The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
References: <3D959025.284F175B@verizon.net> <email@example.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 11:48:44 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 07:48:44 EDT
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> :> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> :> :
> :> :personal abuse noted and ignored.
> :> It's not abuse. It's an opinion. Note the "I think" at the end?
> :If yo say to a judge "I think you are an asshole" do you suspect he will still
> :find you in contempt?
> And you think you're a judge?
> Sheesh, indeed!
we were having a discussion aobut the meaning of words and you suggest that something
is no longer abuse becsue you claim it is an "opiniion" I suggested a practical
experiment. I never claimed to be the judge. Next time you go before one , you can
give it a try .
> :> :then it shoudl be easy to cite a table written in stone, or on paper or even
> :> :elctoricnally that says that guilt exts outsideof the court room and the
> :> :legal sysem can "discover it" like an explorer discovering a new continent.
> :> :It doenst and they can't.
> :> All you have to do is pull your head out of, uh, the courtroom, Vince,
> :> and take a look at a dictionary. You know, that book that defines the
> :> language that THE REST OF US speak?
> :The world construes in accordance with its wits. when my bridge partner passes my
> :1 no trump opening despite having 9 pints and a balanced hand I math think its a
> :crime, but the law does not. similarly a broken engagement may cause feelings of
> :rage and distress, but its not a crime. the world does what it likes.
> And, oddly enough, we find neither of those actions codified in the
> legal code as being prohibited, either. Try to ramble back on topic
> once you sober up, won't you?
my poit is that non legal use of words like guilt and crime do not define or affect the
legaluse of the term.
> :> Main Entry: guilty
> :> Pronunciation: 'gil-tE
> :> Function: adjective
> :> Inflected Form(s): guilt·i·er; -est
> :> Date: before 12th century
> :> 1 : justly chargeable with or responsible for a usually grave breach
> :> of conduct or a crime
> :> Note that it doesn't say convicted. It says "justly chargeable",
> :> which means that the person has in actuality violated the law, whether
> :> or not the court ever figures that out.
> :and its not a legal definition.
> And we're not in court. Doh!
> :It would suggest that a person "unjustly" charged
> :or responsible is not guilty, which is clearly nonsense.
> Really? How is that "clearly nonsense". It seems merely 'clear' to
> me. If you are unjustly charged, that means you actually didn't do
> what the court thinks you did. This is how one can be innocent in
> fact, but still be 'found' guilty. And, of course, the opposite
> situation, as well. Which brings us back to Mr Clinton.
no that is an inference. If a charging authroity has probable casue to beielve that
you have committted a crime, you are "justly" charged.
> :it also by its own term
> :applies to conduct which is not a crime. AS i posted earlier a pardon
> :eliminates guilt so it cant be a historical fact.
> And we elected you Lord High Goddess when, precisely? A pardon
> eliminates *legal* guilt. You can be pardoned and still be guilty as
> hell, everywhere but in court. And none of us, you included, live in
> court. We live in the real world.
Throughout this exchange, I have been describing the legal systems useof the the term.
what the world or you do wiht terms outside the legal sytem means nothing to the
> :> :> :> Consider this simple thought experiment. Suppose that I am indeed in
> :> :> :> your hypothetical jurisdiction where defense of property is not
> :> :> :> allowed and I shoot the burglar. We then go to court for trial and I
> :> :> :> further lie under oath about what happened, explaining to the court
> :> :> :> that I was in fear for my life and therefore shooting him was simple
> :> :> :> self defense. Suppose further that the court believes my statements
> :> :> :> contrary to the fact and finds me innocent.
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> Your position is that no crime was therefore committed.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :the facts are the facts, but no crime is declared
> :> :>
> :> :> Declared is not the same as committed. Have one or more crimes been
> :> :> COMMITTED in the case described above, yes or no?
> :> :
> :> :you are "convicted" of a crime by a court
> :> Yes, you are, but that is not responsive to the question. Were one or
> :> more crimes COMMITTED in the case described? Yes or no? It ought to
> :> be simple.
> :The court said you committed no crime. the legal system has no other sytem for
> :declaring that a crime was committed except by finding a person guilty.
> :a crime being "committed" is not a severable legal concept. It's the sound of
> :one hand clapping
> Unresponsive to the question. Again. Was a crime committed IN FACT?
> Yes or no?
Does god exiswt in fact? yes or know?
Was miachelangelo the greatest sculptor who ever lived ? yes or know
have you stopped killing peioplel this week yes or know
the fact that you can combine words to create a sentence which has the form of a
question does not mean that he question can be answered by yes or no
> :> :> Now, if one or more crimes have indeed occurred, even if not
> :> :> 'declared', someone is obviously guilty of committing them, even if
> :> :> never charged and convicted.
> :> :
> :> :you logic is false. you are begging the quesion by starting by assuming the
> :> :answer that you must demonstrate, ie. that a crime has occurred. events have
> :> :occurred. we simply do not know if a crime has occurred.
> :> Of course we do. We know precisely what the law says. Given all the
> :> facts as things actually occurred, we know whether those events
> :> contravened the law. It's really quite simple, if you just stop
> :> trying to avoid the question.
> :events cannot contravene the law. only people can. You have to connect the
> :people to the events in the legal systme and declare them guilty
> Only to satisfy your skewed definitions.
> :FWIW we have not even gotten into the issue of the jury being also the judge of
> :the law, a doctrine known as jury nullification
> Sure we have. I mentioned it a long time ago. Another way that one
> can BE guilty but BE DECLARED innocent.
Do the words "de facto" as oppsed to "de jure" mean anything to you? They describe two
totally differnt methdos of making an inference.
they are not the same.
Guilt in the law is a "de jure" concept it does nto exist de facto.
> :> :ill use an analogy. when is a work of art "finished" It is finished when
> :> :the artist declares it is finished. If the artist dies before making the
> :> :declaration. we have no idea if it was finished. crimes are the same kind
> :> :of declaration. its not very complicated.
> :> Using an inappropriate analogy is not exactly a winning tactic. Can
> :> you point to a book or set of books that defines 'finished' for a work
> :> of art? I can certainly point to such things when it comes to what
> :> are and are not violations of the law (what all of us but Vince call
> :> "crimes").
> :cite a legal source that says that the legal system declares criems committed int
> :eh absence of a convicition
> Cite a legal source that says I must cite a legal source when we don't
> live in courtrooms.
We are framing a discussion. but de gustibus
> :> :> We seem to be getting somewhere here, which leads me to believe you
> :> :> will decline to give a yes or no answer to the question and we will
> :> :> instead see more vocabularic obfuscation.
> :> :>
> :> :
> :> :more abuse.
> :> :ignored
> :> It wasn't abuse. It was a prediction. A prediction which you have
> :> now shown to have been correct.
> :no content. ignored
> More dodging. Pointed out.
> I refer you to the .sig below, for whether someone can be guilty and
> not get convicted. I suggest you take this up with the person quoted.
> "I get paid for seeing that my clients have every break the law
> allows. I have knowingly defended a number of guilty men. But the
> guilty never escape unscathed. My fees are sufficient punishment for
> -- F. Lee Bailey
he is clearly being rhetorical , as is his privilege.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of