you testify to information relating TO the accusation as PROOF of guilt or innocence.
Occasionaly testimony is all a Judge has to make a decision. . . guess what? It ends up. . . . based on testimony. . .
After the testimony is put through due process of law challenged ,evaluated as admissible and so on it is not considered proof when it comes out of someone's mouth it is yet established.
It isn`t liable if what we say is true. I have yet to see any of the *consequences* you refer to in ten years of people reporting the abuses that would indicate that the experiences related, the books written, the broadcasts taped, were not factual and truthful.
I`ll bet there are a good many of us that wish it all were a lie...that the mistreatment never happened :(
Why is it this reminds me of a traffic round about?
First, you said if there was confirmation of proven guilt, you would shout from the roof tops.
In the context of VPW
Then, when an example was given, you said the context was about VPW, not just any old guilt.
The example did not meet the requirement of the context of my statement
Now, you're saying it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, even though that seems to be the title of the thread.
My response was in repy to shouting from roof tops, that subject has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, it has to do with using ones vocal cords to announce a message.
It looks to me like you are having trouble figuring out how to navigate the round about.
It looks to me like you are having trouble reading what is written but what else is new?
It isn`t liable if what we say is true. I have yet to see any of the *consequences* you refer to in ten years of people reporting the abuses that would indicate that the experiences related, the books written, the broadcasts taped, were not factual and truthful.
I`ll bet there are a good many of us that wish it all were a lie...that the mistreatment never happened :(
IF yep a small condition that has yet to be documented as true.
As far as the comments about ranting day after day about crimes committed.....well there are some here who have had life long impact from what happened in twi....things that can never be fixed...families estranged, children who struggle, childlesness...issues with trust.....
You think you established this ,you have not his right not to be libeled even though dead can be argued in court.
you might need to rewrite this statement, it's pretty badly mangled and I'm likely misunderstanding it but I'll give it a go...
I don't THINK I established that vpw doesn't have constitutional rights, he doesn't have them. that's a fact.
no one is obligated to treat him with presumption of innocence.
yes, if he's been libeled, the person committing the libel can be taken to court. so, why, when twi sends their lawyers after every little church using "the way" in their name, do they ignore what you're saying constitutes libel? any burden of proof is on them, not on vpw's victims, therefore his victims should be treated with presumption of innocence until such a time as their guilt in a libel suit has been decided. until I see a guilty verdict, THERE IS NO LIBEL.
Why is it this reminds me of a traffic round about?
I was thinking the same thing! or a merry-go-round. let's keeping pushing as fast as we can and see who falls off first!
As far as the comments about ranting day after day about crimes committed....
doesn't it strike you as ironic, rascal? we could just as easly talk about the ranting day after day about crimes committed because we're always hearing about this alleged libel. I just want to know, what libel?
It isn`t liable if what we say is true.
IF yep a small condition that has yet to be documented as true.
WRONG. it's not libel until the alleged libel is proven to be false in court. the truth doesn't have to be documented in court.
you might need to rewrite this statement, it's pretty badly mangled and I'm likely misunderstanding it but I'll give it a go...
I don't THINK I established that vpw doesn't have constitutional rights, he doesn't have them. that's a fact.
no one is obligated to treat him with presumption of innocence.
yes, if he's been libeled, the person committing the libel can be taken to court. so, why, when twi sends their lawyers after every little church using "the way" in their name, do they ignore what you're saying constitutes libel? any burden of proof is on them, not on vpw's victims, therefore his victims should be treated with presumption of innocence until such a time as their guilt in a libel suit has been decided. until I see a guilty verdict, THERE IS NO LIBEL.
Those that accuse VP of a crime have the burdon of proof to satisfy. It has not been done Period.
I was thinking the same thing! or a merry-go-round. let's keeping pushing as fast as we can and see who falls off first!
doesn't it strike you as ironic, rascal? we could just as easly talk about the ranting day after day about crimes committed because we're always hearing about this alleged libel. I just want to know, what libel?
you might need to rewrite this statement, it's pretty badly mangled and I'm likely misunderstanding it but I'll give it a go...
I don't THINK I established that vpw doesn't have constitutional rights, he doesn't have them. that's a fact.
no one is obligated to treat him with presumption of innocence.
yes, if he's been libeled, the person committing the libel can be taken to court. so, why, when twi sends their lawyers after every little church using "the way" in their name, do they ignore what you're saying constitutes libel? any burden of proof is on them, not on vpw's victims, therefore his victims should be treated with presumption of innocence until such a time as their guilt in a libel suit has been decided. until I see a guilty verdict, THERE IS NO LIBEL.
I was thinking the same thing! or a merry-go-round. let's keeping pushing as fast as we can and see who falls off first!
doesn't it strike you as ironic, rascal? we could just as easly talk about the ranting day after day about crimes committed because we're always hearing about this alleged libel. I just want to know, what libel?
WRONG. it's not libel until the alleged libel is proven true in a court of law. the truth doesn't have to be documented in court.
Those that accuse VP of a crime have the burdon of proof to satisfy. It has not been done Period.
WRONG. they don't have the burden of proof to satisfy, because they can't "accuse" vpw according to the legal definition of the word. vpw is dead, HELLO. the burden of proof is now on those who would accuse his victims of libel.
(how many more times shall this merry-go-round go round, dear readers?)
You assume it is truth it has yet to be proven.
again, where does burden of proof now lie?
(and sorry you quoted this while I was fixing my grammatical error. I think you got my drift though.)
Those that accuse VP of a crime have the burdon of proof to satisfy. It has not been done Period.
I disagree Dove, those who were abused by vpw`s don`t owe you or anybody else a damned thing.
I personally thank GOD that so many had the guts to tell their stories ...in SPITE of the guys who tried to shut them up with their vile accusations....Now the rest of us are free to recognize who and what VP REALLY was...it`s the first step in healing for many of us.
WRONG. they don't have the burden of proof to satisfy, because they can't "accuse" vpw according to the legal definition of the word. vpw is dead, HELLO. the burden of proof is now on those who would accuse his victims of libel.
Yes they do being dead does not exempt one from accusation of libel
(how many more times shall this merry-go-round go round, dear readers?)
again, where does burden of proof now lie?
(and sorry you quoted this while I was fixing my grammatical error. I think you got my drift though.)
"Yes they do being dead does not exempt one from accusation of libel"
huh?
if you're dead, you're not exempt from accusations of libel? I guess not, but I don't see anyone accusing vpw of libel.
WRONG. they don't have the burden of proof to satisfy, because they can't "accuse" vpw according to the legal definition of the word. vpw is dead.
Some states do permit suits for libel or slander to be brought on behalf of the estate of a deceased person in some circumstances. The definition of libel in Texas includes written words that "tend to blacken the memory of the dead." In Rhode Island there is a right of action if the deceased person was slandered or libelled in an obituary in any newspaper or on any radio or television station within three (3) months of his or her date of death. Many states, including California, will allow personal injury suits (libel and slander are considered personal injuries) filed by a living plaintiff to continue on and be passed to the plaintiff's successor in interest or personal representative upon the plaintiff's death. The plaintiff's estate may then recover if the lawsuit is successful.
Some states do permit suits for libel or slander to be brought on behalf of the estate of a deceased person in some circumstances. The definition of libel in Texas includes written words that "tend to blacken the memory of the dead." In Rhode Island there is a right of action if the deceased person was slandered or libelled in an obituary in any newspaper or on any radio or television station within three (3) months of his or her date of death. Many states, including California, will allow personal injury suits (libel and slander are considered personal injuries) filed by a living plaintiff to continue on and be passed to the plaintiff's successor in interest or personal representative upon the plaintiff's death. The plaintiff's estate may then recover if the lawsuit is successful.
around we go again!
yeah, we covered this. they can go ahead and bring their suit, and then presumption of innocence applies to the person against whom they are pressing charges, and the burden of proof is on the person pressing the libel charge. ok? ok! as has been stated several times (at least) twi or vpw's family could go ahead and pursue this, and they'd have burden of proof to show that falsehoods were told to sully vpw's memory. in other words, they would HAVE TO PROVE THAT VPW DIDN'T MOLEST SOMEONE WHO SAID HE DID.
you're very insistent about this libel thing. just who are you alleging is committing such a crime?
Those that accuse VP of a crime have the burdon of proof to satisfy. It has not been done Period.
... According to YOU. Simple. And since you bring up diddly-SQUAT as far as authoritative resources backing you up, that's all it shall ever be. (And sorry dude, your _opinion_ doesn't count as an authoritative resource. Hells bells, you ain't even an attorney.)
Folks, just go right ahead with openly accusing VPW as being guilty, having all the testimony, first hand witnesses, related doctrines, etc. One thing I'm learning about people like WD (even setting aside his devotion to VPW, or even if he doesn't have that, as per his protestations to the contrary) is that he's the kinda person who just WILL NOT admit to error in his arguments.
One characteristic illustrating this is his continuous insults of those who challenge his opinion. It's like there just _has_ to be something intellectually/dishonestly wrong with his detractors, just _has_ to be. God forbid that they might have a valid point(s) to make, as that just might undermine his highly opinionated view of himself and his 'logic'. ... Just _cannot_ be anything else, ehh? <_<
Anywho, no that isn't based upon proven fact, but it is based upon my observations about the guy, and frankly, the more he types, the more certain I am of that observations/opinion.
And its also certain that we aren't gonna get any change of mind out of him, so I saw we let him live in his dillusions in peace.
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.
Some states do permit suits for libel or slander to be brought on behalf of the estate of a deceased person in some circumstances. The definition of libel in Texas includes written words that "tend to blacken the memory of the dead." In Rhode Island there is a right of action if the deceased person was slandered or libelled in an obituary in any newspaper or on any radio or television station within three (3) months of his or her date of death. Many states, including California, will allow personal injury suits (libel and slander are considered personal injuries) filed by a living plaintiff to continue on and be passed to the plaintiff's successor in interest or personal representative upon the plaintiff's death. The plaintiff's estate may then recover if the lawsuit is successful.
As I pointed out previously (and you seem to have taken it on as your own), the estate of the dead can sue for defamation, but when that happens the burden of proof (as to pain and suffering, loss of income) lies with the plaintiff. They also have to prove that the slanderous/libelous statements are not true.
Historically, TWI has been very quick to defend its trademark, copyrights and, "intellectual property" in various courts of law. Yet it has not done anything to defend the honor of its founder. How incongruous is that? I think it doesn't defend VPW's "honor" because it can't. There are too many people who were eyewitnesses and receivers of abuse for TWI to have any hope of successfully suing anyone for defamation. In fact, I think the other reason why it keeps its "mouth" shut regarding VPW's "honor" is because it would open itself up to civil lawsuits, which it would not win.
You keep asking for proof of guilt. I believe that the proof lies completely in the notion that TWI has done nothing to shut this site down, which (as I stated before) is incongruous with its history of vigorously defending its name and intellectual property. If VPW had been libeled on this forum, TWI would have reason to go after the people responsible for saying untrue things about him. I think TWI hasn't because what is being told is true and TWI would be unable to successfully dispute what is being said about VPW in a court of law. This inability to successfully defend the honor of its founder would most certainly be the end of the organization and right now there are enough people hanging on to his "presumed innocence" state coughing up 15% that it would be foolish to rock the boat. It's best interest of the corporation to not go there.
Moreover, even while some defend the legacy of the man, they have not gone so far as to say that the allegations of sexual abuse are untrue. In fact, at least one splinter organization has specific wording in its code of conduct to address such abuse. This was not done preemptively; it was done to address specific issues that occurred in the prior organization. One person was asked to step down because he violated the spirit of the code of conduct regarding clergy and sexual purity. In other words, there are many people who know it's true and have taken steps to ensure this particular legacy is not a part of their organization.
The statute of limitations has run out for the adults who were abused by VPW. However, adults who were abused as children by clergy have been able to successfully bypass the statute of limitations in several states and successfully sue for damages. You may think you are doing TWI a big favor by defending it with your legal-sounding rhetoric, but TWI might not see it that way. You may provoke someone who decides to pursue civil action against the corporation. Personally, I wish all the minor children who were abused would initiate a class action suit.
It doesn`t matter, I will continue to enjoy and participate in this site for it`s stated purpose, in spite of whether any one particular person appreciates my contributions or sees merit, or even believes the legality of such :)
I know who I am, I know what I am, in spite of any attempt to paint me as otherwise.
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're right, geisha. studying law will really open up your eyes.
my personal law experience has been as a plaintiff in several cases. one was a collections case, which I won and am currently collecting on. I got the judgment pro se, then handed it to a lawyer in another state for collection. one was a personal damages case, which I won, which makes it possible to collect the damages. one is a wage and hour case which is still pending in another state, which isn't yet a class action but for which the lawyers are working to get class status, for which I supplied evidence. the other is an ongoing family law dispute in which I've managed to win some major victories, both pro se and with representation, by picking apart my ex's lies in court, once I got over that stupid "wives submit to your husbands" habit. I've also written a legal research paper (completely on my own) which was submitted to a state agency for review because I found major flaws in their procedures, which also helped my lawyer get a fair judgment for another of his clients. I've memorized huge sections of the statutes and rules in 3 states, out of necessity (you have to when you're pro se, which I was for years).
I love law. if I wasn't busy doing other things, I'd go to law school.
(Feel free to add a liberal amount of sarcasm to the tone in this post as you read.)
________________
Well, I guess that nobody has the right to shout someone's sins from the roof-tops!?
After all, the only true measure of guilt requires a jury or a summary judgement by a judge.
And what about the appelate court?I guess we had better shut up until after the appeals process.
As a matter of law, I guess we cannot judge Wierwille guilty until the supreme court says so.
But even then, the legislative branch could pass a new constitutional ammendment to make Wierwille's scummy action legal. Why then, even the Lord himself could not say Wierwille was guilty.
I guess the Lord knew all that W.D. would say was true when he promised that sins would be yelled from the roof-tops. Of course the Lord's promises are subject to White Dove's irrelevant version of guilty.
(edited because I later remembered my third grade social studies.) I initially said representative branch, not legislative.
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.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
45
110
70
43
Popular Days
Feb 22
39
Feb 15
37
Feb 18
36
Mar 7
31
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 45 posts
WhiteDove 110 posts
waysider 70 posts
potato 43 posts
Popular Days
Feb 22 2009
39 posts
Feb 15 2009
37 posts
Feb 18 2009
36 posts
Mar 7 2009
31 posts
Popular Posts
rascal
I assume that YOUR interaction WITH people here at gs where YOU said what your actual experience was in twi was true and factual. I think you are playing word games because you don`tlike being remind
potato
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
waysider
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
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Why is it this reminds me of a traffic round about?
First, you said if there was confirmation of proven guilt, you would shout from the roof tops.
Then, when an example was given, you said the context was about VPW, not just any old guilt.
Now, you're saying it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, even though that seems to be the title of the thread.
It looks to me like you are having trouble figuring out how to navigate the round about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
It isn`t liable if what we say is true. I have yet to see any of the *consequences* you refer to in ten years of people reporting the abuses that would indicate that the experiences related, the books written, the broadcasts taped, were not factual and truthful.
I`ll bet there are a good many of us that wish it all were a lie...that the mistreatment never happened :(
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
IT is like a dog chasing it's tail around and around you go. never ending never making progress
A complete circle and for what?
To argue with some one who only wants to argue.
edited to add
THe abuses happened. the sexual abuse the child abuse and the mental abuse they are all confirmed by court documents.
Edited by leafytwigletLink to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
LOL I wonder how this one has managed to stay out of soap opera
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
IF yep a small condition that has yet to be documented as true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
As far as the comments about ranting day after day about crimes committed.....well there are some here who have had life long impact from what happened in twi....things that can never be fixed...families estranged, children who struggle, childlesness...issues with trust.....
Darned tootin we will still talk about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
you might need to rewrite this statement, it's pretty badly mangled and I'm likely misunderstanding it but I'll give it a go...
I don't THINK I established that vpw doesn't have constitutional rights, he doesn't have them. that's a fact.
no one is obligated to treat him with presumption of innocence.
yes, if he's been libeled, the person committing the libel can be taken to court. so, why, when twi sends their lawyers after every little church using "the way" in their name, do they ignore what you're saying constitutes libel? any burden of proof is on them, not on vpw's victims, therefore his victims should be treated with presumption of innocence until such a time as their guilt in a libel suit has been decided. until I see a guilty verdict, THERE IS NO LIBEL.
I was thinking the same thing! or a merry-go-round. let's keeping pushing as fast as we can and see who falls off first!
doesn't it strike you as ironic, rascal? we could just as easly talk about the ranting day after day about crimes committed because we're always hearing about this alleged libel. I just want to know, what libel?
WRONG. it's not libel until the alleged libel is proven to be false in court. the truth doesn't have to be documented in court.
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
You assume it is truth it has yet to be proven.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
WRONG. they don't have the burden of proof to satisfy, because they can't "accuse" vpw according to the legal definition of the word. vpw is dead, HELLO. the burden of proof is now on those who would accuse his victims of libel.
(how many more times shall this merry-go-round go round, dear readers?)
again, where does burden of proof now lie?
(and sorry you quoted this while I was fixing my grammatical error. I think you got my drift though.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Those that accuse VP of a crime have the burdon of proof to satisfy. It has not been done Period.
I disagree Dove, those who were abused by vpw`s don`t owe you or anybody else a damned thing.
I personally thank GOD that so many had the guts to tell their stories ...in SPITE of the guys who tried to shut them up with their vile accusations....Now the rest of us are free to recognize who and what VP REALLY was...it`s the first step in healing for many of us.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
"Yes they do being dead does not exempt one from accusation of libel"
huh?
if you're dead, you're not exempt from accusations of libel? I guess not, but I don't see anyone accusing vpw of libel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Some states do permit suits for libel or slander to be brought on behalf of the estate of a deceased person in some circumstances. The definition of libel in Texas includes written words that "tend to blacken the memory of the dead." In Rhode Island there is a right of action if the deceased person was slandered or libelled in an obituary in any newspaper or on any radio or television station within three (3) months of his or her date of death. Many states, including California, will allow personal injury suits (libel and slander are considered personal injuries) filed by a living plaintiff to continue on and be passed to the plaintiff's successor in interest or personal representative upon the plaintiff's death. The plaintiff's estate may then recover if the lawsuit is successful.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
around we go again!
yeah, we covered this. they can go ahead and bring their suit, and then presumption of innocence applies to the person against whom they are pressing charges, and the burden of proof is on the person pressing the libel charge. ok? ok! as has been stated several times (at least) twi or vpw's family could go ahead and pursue this, and they'd have burden of proof to show that falsehoods were told to sully vpw's memory. in other words, they would HAVE TO PROVE THAT VPW DIDN'T MOLEST SOMEONE WHO SAID HE DID.
you're very insistent about this libel thing. just who are you alleging is committing such a crime?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... According to YOU. Simple. And since you bring up diddly-SQUAT as far as authoritative resources backing you up, that's all it shall ever be. (And sorry dude, your _opinion_ doesn't count as an authoritative resource. Hells bells, you ain't even an attorney.)
Folks, just go right ahead with openly accusing VPW as being guilty, having all the testimony, first hand witnesses, related doctrines, etc. One thing I'm learning about people like WD (even setting aside his devotion to VPW, or even if he doesn't have that, as per his protestations to the contrary) is that he's the kinda person who just WILL NOT admit to error in his arguments.
One characteristic illustrating this is his continuous insults of those who challenge his opinion. It's like there just _has_ to be something intellectually/dishonestly wrong with his detractors, just _has_ to be. God forbid that they might have a valid point(s) to make, as that just might undermine his highly opinionated view of himself and his 'logic'. ... Just _cannot_ be anything else, ehh? <_<
Anywho, no that isn't based upon proven fact, but it is based upon my observations about the guy, and frankly, the more he types, the more certain I am of that observations/opinion.
And its also certain that we aren't gonna get any change of mind out of him, so I saw we let him live in his dillusions in peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
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.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
As I pointed out previously (and you seem to have taken it on as your own), the estate of the dead can sue for defamation, but when that happens the burden of proof (as to pain and suffering, loss of income) lies with the plaintiff. They also have to prove that the slanderous/libelous statements are not true.
Historically, TWI has been very quick to defend its trademark, copyrights and, "intellectual property" in various courts of law. Yet it has not done anything to defend the honor of its founder. How incongruous is that? I think it doesn't defend VPW's "honor" because it can't. There are too many people who were eyewitnesses and receivers of abuse for TWI to have any hope of successfully suing anyone for defamation. In fact, I think the other reason why it keeps its "mouth" shut regarding VPW's "honor" is because it would open itself up to civil lawsuits, which it would not win.
You keep asking for proof of guilt. I believe that the proof lies completely in the notion that TWI has done nothing to shut this site down, which (as I stated before) is incongruous with its history of vigorously defending its name and intellectual property. If VPW had been libeled on this forum, TWI would have reason to go after the people responsible for saying untrue things about him. I think TWI hasn't because what is being told is true and TWI would be unable to successfully dispute what is being said about VPW in a court of law. This inability to successfully defend the honor of its founder would most certainly be the end of the organization and right now there are enough people hanging on to his "presumed innocence" state coughing up 15% that it would be foolish to rock the boat. It's best interest of the corporation to not go there.
Moreover, even while some defend the legacy of the man, they have not gone so far as to say that the allegations of sexual abuse are untrue. In fact, at least one splinter organization has specific wording in its code of conduct to address such abuse. This was not done preemptively; it was done to address specific issues that occurred in the prior organization. One person was asked to step down because he violated the spirit of the code of conduct regarding clergy and sexual purity. In other words, there are many people who know it's true and have taken steps to ensure this particular legacy is not a part of their organization.
The statute of limitations has run out for the adults who were abused by VPW. However, adults who were abused as children by clergy have been able to successfully bypass the statute of limitations in several states and successfully sue for damages. You may think you are doing TWI a big favor by defending it with your legal-sounding rhetoric, but TWI might not see it that way. You may provoke someone who decides to pursue civil action against the corporation. Personally, I wish all the minor children who were abused would initiate a class action suit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
It doesn`t matter, I will continue to enjoy and participate in this site for it`s stated purpose, in spite of whether any one particular person appreciates my contributions or sees merit, or even believes the legality of such :)
I know who I am, I know what I am, in spite of any attempt to paint me as otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
you're right, geisha. studying law will really open up your eyes.
my personal law experience has been as a plaintiff in several cases. one was a collections case, which I won and am currently collecting on. I got the judgment pro se, then handed it to a lawyer in another state for collection. one was a personal damages case, which I won, which makes it possible to collect the damages. one is a wage and hour case which is still pending in another state, which isn't yet a class action but for which the lawyers are working to get class status, for which I supplied evidence. the other is an ongoing family law dispute in which I've managed to win some major victories, both pro se and with representation, by picking apart my ex's lies in court, once I got over that stupid "wives submit to your husbands" habit. I've also written a legal research paper (completely on my own) which was submitted to a state agency for review because I found major flaws in their procedures, which also helped my lawyer get a fair judgment for another of his clients. I've memorized huge sections of the statutes and rules in 3 states, out of necessity (you have to when you're pro se, which I was for years).
I love law. if I wasn't busy doing other things, I'd go to law school.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
(Feel free to add a liberal amount of sarcasm to the tone in this post as you read.)
________________
Well, I guess that nobody has the right to shout someone's sins from the roof-tops!?
After all, the only true measure of guilt requires a jury or a summary judgement by a judge.
And what about the appelate court?I guess we had better shut up until after the appeals process.
As a matter of law, I guess we cannot judge Wierwille guilty until the supreme court says so.
But even then, the legislative branch could pass a new constitutional ammendment to make Wierwille's scummy action legal. Why then, even the Lord himself could not say Wierwille was guilty.
I guess the Lord knew all that W.D. would say was true when he promised that sins would be yelled from the roof-tops. Of course the Lord's promises are subject to White Dove's irrelevant version of guilty.
(edited because I later remembered my third grade social studies.)
I initially said representative branch, not legislative.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Interesting relevant WSJ article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123569758678089027.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Good Article!!
In my opinion.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
* 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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.