John Smith wrote:
Put in that context, I can quite well agree with you--however,
improvement should always be on every just man's mind and heart...

Homo sapiens have many flaws. Just look at this newsgroup. :-)
Makes me glad that I was an alien life-form left on my
Southern Baptist parent's door step after being impregnated
with all the wisdom of that ancient alien race.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:05:23 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:52:06 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It is a legal fact that he is legally innocent until
proven legally guilty.

_______________________________________________ __

Is that really a "legal fact" or just a common presumption? The word
"innocent" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Look for
yourself:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it.

Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless
unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

bob
k5qwg

Cecil, W5DXP wrote:
"Which proves that $500,000 lawyers are better than $50,000 lawyers."

Yes. I was in Scotland a week ago and someone told me that there,
besides guilty or not guilty, the Scots have a third verdict available.
It is "Guilt not proven". In this verdict the person charged is not
exonorated but is released. This "guil not prioven" verdict is said to
be the origin of the term "Scot free".

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Cecil:

A "Hindu Alien" with a southern Baptist background? grin

.... don't worry, I don't take things too seriously--homo sapiens
especially... won't live long enough to be able to hold a grudge for any
meaningful length of time either--so have given up on that, better left
to younger men...

My flawed antenna(s) is/are still functioning to my satisfaction... I am
thankful for that...

Warmest regards,
John

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Put in that context, I can quite well agree with you--however,
improvement should always be on every just man's mind and heart...

Homo sapiens have many flaws. Just look at this newsgroup. :-)
Makes me glad that I was an alien life-form left on my
Southern Baptist parent's door step after being impregnated
with all the wisdom of that ancient alien race.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Bob:

If you don't welcome men/women back into society after they have either
run the gauntlet or paid their debt to society--then all you accomplish
is creating a whole subset of society which poses great danger when held
as "less than acceptable"--indeed, if not careful we can create the
monster we fear most.

This is how our ancestors came to overthrow such a kings strangle hold
and found this country on principals meant to stop that from ever
occurring again--or demand those so oppressed to rise up and throw off
such chains once again... it is all recorded in our history...

I think those men who suffered greatly from unfair treatment, indebted
servitude, debtors prisons and virtual slavery had it correct--the
principals they put forth are as valid today as they were when first
stated and put forth...

Still, Michael Jackson would never be left in the presence of my
children without me being present... (of course, now all my children are
grown) and I would be apprehensive about having him for a neighbor so
would set aside a place for him to reside--too bad there are no islands
left to exile his type too--perhaps a plea bargain could have been set
up with him and he would have gone there willingly...

Warmest regards,
John

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:05:23 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:52:06 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It is a legal fact that he is legally innocent until
proven legally guilty.

________________________________________________ _

Is that really a "legal fact" or just a common presumption? The word
"innocent" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Look for
yourself:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it.

Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless
unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

bob
k5qwg

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:12:34 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:


Still, Michael Jackson would never be left in the presence of my
children without me being present... (of course, now all my children are
grown) and I would be apprehensive about having him for a neighbor so
would set aside a place for him to reside--too bad there are no islands
left to exile his type too--perhaps a plea bargain could have been set
up with him and he would have gone there willingly...

Warmest regards,
John

No disagreement -- I was only talking legalities of "guilty" or "not",
not whether anyone would want to leave their kids with Jacko for a
bunk-over...

bob
k5qwg



"Bob Miller" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:05:23 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:52:06 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

It is a legal fact that he is legally innocent until
proven legally guilty.

_______________________________________________ __

Is that really a "legal fact" or just a common presumption? The word
"innocent" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Look for
yourself:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

If you know of an actual law which states the above, please quote it.

Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless
unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

bob
k5qwg

Bill:

Right now nothing seems to make sense... and it does appear if a general
"uprising" approaches...

One example is where the clear majority of voters approves a law and/or
revision to a law--and a court overturns it...
.... or ...
When clearly the majority wish one outcome, they communicate that to
their representative--yet their public servant goes on and votes against
their wishes...

We just need a method to make them back responsible to us...

John

"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless
unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

_________________________________________________

If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in
jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up
people who are "presumed innocent"?

The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it
does not seem to exist.

--
Bill, W6WRT

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:36:53 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller wrote:

Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless
unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

_______________________________________________ __

If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in
jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up
people who are "presumed innocent"?

The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it
does not seem to exist.

The police who brought charges obviously thought he was guilty and
took precautions by locking OJ away, but legally, as far as the court
and the judge were concerned, he was presumed innocent and received
all of the judicial protections that that implies.

bob
k5qwg

Bob:

But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at
play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for
muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded...

The judges have proven some IQ and mental powers before being granted a
seat...

John

"Bob Miller" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:36:53 -0700, Bill Turner
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:48:04 GMT, Bob Miller
wrote:

Amendments V and VI describe a process that would be meaningless
unless one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

________________________________________________ _

If OJ was "presumed innocent until proven guilty", why was he kept in
jail for one whole year before and during his trial? Do we lock up
people who are "presumed innocent"?

The concept is deeply embedded in American beliefs, but in reality, it
does not seem to exist.

The police who brought charges obviously thought he was guilty and
took precautions by locking OJ away, but legally, as far as the court
and the judge were concerned, he was presumed innocent and received
all of the judicial protections that that implies.

bob
k5qwg

QFU K

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Bob:

But look at the difference in the quality of analytical minds at
play--many police are barely above brain dead--big hulks we use for
muscle, or ex-marines trained to do-do in a corner when commanded...