2 ms·

There are no illegal activities involved here, because none of these certificates have been revoked following a criminal conviction related to their use. Nearl

There are no illegal activities involved here, because none of these certificates have been revoked following a criminal conviction related to their use. Nearly all developed Western countries have judicial systems that presuppose innocence until proven otherwise in a competent criminal court following established procedures. It seems like your cultural background is very different from that, which is why we're not communicating well. In my culture, asserting that someone was doing something illegal means that the person has been convicted by a criminal court with respect to that act. In many systems, saying that someone was doing something illegal without either a conviction or bearing witness under oath to the allegedly criminal act is itself a crime, that of slander or libel. It seems that you are using a very different definition, one that I don't understand. While I know little of Palau's legal traditions, in this case both the CA and its customer had no ties to Palau, and their business relationship was not governed by its laws. So even if that country and its legal culture does not follow the same principles as mine, it's not relevant to this case. Perhaps that's the confusion here?

ikeboy 11y ago
>Nearly all developed Western countries have judicial systems that presuppose innocence until proven otherwise in a competent criminal court following established procedures. It seems like your cultural background is very different from that, which is why we're not communicating well. This is a legal presumption of innocence. It doesn't mean the actions are legal. When I say "illegal", I mean "breaks a law". This has nothing to do with cultures as far as I know; I'm an American citizen. Whether you can tell if someone broke the law is a different question. Let me ask you directly: if someone were to rob a bank and never get caught, did they do something illegal? If not, how would you express the claim that they did something against the law?
- fredkbloggs 11y ago
  > Let me ask you directly: if someone were to rob a bank and never get caught, did they do something illegal? No conviction, no crime. I could, however, state that the bank was most likely robbed based on nothing more than accounting information. There's a crucial difference between stating that something happened and accusing a specific person of a criminal act. > If not, how would you express the claim that they did something against the law? As a witness to an act, I would state the facts as I observed them, without passing judgment myself. This is exactly what's done in court. "At time X I was at location Y, and I saw a person with features Z enter the bank, pass a piece of paper to a teller, and run out of the bank shortly thereafter with what appeared to be cash. I believe that person to be the defendant, who is sitting there (points)." The testimony of non-expert witnesses is limited to facts, not opinions. Because for all I know, the note could have been a valid withdrawal slip, the customer may have been in a hurry, and the money was actually stolen by a teller and an accomplice who used the rushed customer's large withdrawal as a cover (was the customer an accomplice? I don't know!). If I were not a witness, I wouldn't make such a claim in the first place.

ikeboy 11y ago

>Nearly all developed Western countries have judicial systems that presuppose innocence until proven otherwise in a competent criminal court following established procedures. It seems like your cultural background is very different from that, which is why we're not communicating well. This is a legal presumption of innocence. It doesn't mean the actions are legal. When I say "illegal", I mean "breaks a law". This has nothing to do with cultures as far as I know; I'm an American citizen. Whether you can tell if someone broke the law is a different question. Let me ask you directly: if someone were to rob a bank and never get caught, did they do something illegal? If not, how would you express the claim that they did something against the law?

fredkbloggs 11y ago
> Let me ask you directly: if someone were to rob a bank and never get caught, did they do something illegal? No conviction, no crime. I could, however, state that the bank was most likely robbed based on nothing more than accounting information. There's a crucial difference between stating that something happened and accusing a specific person of a criminal act. > If not, how would you express the claim that they did something against the law? As a witness to an act, I would state the facts as I observed them, without passing judgment myself. This is exactly what's done in court. "At time X I was at location Y, and I saw a person with features Z enter the bank, pass a piece of paper to a teller, and run out of the bank shortly thereafter with what appeared to be cash. I believe that person to be the defendant, who is sitting there (points)." The testimony of non-expert witnesses is limited to facts, not opinions. Because for all I know, the note could have been a valid withdrawal slip, the customer may have been in a hurry, and the money was actually stolen by a teller and an accomplice who used the rushed customer's large withdrawal as a cover (was the customer an accomplice? I don't know!). If I were not a witness, I wouldn't make such a claim in the first place.