Is Danny Over Linda? Options

[Panama_Pete]

The accused always claim innocence. There is nothing so surprising about that. Danny blames/accuses Linda she pleads innocent. Linda balmes/accuses Danny, he pleads innocent.

Linda accuses nobody. She's under that gag order. She is silent. It's the employees and people around Linda who saw what was going on that are doing the talking. 3ABN did not expect that employees would speak up.

Remember, the original charges were against Linda, and not against Danny Shelton. Linda is innocent until proven guilty, the innocent party does not have to "plead" at all. She does not have to "claim" innocence. You've got it completely backwards: 3ABN has to "claim" she is guilty and prove it. And they, clearly, are unable to do that. As Sonshineonme says, "There is no evidence."

I am curious, let's say that all parties end up in court over some aspect of this. 3ABN provides the evidence they have and it is clear that this evidence is significant and convicting - would you change your mind about the whole situation?

- fhb

Your "what if" proposition about 3ABN's actions down the road is what you, yourself would call "weak" if used by anybody except yourself.

"What if" propositions include my favorite, "What if Julius Caesar had owned a Beechcraft Bonanza? How would world history be different? "

(Photo of Beechcraft)
Considering a "what if" proposal is a pointless exercise in futility.

However, I will say this that is not "what if." When a person goes into court, their "gag" order does not hold up. If the judge says "speak," Linda speaks -- gag order or not. That information would likely end up in the hands of the public, whatever that information might be.

The bottom line is: 3ABN has presented no evidence to support the charges that originated with 3ABN. Very foolish, indeed.

Therefore, there is no need for Linda to "plead" against non-existent evidence.

And, no, 3ABN is not withholding evidence to "help" Linda. Based on reports of phone calls to Polly's Place and other individuals disparaging Linda Shelton, we know that the idea of "help" is absolutely ludicrous. Help for Linda Shelton is absolutely the opposite of 3ABN's intentions.

[fallible humanbe...]

Remember, the original charges were against Linda, and not against Danny Shelton. Linda is innocent until proven guilty, the innocent party does not have to "plead" at all. She does not have to "claim" innocence. You've got it completely backwards: 3ABN has to "claim" she is guilty and prove it. And they, clearly, are unable to do that. As Sonshineonme says, "There is no evidence."

If one uses the court metaphor then the accused must enter a plea - it is the very first step. There must be a response to the charges, usually in the form of a claim of innocence or admission of guilt.

Therefore, there is no need for Linda to "plead" against non-existent evidence.

When the accused faces the charges they must plea ~before~ any evidence is presented.

Your "what if" proposition about 3ABN's actions down the road is what you, yourself would call "weak" if used by anybody except yourself.

My inquiry was much less about the potential of evidence being presented in a court of law than it was to know if you were open to the possibility of being wrong. I am prepared to be wrong and admit it, I was curious if you were willing to do the same.

This isn't a claim of you being wrong, just wondering how set in your position you are.

- fhb

[Panama_Pete]

I am prepared to be wrong and admit it, I was curious if you were willing to do the same.

This isn't a claim of you being wrong, just wondering how set in your position you are.

- fhb

Since there is no such thing as "spiritual adultery," the original charge, how would one change their position on that?

Do you have any suggestions? Maybe 150 Hail Marys in the chapel or something?

[Observer]

One said: "If one uses the court metaphor then the accused must enter a plea - it is the very first step. There must be a response to the charges, usually in the form of a claim of innocence or admission of guilt."

That is true for a criminal case, with one exception: In criminal cases, there are three, not two, pleas that can be entered: Guilty, Not guilty, and "nolo contendre (No contest, which is not a plea of innocense).

However, in a civil case, one in not required to enter any plea. One may not have to prove that something is false.

This post has been edited by Observer: Sep 8 2006, 06:50 AM

[fallible humanbe...]

One said: "If one uses the court metaphor then the accused must enter a plea - it is the very first step. There must be a response to the charges, usually in the form of a claim of innocence or admission of guilt."

That is true for a criminal case, with one exception: In criminal cases, there are three, not two, pleas that can be entered: Guilty, Not guilty, and "nolo contendre (No contest, which is not a plea of innocense).

However, in a civil case, one in not required to enter any plea. One may not have to prove that something is false.

Ah, very true. I forgot about "nolo contendre."

Since there is no such thing as "spiritual adultery," the original charge, how would one change their position on that?

When first I heard the phrase "spiritual adultry" I Googled it, both in the regular engine and in the scholar engine, and was shocked about the wealth of debate, dialogue, and exposition on the subject. With that many people, many of them highly educated and steeped in Biblical tradition, talking about it it is a concept to be grappled with. Does it apply here - I'll reserve judgement on that one until I understand it better and not dismiss it out of hand.

-fhb

[Denny]

Ah, very true. I forgot about "nolo contendre."
When first I heard the phrase "spiritual adultry" I Googled it, both in the regular engine and in the scholar engine, and was shocked about the wealth of debate, dialogue, and exposition on the subject. With that many people, many of them highly educated and steeped in Biblical tradition, talking about it it is a concept to be grappled with. Does it apply here - I'll reserve judgement on that one until I understand it better and not dismiss it out of hand.

-fhb

And how many of these scholars equated spiritul adultery to a phone conversation from a married person to a doctor or had it as a reason for divorce?