 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Sometimes I get an e-mail notice when replies are generated on this forum, other times I do not get an e-mail, and that contributes to delays in my answering questions.
"I am uncertain what I was supposed to hear, while listening, regarding the Bible defining the Bible except that Craig discussed words used in law also being defined in the law, and that one cannot assume a word means in law what it means in common English. He spoke to the fact that it is very important to understand the defined words according to the law code. I do not think I fell asleep today as I listened as I was concentrating on listening while hearing. But there is a chance I dozed off. I have heard him often this week, but I cannot say the other times I listened."
I will find it.
Starting with 1:19 on the subject of presumption of innocence.
Keeping in mind the presumption of innocence.
Moving to Bills of Attainder. Simply meaning presumption of guilt.
So...
1.
Agreeable voluntary association depends upon an obvious need to prove guilt.
2.
Disagreeable involuntary association depends upon an obvious need to bypass any awareness of innocence = the opposite of one.
Where is the proof?
Does it matter, at all, to anyone, ever, that proof of guilt (or innocence) exists?
That is an offer by me to you. If you do not agree, then you don't, if you do agree, then you do, that proof matters, and proof is vital, and therefore it is an open request to you, asking for an answer.
1.
Yes, proof matters, yes, proof is vital, yes, proof is required, yes, guilt must be proven, so yes, where is this evidence?
2.
No, proof does not matter, no, proof is not vital, no, proof is not required, no, guilt does not have to be proven, so no, evidence does not matter.
3.
Some other answer answering my offer.
You, an individual, me another individual, I offer a viewpoint, in the form of a question, and you can counter offer, or reply to, my offer.
Does proof matter in cases of disagreement whereby there is a question of guilt of any kind whatsoever?
I can assume, which is my assumption of your innocence, that you agree with the idea that when human beings (not God and human beings) connect to, or have associations with, other human beings (not God connecting to, or having associations with human beings), there is, again my assumption, an agreement on your part, that in cases of guilt there is a need for evidence, inculpatory evidence, red handed evidence, whereby those presumed to be innocent are proven to be guilty instead of being innocent, beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am therefore armed with this trust of you, I am therefore speaking to the choir, another member of what I consider to be Friends of Liberty, by my assumption of my agreement that there has to be proof, evidence, inculpatory, red handed, reasonable, removal of reasonable doubt, evidence of guilt, for there to be guilt, and therefore for there to be an accounting of guilt, connected to the person who was presumed to be innocent without that proof.
I trust that your answer is yes, when asked if proof matters in criminal matters whereby the suspect of crime is presumed to be innocent.
I can proceed without confirmation from you in matters of guilt held by one person upon another person, and again this is not a matter of God connecting to one person or another person, this is a matter in which a person connects to another person.
You can inform me, one way or another, as to your agreement on the question of proof being necessary in the accounting of guilty by one person upon other people.
I assume you answer yes.
I presume that you answer yes.
I trust that you answer yes.
Now going back to (I had a hard time finding this again) time 1:00.00
AGAIN: NOT GOD or Spiritual Law - in matters of Man Made Law instead, or in place of, God's Law, while the idea, in my opinion, there is a desire to emulate God's Law, to replicate God's Law, to listen to God's Law, to hear God's Law, to practice God's Law, while on Earth as a human being connecting to other human beings.
(b)
Except as provided by Subsection (c), an operator who does not exhibit evidence of financial responsibility under Subsection (a) is presumed to have operated the vehicle in violation of subsection 601.015.
I have chores to do at this time, or in a few minutes so I need to rap this up for now.
It is the order of a man, the author of the order, declaring guilt, that itself is the proof of guilt.
If evidence matters, then how does a criminal (devil) get around that agreement among peaceful people?
The evidence of guilt is the claim of guilt itself.
I can claim, under those rules, that you are guilty of breathing air, and the proof of your guilt is that you are breathing air?
No
Back.
The answer is no, the authority is said to be found in the paper, the paper itself is proof of guilt, and it says so right there on the piece of paper, you, breathing air, caught red handed, there you go again, breathing air, and therefore what is the punishment?
According to who?
The paper.
What if it says summary execution on the paper, for the crime of breathing air?
The law enforcer shoots himself?
No.
Natural law kicks in whenever anyone obeys the man made law.
You are ordered to stop breathing, it says so right on the paper, and the law says that the punishment for breathing is immediate execution for the crime of breathing.
But clearly there is a problem with that law, so where is the authority that that law is based upon?
It says so right here:
(b)
Except as provided by Subsection (c), an operator who does not exhibit evidence of financial responsibility under Subsection (a) is presumed to have operated the vehicle in violation of subsection 601.015.