Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dannyboy" data-source="post: 432888" data-attributes="member: 484">first off, thank you for your appraisal of my intelligence.&nbsp;now, the term prima facie evidence has the definition as follows:&nbsp;proof of a fact or collection of facts, which creates a presumption of the existence of other facts, or from which some conclusion may be legally drawn, but which presumption or conclusion may be discredited or overcome by relevant proof. &nbsp;and this is the basis for my contention that ups (lp) has either misrepresented the facts, or has intentionally falsified the evidence (leaving out evidence that shows he is not guilty of the charges).&nbsp; &nbsp;the charge against the guy is felony theft.&nbsp; how, with the information given, and the statement given, is he guilty of the theft, and how does that evidence allow for the conclusion of guilt.&nbsp; &nbsp;without a doubt he is in possession of a stolen phone.&nbsp; but they did not charge him with possessing it, only felony theft.&nbsp; big difference.&nbsp;the right thing to have done is to amend the charges to reflect what the evidence shows, not to run around with your testosterone letting your mind make poor choices.&nbsp;secondly, i dont agree with red that often, but the attack of his honesty via the desire to represent the guy is a bit off base.&nbsp; red has been involved during the whole process.&nbsp; as such, he can offer insight into several aspects of the case.&nbsp; he is also a witness to what has occurred and what has been said at the meetings between ups and the employee.&nbsp; as such, he can be called as a witness to the case.&nbsp;even if not, red has not made any bones about why he is to be off.&nbsp; he has not made false claims to be off.&nbsp; he is off to take care of union business, and the follow up in this case.&nbsp; the verbiage you quoted is only if there is dishonesty, which does not apply in this case.&nbsp;red has put his personal finances aside in this case.&nbsp; it is rare for a man to be so convinced in the cause of someone else that he is willing to lose income to assist in a wrong being corrected.&nbsp; but this is what happens when you believe in something that strongly.&nbsp;as to the &quot;story&quot; i posted, it is relevant.&nbsp; it happened to me.&nbsp; the upstanding citizen gave false information to the da, then again to the grand jury.&nbsp; that same pf evidence is what the da used to prosecute me for vandalism.&nbsp; he misused the court system for his own personal jollies, and after two years of moving the case back, disappeared.&nbsp; he knew, had he given the statements under oath he would have been charged with perjury.&nbsp; so he no showed instead.&nbsp; costing me thousands to defend myself against the charges he brought against me for free.&nbsp; he used the system.&nbsp;and while i do believe that the guy is guilty of possession, i believe that the LP guy is way off base on this one.&nbsp; seen that here too first hand.&nbsp; and when all is said and done, there will be no backlash against the guy that used the state to prosecute someone with no evidence of the crime they are prosecuting him on.&nbsp;d</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dannyboy, post: 432888, member: 484"] first off, thank you for your appraisal of my intelligence. now, the term prima facie evidence has the definition as follows: proof of a fact or collection of facts, which creates a presumption of the existence of other facts, or from which some conclusion may be legally drawn, but which presumption or conclusion may be discredited or overcome by relevant proof. and this is the basis for my contention that ups (lp) has either misrepresented the facts, or has intentionally falsified the evidence (leaving out evidence that shows he is not guilty of the charges). the charge against the guy is felony theft. how, with the information given, and the statement given, is he guilty of the theft, and how does that evidence allow for the conclusion of guilt. without a doubt he is in possession of a stolen phone. but they did not charge him with possessing it, only felony theft. big difference. the right thing to have done is to amend the charges to reflect what the evidence shows, not to run around with your testosterone letting your mind make poor choices. secondly, i dont agree with red that often, but the attack of his honesty via the desire to represent the guy is a bit off base. red has been involved during the whole process. as such, he can offer insight into several aspects of the case. he is also a witness to what has occurred and what has been said at the meetings between ups and the employee. as such, he can be called as a witness to the case. even if not, red has not made any bones about why he is to be off. he has not made false claims to be off. he is off to take care of union business, and the follow up in this case. the verbiage you quoted is only if there is dishonesty, which does not apply in this case. red has put his personal finances aside in this case. it is rare for a man to be so convinced in the cause of someone else that he is willing to lose income to assist in a wrong being corrected. but this is what happens when you believe in something that strongly. as to the "story" i posted, it is relevant. it happened to me. the upstanding citizen gave false information to the da, then again to the grand jury. that same pf evidence is what the da used to prosecute me for vandalism. he misused the court system for his own personal jollies, and after two years of moving the case back, disappeared. he knew, had he given the statements under oath he would have been charged with perjury. so he no showed instead. costing me thousands to defend myself against the charges he brought against me for free. he used the system. and while i do believe that the guy is guilty of possession, i believe that the LP guy is way off base on this one. seen that here too first hand. and when all is said and done, there will be no backlash against the guy that used the state to prosecute someone with no evidence of the crime they are prosecuting him on. d [/QUOTE]

Verification