Start selling your Lebron stuff......

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What possible reason is there, at this point, to suspect LeBron of anything improper? I would guess countless celebs were at these parties, are they all guilty? Come on.

What possible reason? Are you kidding? He's attended numerous Diddy parties. If he witnessed or participated he is guilty. I know you are like the many who can't fathom their "hero's" could do something wrong. And just deny deny deny.

But for now he is innocent so it's really a dead topic until more comes out, but to deny due to his unblemished image. Are you his friend? You know him via the TV and Computer. Maybe he's innocent and maybe he isn't.

[G1911]

It appears that James spoke of the parties on Instagram Live videos he streamed, which appears to be the source he attended these parties. “Everybody know there ain’t no party like a Diddy party”.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

What possible reason? Are you kidding? He's attended numerous Diddy parties. If he witnessed or participated he is guilty. I know you are like the many who can't fathom their "hero's" could do something wrong. And just deny deny deny.

But for now he is innocent so it's really a dead topic until more comes out, but to deny due to his unblemished image. Are you his friend? You know him via the TV and Computer. Maybe he's innocent and maybe he isn't.

Key word -- IF. And you're right, I can't fathom it because I can't believe he would be THAT stupid. We'll see what comes out.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

Maybe he's innocent and maybe he isn't.

Not that I'm any kind of fan of LeBron James, but I strongly disagree. A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a court of law. Case closed. And thank the gods that the presumption of innocence still holds sway here in the U.S. and Canada. The thought of a Soviet style system where a charge equals a conviction is a nightmare for any advocate of individual liberty.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Not that I'm any kind of fan of LeBron James, but I strongly disagree. A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a court of law. Case closed. And thank the gods that the presumption of innocence still holds sway here in the U.S. and Canada. The thought of a Soviet style system where a charge equals a conviction is a nightmare for any advocate of individual liberty.

So OJ was innocent?

[Balticfox]

Congratulations! You get the booby prize. Somebody is always quick and eager to claim it.

Read my lips. A man is innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law. Better yet read the Fifth Amendment to your Constitution where the presumption of innocence is enshrined.

The logic in the O.J. Simpson case is very clear. O.J. Simpson was innocent until the jury delivered its verdict. The jury's verdict was "Not guilty". There was therefore no change to his innocence which is always a person's default status until and unless that person is found "Guilty" in a court of law.

We'd be living in a nightmarish society where governments would be putting away "troublemakers" by the simple expedient of laying charges were the presumption of innocence not the cornerstone of our legal system. Is that what you want?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Congratulations! You get the booby prize. Somebody is always quick and eager to claim it.

Read my lips. A man is innocent until and unless proven guilty in a court of law. Better yet read the Fifth Amendment to your Constitution where the presumption of innocence is enshrined.

The logic in the O.J. Simpson case is very clear. O.J. Simpson was innocent until the jury delivered its verdict. The jury's verdict was "Not guilty". There was therefore no change to his innocence which is always a person's default status until and unless that person is found "Guilty" in a court of law.

We'd be living in a nightmarish society where governments would be putting away "troublemakers" by the simple expedient of laying charges were the presumption of innocence not the cornerstone of our legal system. Is that what you want?

Whoa my friend, calm down. Nobody is advocating for a different regime. The point, rather, is that innocent has different meanings depending on context. Legally, yes, OJ was found not guilty. So he remained "innocent" in that sense. But whether his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law (a court where the prosecution royally effed up btw) is one thing. Whether he is truly innocent in the broader sense of the word is quite another thing -- he wasn't, as I think everyone knew including the civil jury.

[Peter_Spaeth]

By the way, the fifth amendment does not mention the presumption of innocence. That said, it is considered to be part of due process. It goes back to the Magna Carta and probably further.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Whoa my friend, calm down. Nobody is advocating for a different regime. The point, rather, is that innocent has different meanings depending on context. Legally, yes, OJ was found not guilty. So he remained "innocent" in that sense.

It's the law that's the subject of discussion here and my only interest is that the presumption of innocence isn't eroded. Were it not for the presumption of innocence I'm sure they'd be rounding up those they find "inconvenient". (Didn't they just put Tulsi Gabbard on the "Watch List" in your own country for criticizing the government?)

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But whether his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law (a court where the prosecution royally effed up btw) is one thing.

So then I guess the prosecuting attorneys must have been fired by the California Attorney General and then disbarred for incompetence beyond the norm for State employees. But I don't recall hearing or reading any such accounts. Perhaps my memory is failing me now that I'm past retirement age.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Whether he is truly innocent in the broader sense of the word is quite another thing -- he wasn't, as I think everyone knew including the civil jury.

I have severe problems with the civil litigation process in the States. A major problem is that litigants have broad scope to select a favourable jurisdiction for the assessment and trial of their case

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

By the way, the fifth amendment does not mention the presumption of innocence.

How about this then?

Originally Posted by Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Section 11(d)

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right:

d. to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Not that I'm any kind of fan of LeBron James, but I strongly disagree. A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a court of law. Case closed. And thank the gods that the presumption of innocence still holds sway here in the U.S. and Canada. The thought of a Soviet style system where a charge equals a conviction is a nightmare for any advocate of individual liberty.

There is a large difference between presuming someone's innocence and them actually being innocent. We are innocent in the eyes of the law until we are proven guilty, but if we have committed a crime we are guilty of it whether our guilt is proven in a court of law or not.

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ. Taking an example from it, it was never proven in a court of law that LBJ's 1948 senatorial campaign was stolen (because his lawyers weaseled a way to stop the investigation of it), but with Caro's careful research it is 100% clear that LBJ and his allies were guilty of obscene election fraud. They may not have been convicted of election fraud, but they were in no way innocent of it.

So yeah, I agree with Peter here - the lack of a legal conviction is not equivalent to innocence, just as a legal conviction is not equivalent to guilt.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

There is a large difference between presuming someone's innocence and them actually being innocent. We are innocent in the eyes of the law until we are proven guilty, but if we have committed a crime we are guilty of it whether our guilt is proven in a court of law or not.

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ. Taking an example from it, it was never proven in a court of law that LBJ's 1948 senatorial campaign was stolen (because his lawyers weaseled a way to stop the investigation of it), but with Caro's careful research it is 100% clear that LBJ and his allies were guilty of obscene election fraud. They may not have been convicted of election fraud, but they were in no way innocent of it.

So yeah, I agree with Peter here - the lack of a legal conviction is not equivalent to innocence, just as a legal conviction is not equivalent to guilt.

"Means of Ascent." A great book IMO, was mesmerized by it.

[John1941]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"Means of Ascent." A great book IMO, was mesmerized by it.

I think Caro is the perfect historian. His research is rigorous and he brings it to life beautifully. He's an inspiration to me as an aspiring baseball historian.

I just finished "Means of Ascent" a few days - it was a legitimate page-turner, even knowing the ending. There aren't many histories you can say that of. I just checked out from the library and began "Master of the Senate," and I've bought my own copy of "The Path to Power." I also really liked "The Power Broker."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by John1941

I think Caro is the perfect historian. His research is rigorous and he brings it to life beautifully. He's an inspiration to me as an aspiring baseball historian.

I just finished "Means of Ascent" a few days - it was a legitimate page-turner, even knowing the ending. There aren't many histories you can say that of. I just checked out from the library and began "Master of the Senate," and I've bought my own copy of "The Path to Power." I also really liked "The Power Broker."

I am sure he took some liberties dramatizing some of the scenes, but not with the basic facts. The scene of the legendary Texas ranger Frank Hamer (Bonnie and Clyde) walking through that Texas hill town where a key part of the fraud took place is priceless. So is the scene where Abe Fortas comes up with the strategy to stop the investigation.

[egri]

Originally Posted by John1941

I'm currently reading Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ.

Great book and series, I just hope Caro lives long enough to finish it. He'll be 89 at the end of the month, and makes George RR Martin look fast-paced; Martin at least has churned out five ASOIAF books in 33 years. Caro has been working on The Years of Lyndon Johnson for 50 years now, and has written four books, the most recent one coming out 12 years ago.

[irv]

Was someone talking about O.J and believing he was innocent and the jury concluded that based on evidence?
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/o-...im-off-payback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWW0RTEUAYo

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by irv

Was someone talking about O.J and believing he was innocent and the jury concluded that based on evidence?
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/o-...im-off-payback

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWW0RTEUAYo

Yes, that was me. See above.

Moreover as another Canadian I'm appalled that your first examples of the miscarriage of justice don't include the cases of David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin. It's their cases among others that should give us nightmares. And no, those "other" cases don't include that of O.J. Simpson.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes, that was me. See above.

Moreover as another Canadian I'm appalled that your first examples of the miscarriage of justice don't include the cases of David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin. It's their cases among others that should give us nightmares. And no, those "other" cases don't include that of O.J. Simpson.

I hope you're going to be OK?

And, are we not talking about O.J. here, or should I have brought up all such cases from centuries of litigation?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by John1941

There is a large difference between presuming someone's innocence and them actually being innocent. We are innocent in the eyes of the law until we are proven guilty, but if we have committed a crime we are guilty of it whether our guilt is proven in a court of law or not.

So yeah, I agree with Peter here - the lack of a legal conviction is not equivalent to innocence....

No, no, no!!! 100% no!

A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a fair and impartial court of law. Case closed.

Any attempt to split hairs on this fundamental concept that's the very cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence plays into the hands of the totalitarians working to bring about the rule of Big Brother. Is that your goal?

My sole concern is protecting individuals whom the State considers enemies/nuisances (including myself) from frivolous prosecution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

No, no, no!!! 100% no!

A man is innocent unless and until convicted in a fair and impartial court of law. Case closed.

Any attempt to split hairs on this fundamental concept that's the very cornerstone of our system of jurisprudence plays into the hands of the totalitarians working to bring about the rule of Big Brother. Is that your goal?

My sole concern is protecting individuals whom the State considers enemies/nuisances (including myself) from frivolous prosecution.

This makes no sense from a moral perspective. If I commit a murder and nobody catches me, I'm innocent? The legal system has huge limitations in terms of its ability to identify much less convict the guilty. Rightly so, because the alternative is much worse, but it doesn't mean those people are innocent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Class actions subject to CAFA are a tiny, tiny percentage of cases. I assure you there is no "general" problem with forum shopping in US civil litigation.

[G1911]

Assuming the government is 100% correct 100% of the time is the most big brother thing of all. Sometimes innocent people are convicted, and sometimes guilty people are not and frequently the crime is never charged at all.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This makes no sense from a moral perspective.

I have no interest in imposing my morals upon anyone else. But I'll continue to resist any attempts by others (including the State) to impose their morals upon me.

My only interest is in defending the legal principle. This is partially in my own self-interest given the all too numerous wrongful convictions that have occurred due to over eagerness on the part of law enforcement personnel to "solve" the case by deciding upon a culprit and then seeking out "evidence" to gain a conviction. See "profiling".

See the Guy Paul Morin case where the police decided Morin must be the culprit (despite the timeline of events) because he was "weird". He played the clarinet and he just wasn't a "regular" guy. So one of the things they did was induce another prisoner to lie him up (give false testimony against Morin). And was compensation for Morin then taken out of the "investigating" officers hide? No, it was taken out of the taxpayers' hide instead.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I commit a murder and nobody catches me, I'm innocent?

Well if nobody catches you and can say you did it, how can you be treated as anything but innocent? Hence "A man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law."

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

...but it doesn't mean those people are innocent.

Hmmmpphhhffff! My position is that a man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law. Case closed.

You on the other hand seem determined to explore nuances in the meaning of the word "innocent". In so doing you're simply acting as the handmaiden of those who would happily undermine the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. And let me point out that this principle is one of the very few bulwarks we the citizenry have against the overriding power of the State and one that all freedom loving individuals must fight to protect.

[John1941]

[QUOTE=Balticfox;2469527 Well if nobody catches you and can say you did it, how can you be treated as anything but innocent? Hence "A man is innocent until and unless convicted in a fair and unbiased court of law." [/QUOTE]

We're not talking about whether people are treated as innocent or guilty. We're talking about whether they are innocent or guilty - whether they have in fact done something wrong or not. Something does not have to be legally proved to be true, even if legal proof is necessary for a legal conviction. Is a stone not heavy unless I have convicted it of heaviness in a court of law? It's the same question.

Do you really not understand this distinction? Are you just trolling us?

To reply to your charges of us being handmaidens of dystopia: My personal sympathies lean towards anarchism/libertarianism - limited government, at the very least - not some state-uber-alles society. I believe that we can best defend ourselves against the all-powerful state by by saying that there is truth outside what the state says. It is the 1984-type state that says what you are essentially saying: that nothing is true if it is not said by the state.