http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P74012.asp

"Later came the beginning of a sharp cross examination by David Apfel,
lawyer for Bacanovic, who is co-defendant in the case:

Peter Bacanovic never told you to lie to the SEC (Securities and
Exchange Commission). True?"

Without waiting for an answer. Apfel fired a volley of questions at
Fanueil, all ending with "True?" before he even introduced himself".

RHR

Robert, it is imperative you report this to the judge immediately.
Heheheh.
"RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in message
news:pdi420ppgr321sjbnvc7s85o2qna29tms0@4ax.com... http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P74012.asp
[risch lawyerwannabe blather snipped]

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:32:16 -0500, " jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Robert, it is imperative you report this to the judge immediately.Heheheh."RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in messagenews:pdi420ppgr321sjbnvc7s85o2qna29tms0@4ax .com... http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P74012.asp[risch lawyerwannabe blather snipped]
The judge is a shyster pandering apologist for the US adversary
system, where she doesn't have to do squat. Any proceedings where
the questions are asked by people who know the answers is a pile of
crap.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ct/20040204/cr_ct/starwitnesstakesthestandinmarthastewartsstockfraud trial

*On redirect, prosecutor Michael Schachter asked the witness if
Bacanovic had given past employees as much, but when Monaghan said
yes, Schachter replied, "He has?"

*That prompted <Judge> Cedarbaum to joke, "It's always a good idea to
know the answers to questions you ask."

RHR

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:20:58 GMT, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:32:16 -0500, " jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net>wrote:Robert, it is imperative you report this to the judge immediately.Heheheh."RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in messagenews:pdi420ppgr321sjbnvc7s85o2qna29tms0@4ax .com... http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P74012.asp[risch lawyerwannabe blather snipped]The judge is a shyster pandering apologist for the US adversarysystem, where she doesn't have to do squat. Any proceedings wherethe questions are asked by people who know the answers is a pile ofcrap.

The difference between a trial and an investigation still eludes you,
Robert.

- Jon Beaver

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:10:01 -0800, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:20:58 GMT, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:32:16 -0500, " jls" <jls1016ns@bellsouth.net>wrote:Robert, it is imperative you report this to the judge immediately.Heheheh."RHR" <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote in messagenews:pdi420ppgr321sjbnvc7s85o2qna29tms0@4ax .com...> http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P74012.asp>[risch lawyerwannabe blather snipped]The judge is a shyster pandering apologist for the US adversarysystem, where she doesn't have to do squat. Any proceedings wherethe questions are asked by people who know the answers is a pile ofcrap.The difference between a trial and an investigation still eludes you,Robert.- Jon Beaver

Jon, where have you been? Trials ought to be (and are in most
countries) a certain kind of investigation.

RHR

RHR wrote:
Jon, where have you been? Trials ought to be (and are in most countries) a certain kind of investigation.

"Most" countries. Well, perhaps. In most countries,
the defendant has to prove his innocence.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:13:55 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin"
<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
RHR wrote: Jon, where have you been? Trials ought to be (and are in most countries) a certain kind of investigation."Most" countries. Well, perhaps. In most countries,the defendant has to prove his innocence.

The above claim is either false or meaningless. I won't bother to try
to figure out which it is. What do you think defendants in tort
cases have to prove in other countries?

RHR

RHR wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:13:55 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:RHR wrote: Jon, where have you been? Trials ought to be (and are in most countries) a certain kind of investigation."Most" countries. Well, perhaps. In most countries,the defendant has to prove his innocence. The above claim is either false or meaningless. I won't bother to try to figure out which it is. What do you think defendants in tort cases have to prove in other countries?

I was referring to criminal cases, as I had assumed you were.

In civil cases, the burden of proof is approximately the same
in most countries as in the US, but the Court STILL
doesn't conduct an investigation.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:09:05 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin"
<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
RHR wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:13:55 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:RHR wrote:> Jon, where have you been? Trials ought to be (and are in most> countries) a certain kind of investigation."Most" countries. Well, perhaps. In most countries,the defendant has to prove his innocence. The above claim is either false or meaningless. I won't bother to try to figure out which it is. What do you think defendants in tort cases have to prove in other countries?I was referring to criminal cases, as I had assumed you were.In civil cases, the burden of proof is approximately the samein most countries as in the US, but the Court STILLdoesn't conduct an investigation.

The facts are:

1. In the countries following the Roman Tribunal model (Continental
Europe, South America, and I think a good deal of Asia), the standard
for a guilty verdict is the same for both criminal and civil cases.
It is "deep belief" or "almost certainty".

2. The difference between the handling of criminal and civil is that
the panel will investigate beyond the claims made by the parties in
criminal cases.

3. It is the panel which satisfies itself that it has come to the
necessary degree of certainty. The notion that one of the parties has
a "burden of proof" comes from American shysterism (certainly not the
US constitution) and does not play a part in the Roman law tradition.

RHR

RHR wrote: On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:09:05 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:RHR wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:13:55 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote: >RHR wrote: > >> Jon, where have you been? Trials ought to be (and are in most >> countries) a certain kind of investigation. > >"Most" countries. Well, perhaps. In most countries, >the defendant has to prove his innocence. The above claim is either false or meaningless. I won't bother to try to figure out which it is. What do you think defendants in tort cases have to prove in other countries?I was referring to criminal cases, as I had assumed you were.In civil cases, the burden of proof is approximately the samein most countries as in the US, but the Court STILLdoesn't conduct an investigation. The facts are: 1. In the countries following the Roman Tribunal model (Continental Europe, South America, and I think a good deal of Asia), the standard for a guilty verdict is the same for both criminal and civil cases. It is "deep belief" or "almost certainty".

False. France, at least, still uses nearly the Napoleonic code for
criminal cases, which requires the defendant to prove his innocence.
Furthermore, I believe that not to be the standard for civil cases,
although the only information I have about civil cases in
Continental Europe relate to one slander of professional reputation
case.
2. The difference between the handling of criminal and civil is that the panel will investigate beyond the claims made by the parties in criminal cases.

That's _A_ difference.
3. It is the panel which satisfies itself that it has come to the necessary degree of certainty. The notion that one of the parties has a "burden of proof" comes from American shysterism (certainly not the US constitution) and does not play a part in the Roman law tradition.

It DOES play a part in the Roman law -- at least as quoted by
Canadian deTaxer StAr. That being the only codification of
Roman law that I've seen, I can't comment further.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:13:00 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin"
<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
The facts are: 1. In the countries following the Roman Tribunal model (Continental Europe, South America, and I think a good deal of Asia), the standard for a guilty verdict is the same for both criminal and civil cases. It is "deep belief" or "almost certainty".False. France, at least, still uses nearly the Napoleonic code forcriminal cases, which requires the defendant to prove his innocence.Furthermore, I believe that not to be the standard for civil cases,although the only information I have about civil cases inContinental Europe relate to one slander of professional reputationcase.

Apparently Mr. Rubin is not alone in his ignorance . He is just more
forceful in showing it.

Merryman -The Civil Law Tradition, 2nd edition, page131

"One frequently encounters two common misapprehensions about criminal
procedure in the civil law world. One is to the effect there is no
presumption of innocence; ........ As stated, these are demonstrably
false".

Glendon, Gordon and Carozza - Comparative Legal Traditions 2nd
edition, page 99

"There are three common misconceptions in the common law world about
criminal procedure in the civil law countries: that the accused is
presumed guilty until proved innocent, ........... The first of these
notions is simply false".

3. It is the panel which satisfies itself that it has come to the necessary degree of certainty. The notion that one of the parties has a "burden of proof" comes from American shysterism (certainly not the US constitution) and does not play a part in the Roman law tradition.It DOES play a part in the Roman law -- at least as quoted byCanadian deTaxer StAr. That being the only codification ofRoman law that I've seen, I can't comment further.

Apparently, deTaxer StAr, is the usenet handle of some troll in groups
like can.taxes. Is that the best you can do for an authority?

RHR

RHR wrote: On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:13:00 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:
3. It is the panel which satisfies itself that it has come to the necessary degree of certainty. The notion that one of the parties has a "burden of proof" comes from American shysterism (certainly not the US constitution) and does not play a part in the Roman law tradition.It DOES play a part in the Roman law -- at least as quoted byCanadian deTaxer StAr. That being the only codification ofRoman law that I've seen, I can't comment further. Apparently, deTaxer StAr, is the usenet handle of some troll in groups like can.taxes. Is that the best you can do for an authority?

He's the only one who has claimed to quote Roman law that
I can recall -- usually in justification for the claim that
he is a individual and not a "person".

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 02:39:40 GMT, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:13:55 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin"<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:RHR wrote: Jon, where have you been? Trials ought to be (and are in most countries) a certain kind of investigation."Most" countries. Well, perhaps. In most countries,the defendant has to prove his innocence.The above claim is either false or meaningless. I won't bother to tryto figure out which it is. What do you think defendants in tortcases have to prove in other countries?

Why can't you see that truth and presumptions are contradictory
concepts? I can't imagine why you would use the term "investigation"
for a proceeding in which there is a "presumption of innocence."

Robert, I have read enough of your writing to know that you are, in
fact, against the burden of proof in criminal cases. Where your
thinking gets murky is where you try to hide that. Boiled down, your
philosophy is that a defendant is entitled to proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, but it's not a "reasonable" doubt if the defendant
is probably guilty.

- Jon Beaver

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:21:37 -0800, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 02:39:40 GMT, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:13:55 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin"<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:RHR wrote:> Jon, where have you been? Trials ought to be (and are in most> countries) a certain kind of investigation."Most" countries. Well, perhaps. In most countries,the defendant has to prove his innocence.The above claim is either false or meaningless. I won't bother to tryto figure out which it is. What do you think defendants in tortcases have to prove in other countries?Why can't you see that truth and presumptions are contradictoryconcepts? I can't imagine why you would use the term "investigation"for a proceeding in which there is a "presumption of innocence."

Haven't we agreed that "presumption of innocence" means nothing more
than being charged with a crime (why not tort also?) can not be part
the proof of guilt. I don't see the contradiction you mention.
Robert, I have read enough of your writing to know that you are, infact, against the burden of proof in criminal cases. Where yourthinking gets murky is where you try to hide that. Boiled down, yourphilosophy is that a defendant is entitled to proof beyond areasonable doubt, but it's not a "reasonable" doubt if the defendantis probably guilty.
Nope. Neither you or anyone else has given an intelligible definition
of burden of proof. Thus I dismiss the notion.

RHR

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 20:37:42 GMT, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 08:21:37 -0800, Jon Beaver <jbeaver@NO.com> wrote:On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 02:39:40 GMT, RHR <RHR@nospammy.com> wrote:On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:13:55 -0800, "Arthur L. Rubin"<ronnirubin@sprintmail.com> wrote:>RHR wrote:>>> Jon, where have you been? Trials ought to be (and are in most>> countries) a certain kind of investigation.>>"Most" countries. Well, perhaps. In most countries,>the defendant has to prove his innocence.The above claim is either false or meaningless. I won't bother to tryto figure out which it is. What do you think defendants in tortcases have to prove in other countries?Why can't you see that truth and presumptions are contradictoryconcepts? I can't imagine why you would use the term "investigation"for a proceeding in which there is a "presumption of innocence."Haven't we agreed that "presumption of innocence" means nothing morethan being charged with a crime (why not tort also?) can not be partthe proof of guilt.

Nope.
I don't see the contradiction you mention.

I know.Robert, I have read enough of your writing to know that you are, infact, against the burden of proof in criminal cases. Where yourthinking gets murky is where you try to hide that. Boiled down, yourphilosophy is that a defendant is entitled to proof beyond areasonable doubt, but it's not a "reasonable" doubt if the defendantis probably guilty.Nope. Neither you or anyone else has given an intelligible definitionof burden of proof. Thus I dismiss the notion.

I see that.

- Jon Beaver