xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Which one, because there were multiple. And really, investigating possible Russian interference is a partisan witch hunt, how's that work again?
Let's Talk about Pizzagate
- Thread starter meesterperfect
- Start date
Which one, because there were multiple. And really, investigating possible Russian interference is a partisan witch hunt, how's that work again?
.
We'd also like to know about IRS interference with political groups but Lois Lerner would have none of it.
When they actually put forward any evidence of Russian hacking instead of the congress and senate holding hearings without any evidence, I'll listen.
Where's the evidence again? More than likely it was a Red Flag operation from within our own government.
But you run with the fake news and I'll be over here when they actually present proof of Russian interference.
acenipplelicker
Banned
I am not a lawyer but would the burden of proof be with the plaintiff to prove the train wreck was the fault of the train company and prove exactly where the train company was negligent. (bottom part example)
==========================================================================
History[edit]
The term comes from Latin and is literally translated "the thing itself speaks", but the sense is well conveyed in the more common translation, "the thing speaks for itself."[1] The earliest known use of the phrase was by Cicero in his defence speech Pro Milone.[2][3] The circumstances of the genesis of the phrase and application by Cicero in Roman legal trials has led to questions whether it reflects on the quality of res ipsa loquitur as a legal doctrine subsequent 52 BC, some 1915 years before the English case Byrne v Boadle and the question whether Charles Edward Pollock might have taken direct inspiration from Cicero's application of the maxim in writing his judgment in that case.[4]
Elements[edit]
1. The injury is of the kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.
2. The injury is caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.
3. The injury-causing accident is not by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
4. The defendant's non-negligent explanation does not completely explain plaintiff’s injury.
The first element may be satisfied in one of three ways:
(a) The injury itself is sufficient to prove blatant or palpable negligence as a matter of law, such as amputation of the wrong limb or leaving instruments inside body after surgery.
(b) The general experience and observation of mankind is sufficient to support the conclusion that the injury would not have resulted without negligence, such as a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) was performed when the patient consented only to a tubal ligation (clipping of the fallopian tubes for purposes of sterilization).
(c) Expert testimony creates an inference that negligence caused the injury, such as an expert general surgeon testifyingthat he has performed over 1000 appendectomies (removal of the appendix) and has never caused injury to a patient's liver. He also does not know of any of his surgeon colleagues having inflicted injury to a patient's liver during an appendectomy. The testimony would create an inference that injuring the liver in the course of an appendectomy is negligence.
The second element is discussed further in the section below. The third element requires the absence of contributory negligence from the plaintiff. The fourth element emphasizes that defendant may defeat a res ipsa loquitur claim by producing evidence of a non-negligent scenario that would completely explain plaintiff's injury and negate all possible inferences that negligence could have occurred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The doctrine was not initially welcome in medical malpractice cases. In Gray v. Wright,[17] a seven-inch hemostat was left in Mrs. Gray during gall bladder surgery in June, 1947, and despite her chronic complaints about stomach pain over the years, the device was not found until an X-ray in March, 1953, when it was removed. Her $12,000 award was reversed by the Supreme Court of West Virginia because she was outside the statutes of limitation when she filed and could not prove that the doctor concealed knowledge of his error. This "guilty knowledge" requirement disappeared over the years, and the "discovery rule" by which statutes of limitation run from the date of discovery of the wrongdoing rather than the date of the occurrence has become the rule in most states, allowing res ipsa loquitur to take its rightful place.
Forty years later, leaving a medical device in a patient was medical malpractice, provable without expert testimony, in almost every jurisdiction.[18] Virginia has limited the rule. "In Virginia the doctrine, if not entirely abolished, has been limited and restricted to a very material extent." It may be utilized only when the circumstances of the incident, without further proof, are such that, in the ordinary course of events, the incident could not have happened except on the theory of negligence..."[19]
A contention of res ipsa loquitur commonly is made in cases of commercial airplane accidents. It was part of the commentary in a train collision in California in 2008: "If two trains are in the same place at the same time, someone was negligent."[20]
In some states, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is also used as a method of proving the intent or mens rea element of the inchoate crime of attempt. Under the Model Penal Code, "the behavior in question is thought to corroborate the defendant's criminal purpose,"[21] for example:
Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, which are specifically designed for such unlawful use or which serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances
— Model Penal Code[21]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive control requirement[edit]
The common law traditionally required "the instrumentality or agent which caused the accident was under the exclusive control of the defendant." See e.g., Eaton v. Eaton, 575 A2d 858 (NJ 1990). However, the second and the third versions of the Restatement of Torts eliminated the strict requirement because it can be difficult to prove "exclusive control". Accordingly, the element has largely given way in modern cases to a less rigid formulation: the evidence must eliminate, to a sufficient degree, other responsible causes (including the conduct of the plaintiff and third parties). For example, in New York State, the defendant's exclusivity of control must be such that the likelihood of injury was more likely than not, the result of the defendant's negligence. The likelihood of other possibilities do not need to be eliminated altogether but must be so reduced that the greater probability lies with the defendant.
=====================================================================
++++++++++++++++++++Here is a fictitious example:
John Doe is injured when an elevator he has entered plunges several floors and stops abruptly.
Jane's Corporation built and is responsible for maintaining the elevator.
John sues Jane, who claims that his complaint should be dismissed because he has never proved or even offered a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly. Therefore, she argues that there is no evidence that they were at fault.
The court holds that John does not have to prove anything beyond the fall itself. The elevator evidently malfunctioned (it was not intended to fall, and that is not a proper function of a correctly-functioning elevator).
Jane was responsible for the elevator in every respect/so Jane's Corporation is responsible for the fall.
The thing speaks for itself: no further explanation is needed to establish the prima facie case.
==========================================================================
History[edit]
The term comes from Latin and is literally translated "the thing itself speaks", but the sense is well conveyed in the more common translation, "the thing speaks for itself."[1] The earliest known use of the phrase was by Cicero in his defence speech Pro Milone.[2][3] The circumstances of the genesis of the phrase and application by Cicero in Roman legal trials has led to questions whether it reflects on the quality of res ipsa loquitur as a legal doctrine subsequent 52 BC, some 1915 years before the English case Byrne v Boadle and the question whether Charles Edward Pollock might have taken direct inspiration from Cicero's application of the maxim in writing his judgment in that case.[4]
Elements[edit]
1. The injury is of the kind that does not ordinarily occur without negligence.
2. The injury is caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant.
3. The injury-causing accident is not by any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
4. The defendant's non-negligent explanation does not completely explain plaintiff’s injury.
The first element may be satisfied in one of three ways:
(a) The injury itself is sufficient to prove blatant or palpable negligence as a matter of law, such as amputation of the wrong limb or leaving instruments inside body after surgery.
(b) The general experience and observation of mankind is sufficient to support the conclusion that the injury would not have resulted without negligence, such as a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) was performed when the patient consented only to a tubal ligation (clipping of the fallopian tubes for purposes of sterilization).
(c) Expert testimony creates an inference that negligence caused the injury, such as an expert general surgeon testifyingthat he has performed over 1000 appendectomies (removal of the appendix) and has never caused injury to a patient's liver. He also does not know of any of his surgeon colleagues having inflicted injury to a patient's liver during an appendectomy. The testimony would create an inference that injuring the liver in the course of an appendectomy is negligence.
The second element is discussed further in the section below. The third element requires the absence of contributory negligence from the plaintiff. The fourth element emphasizes that defendant may defeat a res ipsa loquitur claim by producing evidence of a non-negligent scenario that would completely explain plaintiff's injury and negate all possible inferences that negligence could have occurred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The doctrine was not initially welcome in medical malpractice cases. In Gray v. Wright,[17] a seven-inch hemostat was left in Mrs. Gray during gall bladder surgery in June, 1947, and despite her chronic complaints about stomach pain over the years, the device was not found until an X-ray in March, 1953, when it was removed. Her $12,000 award was reversed by the Supreme Court of West Virginia because she was outside the statutes of limitation when she filed and could not prove that the doctor concealed knowledge of his error. This "guilty knowledge" requirement disappeared over the years, and the "discovery rule" by which statutes of limitation run from the date of discovery of the wrongdoing rather than the date of the occurrence has become the rule in most states, allowing res ipsa loquitur to take its rightful place.
Forty years later, leaving a medical device in a patient was medical malpractice, provable without expert testimony, in almost every jurisdiction.[18] Virginia has limited the rule. "In Virginia the doctrine, if not entirely abolished, has been limited and restricted to a very material extent." It may be utilized only when the circumstances of the incident, without further proof, are such that, in the ordinary course of events, the incident could not have happened except on the theory of negligence..."[19]
A contention of res ipsa loquitur commonly is made in cases of commercial airplane accidents. It was part of the commentary in a train collision in California in 2008: "If two trains are in the same place at the same time, someone was negligent."[20]
In some states, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is also used as a method of proving the intent or mens rea element of the inchoate crime of attempt. Under the Model Penal Code, "the behavior in question is thought to corroborate the defendant's criminal purpose,"[21] for example:
Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, which are specifically designed for such unlawful use or which serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances
— Model Penal Code[21]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exclusive control requirement[edit]
The common law traditionally required "the instrumentality or agent which caused the accident was under the exclusive control of the defendant." See e.g., Eaton v. Eaton, 575 A2d 858 (NJ 1990). However, the second and the third versions of the Restatement of Torts eliminated the strict requirement because it can be difficult to prove "exclusive control". Accordingly, the element has largely given way in modern cases to a less rigid formulation: the evidence must eliminate, to a sufficient degree, other responsible causes (including the conduct of the plaintiff and third parties). For example, in New York State, the defendant's exclusivity of control must be such that the likelihood of injury was more likely than not, the result of the defendant's negligence. The likelihood of other possibilities do not need to be eliminated altogether but must be so reduced that the greater probability lies with the defendant.
=====================================================================
++++++++++++++++++++Here is a fictitious example:
John Doe is injured when an elevator he has entered plunges several floors and stops abruptly.
Jane's Corporation built and is responsible for maintaining the elevator.
John sues Jane, who claims that his complaint should be dismissed because he has never proved or even offered a theory as to why the elevator functioned incorrectly. Therefore, she argues that there is no evidence that they were at fault.
The court holds that John does not have to prove anything beyond the fall itself. The elevator evidently malfunctioned (it was not intended to fall, and that is not a proper function of a correctly-functioning elevator).
Jane was responsible for the elevator in every respect/so Jane's Corporation is responsible for the fall.
The thing speaks for itself: no further explanation is needed to establish the prima facie case.
Wait! I thought it was Comey?
I wish I had more people to put on trial like the Russians. Nothing like a conviction in absentia.
acenipplelicker
Banned
race ipsa
A contention of res ipsa loquitur commonly is made in cases of commercial airplane accidents. It was part of the commentary in a train collision in California in 2008: "If two trains are in the same place at the same time, someone was negligent."[20]
In some states, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is also used as a method of proving the intent or mens rea element of the inchoate crime of attempt. Under the Model Penal Code, "the behavior in question is thought to corroborate the defendant's
THANK YOU FOR READING
A contention of res ipsa loquitur commonly is made in cases of commercial airplane accidents. It was part of the commentary in a train collision in California in 2008: "If two trains are in the same place at the same time, someone was negligent."[20]
In some states, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is also used as a method of proving the intent or mens rea element of the inchoate crime of attempt. Under the Model Penal Code, "the behavior in question is thought to corroborate the defendant's
THANK YOU FOR READING
Have you ever heard of expert witnesses and professional expertise?
We can motion for dismissal all we want. It can be denied.
What is your point?.
There is also the matter of a jury trial or bench trial.
Nobody received an award on the face of it.
Nobody.
When a defendant reaches the point that the burden of proof falls on them, odds are they offer to settle or cop a plea.
acenipplelicker
Banned
interesting- expert witnesses I quess are needed by the plaintiff
in the case of the two trains in calif near me the 2 trains collided and I thought there would be an assumption the train company was at fault
with 2 trains I quess you have 2 companies and not 1 like in a single train accident.
and I guess the owner of the tracks may be at fault.
IT this case in Valencia the conductor was texting on a cell phone and in charge of the train and did not notice a stop signal. thank you
and there is a criminal and civil case- although the conductor is dead
in the case of the two trains in calif near me the 2 trains collided and I thought there would be an assumption the train company was at fault
with 2 trains I quess you have 2 companies and not 1 like in a single train accident.
and I guess the owner of the tracks may be at fault.
IT this case in Valencia the conductor was texting on a cell phone and in charge of the train and did not notice a stop signal. thank you
and there is a criminal and civil case- although the conductor is dead
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
I really haven't made any accusation. I have stated many times there is no direct proof that children are being harmed.
I have only stated that the emails, posts and comments have strong pedo masochistic implications.
Obviously I am not the only person who feels that way.
I simply asked a simple question. What makes any of you so sure that these people aren't into kids?
Why are you so sure it is fake?
Lets see. Posesta emails come out over time.
They show huge bribes being paid to the Clintons. Nobody denies the evidence is fake. Only "Russia did it".
They show over the top media collusion. Nobody denies the evidence is fake. Only "Russia did it".
They show corruption in the Democratic party to steal the primary from Sanders. Nobody denies the evidence is fake. Only "Russia did it".
They show HC has serious health issues. Nobody denies the evidence is fake. Only "Russia did it".
Ect Ect Ect. Nobody denies the evidence is fake. Only "Russia did it".
But for this all of a sudden its fake.
So lets take it to hypothetical court.
I am the prosecution. I show the jury all the emails, posts and comments imply they are a bunch of sick pedos.
All circumstantial. Many cases have been tried on only that.
Now the defense could simply not respond and let the jury decide. By doing that they are not saying they are innocent or guilty of course. Just choosing not to engage because they feel that is best for the case.
But instead the defense when shown each piece of evidence responds' Thats fake". Thats fake. Thats fake.
Not much of a defense.
Anyway at least I'm saying I can't be sure without more evidence.
Some of you are saying, "Its Fake" but can not give one single reason why you think that.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
It's fake because of the lack of evidence. You are making an accusation that you can't prove and you assume the burden of proof when you make a claim. Ask Just BC, maybe you will listen to his explanation about burden of proof, you know because he's a lawyer and knows about that sort of stuff.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Now waaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttttttt a minute. (Homage to Otis Day and the Nights)
To be clear lack of evidence doesn't make something fake. It could indicate fakery but not definitively mean fakery.
In this case the evidence is mainly emails, social media posts . So far nobody has come out and say they are fake.
And in this case the LAW and the MSM are not even ackowledging the evidence nevermind investigating.
So the evidence is not being analyzed and dismissed, its just being dismissed.
Its a complete 180 from "The Russians did it" theory in which there has been no evidence given but they are saying it's true either way.
Final thought. If you or me were posting that kind of stuff we would be investigated. Our children would very well be taken away from us immediately by The GOV.
The thing that makes me wonder if there might be something to all of this is a place that rhymes with "Vomit" is a place people like to go to eat.
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Let's be hypothetical. Let's imagine I have, let's say a four year old daughter. And as a parent of a four year old, let's pretend for a minute that I take pictures of her doing normal four year old stuff, like playing on a playground, or going to Chuck E. Cheese, or having a birthday party. Let's assume again that I post said pictures of this pretend child on my make-believe facebook page or other social media. Now let's say someone that doesn't like me started suggesting that I was "creepy" for posting pictures of little kids. I would gut that person. Hypothetically, of course.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Haha. Thats good.
Ok. So assuming you've seen the photos (not mentioning Podesta's taste in art) do you really think many were along the lines of a person posting innocent photos of children on the net?
If so lets leave it at that. No need to debate over personal perceptions.
And the creepy comments like chickenlover and the like?
Again I say I am not directly accusing or saying there is definite proof but your dismissal of all those photos and comments as not being creepy is very off.
And again I am trying not to focus on the pedo masochistic implictions here. I'm seeing this as something they are using to discredit many people about many things in a blanket sort of way.
For example ask a viking about the stars and navigation and they will amaze you with their knowledge.
Then they tell you a one legged giant is holding up the sky. But their knowledge of navigation is still correct.
Supafly
Retired Mod
German newspapers tell the story straight. But USnana Republic is marching into Gaga-Land 
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuillet...ie-herrschaft-der-luege-festigt-14565557.html
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuillet...ie-herrschaft-der-luege-festigt-14565557.html
acenipplelicker
Banned
German newspapers tell the story straight. But USnana Republic is marching into Gaga-Land
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuillet...ie-herrschaft-der-luege-festigt-14565557.html
might I remind you that English is the official language of freeones by rules you agreed to
its not to be discourteous to people from other countries only that
the mods do not know what your saying and if is gross or violates other freeones norms
consult the rules
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
LOL This clip isn't even about pizzagate.
But the title states: PIZZAGATE is real
:rofl:
Similar threads
