Five saints called in Lovett case

[stinger]

yep...i will not be surprised to see him get off.....but to me he is as guilty as sin.....plenty of guilty defendants walk .....seen it happen hundreds of times actually......murderers too.....but that's our system of justice.....

[Mr Magic]

Just so I've got this straight. You guys think that just b/c someone is drunk they can't consent to anything? No point arguing b/c you're wrong. Of course you can consent. I'm not suggesting for a second that digitally penetrating someone while they're sleeping is not rape. However what if the female awoke and enjoyed what was happening to her? All I'm saying is that this may have been the case BECAUSE she thought the person was Gram. Once she realised that it wasn't Gram and it was Lovett she was angry (and I'm not suggesting for a second that she didn't have any right not to be furious) and reported it as rape. In her mind she would not never have consented to sex with Lovett.

Yes, you have stated my position on this correctly.
You cannot give consent when the 'victim' is under the influence of alcohol (or other substances)

Using your scenario, she assumed it was somebody else who she was with.
When she realized it wasn't, she claimed rape.
Becasue she was intoxicated (to whatever extent?), Lovett cannot claim he was given consent, becasue legally she cannot give it whilst intoxicated.

To reach the logical conclusion in this, nobody can claim consent if the person they are with is intoxicated.

If not, why then is 'slippping a person a 'rufie' and then having sex considered 'rape'?
Because the person wasn't able to give 'legal consent'.
IMO the law doesn't differentiate between various methods of intoxication or impaired faculties in cases of sexual assault.

BUT it is very difficult to prove that such assault took place, except in circumstances where there are independant witnesses.
In this particular case, there are a number of witnesses who can testify to what they saw, immediately after 'the event' took place.

This is not a case where the only witnesses are the girl and Lovett, which is why the case was most probably set down for trial.

[stinger]

Just so I've got this straight. You guys think that just b/c someone is drunk they can't consent to anything? No point arguing b/c you're wrong. Of course you can consent. I'm not suggesting for a second that digitally penetrating someone while they're sleeping is not rape. However what if the female awoke and enjoyed what was happening to her? All I'm saying is that this may have been the case BECAUSE she thought the person was Gram. Once she realised that it wasn't Gram and it was Lovett she was angry (and I'm not suggesting for a second that she didn't have any right not to be furious) and reported it as rape. In her mind she would not never have consented to sex with Lovett.

Yes, you have stated my position on this correctly.
You cannot give consent when the 'victim' is under the influence of alcohol (or other substances)

Using your scenario, she assumed it was somebody else who she was with.
When she realized it wasn't, she claimed rape.
Becasue she was intoxicated (to whatever extent?), Lovett cannot claim he was given consent, becasue legally she cannot give it whilst intoxicated.

To reach the logical conclusion in this, nobody can claim consent if the person they are with is intoxicated.

If not, why then is 'slippping a person a 'rufie' and then having sex considered 'rape'?
Because the person wasn't able to give 'legal consent'.
IMO the law doesn't differentiate between various methods of intoxication or impaired faculties in cases of sexual assault.

BUT it is very difficult to prove that such assault took place, except in circumstances where there are independant witnesses.
In this particular case, there are a number of witnesses who can testify to what they saw, immediately after 'the event' took place.

This is not a case where the only witnesses are the girl and Lovett, which is why the case was most probably set down for trial.

i would think there would be scientific evidence....dna ...etc...to prove that sex took place between the parties.....

the case was set down for trial because in the opinion of the magistrate there was enough evidence..for a jury...properly instructed...to convict....

[Mr Magic]

Just so I've got this straight. You guys think that just b/c someone is drunk they can't consent to anything? No point arguing b/c you're wrong. Of course you can consent. I'm not suggesting for a second that digitally penetrating someone while they're sleeping is not rape. However what if the female awoke and enjoyed what was happening to her? All I'm saying is that this may have been the case BECAUSE she thought the person was Gram. Once she realised that it wasn't Gram and it was Lovett she was angry (and I'm not suggesting for a second that she didn't have any right not to be furious) and reported it as rape. In her mind she would not never have consented to sex with Lovett.

Yes, you have stated my position on this correctly.
You cannot give consent when the 'victim' is under the influence of alcohol (or other substances)

Using your scenario, she assumed it was somebody else who she was with.
When she realized it wasn't, she claimed rape.
Becasue she was intoxicated (to whatever extent?), Lovett cannot claim he was given consent, becasue legally she cannot give it whilst intoxicated.

To reach the logical conclusion in this, nobody can claim consent if the person they are with is intoxicated.

If not, why then is 'slippping a person a 'rufie' and then having sex considered 'rape'?
Because the person wasn't able to give 'legal consent'.
IMO the law doesn't differentiate between various methods of intoxication or impaired faculties in cases of sexual assault.

BUT it is very difficult to prove that such assault took place, except in circumstances where there are independant witnesses.
In this particular case, there are a number of witnesses who can testify to what they saw, immediately after 'the event' took place.

This is not a case where the only witnesses are the girl and Lovett, which is why the case was most probably set down for trial.

i would think there would be scientific evidence....dna ...etc...to prove that sex took place between the parties.....

the case was set down for trial because in the opinion of the magistrate there was enough evidence..for a jury...properly instructed...to convict....

Yes, but neither party denied sexual relations took place, so the Magistrate determined to send the case to trial based solely on the issue of 'consent'.
Popovic wasn't making any statement on guilt/innocence, only that there was sufficient evidence, in her opinion, for Lovett to answer the charge at trial.

[stinger]

Just so I've got this straight. You guys think that just b/c someone is drunk they can't consent to anything? No point arguing b/c you're wrong. Of course you can consent. I'm not suggesting for a second that digitally penetrating someone while they're sleeping is not rape. However what if the female awoke and enjoyed what was happening to her? All I'm saying is that this may have been the case BECAUSE she thought the person was Gram. Once she realised that it wasn't Gram and it was Lovett she was angry (and I'm not suggesting for a second that she didn't have any right not to be furious) and reported it as rape. In her mind she would not never have consented to sex with Lovett.

Yes, you have stated my position on this correctly.
You cannot give consent when the 'victim' is under the influence of alcohol (or other substances)

Using your scenario, she assumed it was somebody else who she was with.
When she realized it wasn't, she claimed rape.
Becasue she was intoxicated (to whatever extent?), Lovett cannot claim he was given consent, becasue legally she cannot give it whilst intoxicated.

To reach the logical conclusion in this, nobody can claim consent if the person they are with is intoxicated.

If not, why then is 'slippping a person a 'rufie' and then having sex considered 'rape'?
Because the person wasn't able to give 'legal consent'.
IMO the law doesn't differentiate between various methods of intoxication or impaired faculties in cases of sexual assault.

BUT it is very difficult to prove that such assault took place, except in circumstances where there are independant witnesses.
In this particular case, there are a number of witnesses who can testify to what they saw, immediately after 'the event' took place.

This is not a case where the only witnesses are the girl and Lovett, which is why the case was most probably set down for trial.

i would think there would be scientific evidence....dna ...etc...to prove that sex took place between the parties.....

the case was set down for trial because in the opinion of the magistrate there was enough evidence..for a jury...properly instructed...to convict....

Yes, but neither party denied sexual relations took place, so the Magistrate determined to send the case to trial based solely on the issue of 'consent'.
Popovic wasn't making any statement on guilt/innocence, only that there was sufficient evidence, in her opinion, for Lovett to answer the charge at trial.

that's basically what i said.....but that's sufficient evidence on which a conviction could be based.....i'm not arguing semantics with you......what i said above was the correct legal position...


but then you are partially correct in saying that a guilty or not guilty verdict is for the jury to decide....innocence doesn't come into it.....

..i was involved with committal proceeding for many many years....too many to think about actually.....







pple who are inventing some form of consent to the act on the part of the female should read what she actually says...



http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/i-was ... 1239x.html


" THE woman who has accused former Saints player Andrew Lovett of raping her on Christmas Eve last year says she could not fight off his advances because she was drunk.

In a police statement, the woman hit out at Lovett, claiming he knew that she was drunk and asleep when he had sex with her.'

[stinger]

If not, why then is 'slippping a person a 'rufie' and then having sex considered 'rape'?
Because the person wasn't able to give 'legal consent'.
IMO the law doesn't differentiate between various methods of intoxication or impaired faculties in cases of sexual assault.
.

from wikipedia


"Date rape drug
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Date rape drug refers to a drug that can be used to assist in the commission of a sexual assault, such as date rape. Drugs used to facilitate rape may have sedative, hypnotic, dissociative, and/or amnesiac effects, and can be added to a food or drink without the victim's knowledge.

The act of adding such substances to drinks is known as "drink spiking". The reasons for drink spiking range from personal amusement or maliciousness to theft or (sexual) assault.[1]


Types of drugs

The three most commonly used drugs for date rape are alcohol[2] and two prescription-strength sleep aids. The two prescription drugs are GHB, also known as gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, and benzodiazepines (such as flunitrazepam, also known as Rohypnol or "roofies"); however, an American 1997 study showed that alcohol still remains the drug most frequently implicated in substance-assisted sexual assault.[3]
[edit] Alcohol

Alcohol remains the most commonly used date rape drug,[4] being readily available as well as legal. Many assailants use alcohol because their victims often willingly imbibe it, and can be encouraged to drink enough to lose inhibitions or consciousness. Even if the victim agrees to sex, the act may be considered rape in some jurisdictions if the victim's judgment was impaired or incapacitated by alcohol. Some assailants have committed "rapes of convenience" whereby they have assaulted a victim after he or she had become unconscious from drinking too much.[5] A study in the UK found that only 2 percent of a pool of 1,014 rape victims had their drinks spiked with sedatives.[6][7] Another UK study of 75 women who thought their drinks had been tampered with in pubs or clubs found that none had been given a surreptitious drug. They had simply become intoxicated.[8] Similarly, a 2009 Australian study concluded that, of 97 patients admitted to hospital claiming to have had their drinks spiked, none had in fact been drugged.[9]

[GrumpyOne]

Lovett has the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty this does not mean that the accused desrerves the kind of bile that is being directed at her.

Bile?

Who's directing bile?

Two sides to every story.

How about seeing a hot girl sleeping on a bed.

You tell her she is hot stuff and you really fancy her.

She says she really fancies you.

After a bit of the old-fashioned heavy petting you both start getting it on.

She says OK, have you got protection?

You say no.

She says OK, but don't come inside me.

You can't control yourself and do exactly that.

She is scared that she is pregnant and throws an absolute whammy.

Yelling rape will get her off the hook with mummy and daddy, especially if the baby is black.



Does that sound feasible? Too bloody right it does.

Not the first case of coitus regrettus ever experienced.



Several scenarios fit the evidence.

No independant evidence of what went on = reasonable doubt.

[stinger]

Lovett has the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty this does not mean that the accused desrerves the kind of bile that is being directed at her.

Bile?

Who's directing bile?

Two sides to every story.

How about seeing a hot girl sleeping on a bed.

You tell her she is hot stuff and you really fancy her.

She says she really fancies you.

After a bit of the old-fashioned heavy petting you both start getting it on.

She says OK, have you got protection?

You say no.

She says OK, but don't come inside me.

You can't control yourself and do exactly that.

She is scared that she is pregnant and throws an absolute whammy.

Yelling rape will get her off the hook with mummy and daddy, especially if the baby is black.



Does that sound feasible? Too bloody right it does.

Not the first case of coitus regrettus ever experienced.



Several scenarios fit the evidence.



No independant evidence of what went on = reasonable doubt.

crap...and a figment of a very fertile....but purile imagination......also a disgraceful disservice to a sexual assault victim...imho....not even close to what the actual evidence presented so far is ffs....

[GrumpyOne]

crap...and a figment of a very fertile....but purile imagination......also a disgraceful disservice to a sexual assault victim...imho....not even close to what the actual evidence presented so far is ffs....

You're a man of experience Stinger.... you can see that the story I created meets everyone's evidence except the alleged victim.

Can you 100% deny that it could possibly be true?

No, of course you can't.

Still 60-40 in favour of acquittal..... reasonable doubt.

And leave the insults alone, there's more that a couple I can hurl at you.

[stinger]

crap...and a figment of a very fertile....but purile imagination......also a disgraceful disservice to a sexual assault victim...imho....not even close to what the actual evidence presented so far is ffs....

You're a man of experience Stinger.... you can see that the story I created meets everyone's evidence except the alleged victim.

Can you 100% deny that it could possibly be true?

No, of course you can't.

Still 60-40 in favour of acquittal..... reasonable doubt.

And leave the insults alone, there's more that a couple I can hurl at you.

stick by what i said......sure he might get off.....but he is guilty of being a low life sleaze with a history of belting and assaulting women...and you don't have to invent defences for him ffs.... ....insults?...what f****** insults...calling your imagination purile isn't an insult...its a flowering fact.... as evidenced by your above comments...

[markp]

I still reckon that in light of the memory lapses and inconsistencies in her statement, that the defence will likely be able to create enough doubt.... regardless, obviously, of what in all probability has happened.

Regardless of the verdict, I'm still as certain as ever that the club took the right action, and that the players' response on the night was totally warranted.

[saintsRrising]

Lovett has the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty this does not mean that the accused desrerves the kind of bile that is being directed at her.

Bile?

Who's directing bile?

Two sides to every story.

How about seeing a hot girl sleeping on a bed.

You tell her she is hot stuff and you really fancy her.

She says she really fancies you.

After a bit of the old-fashioned heavy petting you both start getting it on.

She says OK, have you got protection?

You say no.

She says OK, but don't come inside me.

You can't control yourself and do exactly that.

She is scared that she is pregnant and throws an absolute whammy.

Yelling rape will get her off the hook with mummy and daddy, especially if the baby is black.



Does that sound feasible? Too bloody right it does.

Not the first case of coitus regrettus ever experienced.



Several scenarios fit the evidence.

No independant evidence of what went on = reasonable doubt.

That would have to be the biggest load of rubbish ever written on this forum.


Whether Lovett is found guilty or not is one thing (....and remember it is guilty or not guilty...and not innocent)..... there were a number of people involved at the scene and from their reactions it is pretty clear that Lovett has done wrong by the girl...

Now whether that wrong can be proven to be rape or digital rape who knows. But it is clear that Lovett as a minimum did not act appropriately.

There were a number of St Kilda players involved and they have all lined up behind the girl and not Lovett, and that in itself tells you something.


Lastly it is tales such as Grumpy One has weaved which is why most women who are raped do not go to court....

[Moods]

I don't know Lovett or the victim. I actually reckon from reading the evidence so far that it appears that Lovett is guilty. If I was on a jury though and had to convict beyond reasonable doubt? Not on the evidence so far. On the balance of probabilities? Yes I would convict, but this isn't a civil trial.

THis isn't to cast aspersions on the victim. THis is just looking at the evidence logically. Everything Lovett has said actually makes sense and some of it even corroborates what the victim has said. Consent may or may not be the issue, it may also be argued she was consenting but it was a misunderstanding as to whom she was consenting with.

Don't miscontrue my posts. Someone posted that Lovett was basically stuffed and would be found guilty. All I am saying is that I reckon based on the evidence presented so far he has a good chance of getting off - There are plenty of defences open to him and also contradictions in the evidence of Gram and the victim as to what happened and as to what was said.

Mr Magic I find your posts on consent bewildering to say the least. Just because you have an altered state of mind doesn't mean you can't consent to something. Are you trying to tell me that if a bloke meets a girl at a pub, she's pissed and they go home. She willingly has sex with the guy but in the morning regrets it for whatever reason and reports the act as rape. In your mind the guy is automatically guilty because the woman was drunk??? You're not making sense.

[Iceman234]

My two bobs worth FWIW is that after all these years there's one thing I know and that's juries.

And what I know about juries is that you never know juries.

I have seen some incredibly bizarre verdicts returned - guilty verdicts when I was sure the DPP/OPP were just going through the motions for the sake of the victims having their day in court - and not guilty verdicts when I would have put my house on a long sentence coming up, in the face of overwhelming evidence. And the majority of strange verdicts I've seen have been sex cases.

The challenges issued at the start of the trial by both sides can really determine the way the entire trial plays out.

By the time the jury is determined and legal arguments about what will and won't be included is over there will be a much clearer picture of AL's future. Until that time he remains innocent.

[Shaggy]

Mr Magic I find your posts on consent bewildering to say the least. Just because you have an altered state of mind doesn't mean you can't consent to something. Are you trying to tell me that if a bloke meets a girl at a pub, she's pissed and they go home. She willingly has sex with the guy but in the morning regrets it for whatever reason and reports the act as rape. In your mind the guy is automatically guilty because the woman was drunk??? You're not making sense.

Same hypothetical situation discussed in this article and yes apparently the guy would be guilty. I cant get the link to work but if you copy paste it should work

http://www.bressington.net/Files/Media% ... 00408).pdf

[Wrote for Luck]

I don't know Lovett or the victim. I actually reckon from reading the evidence so far that it appears that Lovett is guilty. If I was on a jury though and had to convict beyond reasonable doubt? Not on the evidence so far. On the balance of probabilities? Yes I would convict, but this isn't a civil trial.

THis isn't to cast aspersions on the victim. THis is just looking at the evidence logically. Everything Lovett has said actually makes sense and some of it even corroborates what the victim has said. Consent may or may not be the issue, it may also be argued she was consenting but it was a misunderstanding as to whom she was consenting with.

Don't miscontrue my posts. Someone posted that Lovett was basically stuffed and would be found guilty. All I am saying is that I reckon based on the evidence presented so far he has a good chance of getting off - There are plenty of defences open to him and also contradictions in the evidence of Gram and the victim as to what happened and as to what was said.

Mr Magic I find your posts on consent bewildering to say the least. Just because you have an altered state of mind doesn't mean you can't consent to something. Are you trying to tell me that if a bloke meets a girl at a pub, she's pissed and they go home. She willingly has sex with the guy but in the morning regrets it for whatever reason and reports the act as rape. In your mind the guy is automatically guilty because the woman was drunk??? You're not making sense.

I understand what you're saying but I think you'll find that the law has been constructed in such a way as to purposefully protect women in circumstances where they are too drunk to understand what is happening i.e. not to be taken advantage of. You won't get a bloke saying I was drunk therefore she raped me, it's a more worldly and wise law than that.

[saintsRrising]

Just so I've got this straight. You guys think that just b/c someone is drunk they can't consent to anything? .

There are degrees of being drunk.

However it clearly can reach a stage where people can no longer make sensible, or logical decisions....or even appropriate decisions....that is they would not be capable of giving consent.

In the case in question I don't think this was the case. I think it more likely that she was asleep...and then her reactions and thinking were slowed being heavily inebriated.

In my life I have seen many males try and get girls drunk to take advantage of them, and I am not just talking of a social drink or two.. Maybe Moods has had a more sheltered existence?

I recently kicked one scumbag out of my daughters 19th as despite one of her friends being drunk and vomiting he was trying to have sex with her. She was in no state to fend him off and he had no compunction in trying to have sex with her, and if we had not intervened he would have.

As she was busy vomiting she was also in no state to even say no...she was helpless.

[stinger]

Whether Lovett is found guilty or not is one thing (....and remember it is guilty or not guilty...and not innocent)..... there were a number of people involved at the scene and from their reactions it is pretty clear that Lovett has done wrong by the girl...

Now whether that wrong can be proven to be rape or digital rape who knows. But it is clear that Lovett as a minimum did not act appropriately.

There were a number of St Kilda players involved and they have all lined up behind the girl and not Lovett, and that in itself tells you something.


Lastly it is tales such as Grumpy One has weaved which is why most women who are raped do not go to court....

fair comment......g o has defended that piece of garbage from day one.....

[stinger]

My two bobs worth FWIW is that after all these years there's one thing I know and that's juries.

And what I know about juries is that you never know juries.

I have seen some incredibly bizarre verdicts returned - guilty verdicts when I was sure the DPP/OPP were just going through the motions for the sake of the victims having their day in court - and not guilty verdicts when I would have put my house on a long sentence coming up, in the face of overwhelming evidence. And the majority of strange verdicts I've seen have been sex cases.

The challenges issued at the start of the trial by both sides can really determine the way the entire trial plays out.

By the time the jury is determined and legal arguments about what will and won't be included is over there will be a much clearer picture of AL's future. Until that time he remains innocent.

yep...and yep......but you blew it with your last sentence....remains not guilty.....more like it.....

[saintsareprettygoodhey]

I understand what you're saying but I think you'll find that the law has been constructed in such a way as to purposefully protect women in circumstances where they are too drunk to understand what is happening i.e. not to be taken advantage of. You won't get a bloke saying I was drunk therefore she raped me, it's a more worldly and wise law than that.

I think there must be a degree of reasonable doubt from the evidence we can see (of course jurors will be privy to more information than us). Legal system cannot make a conviction as long as there is a seed of doubt if the jury system works properly.

[stinger]

I understand what you're saying but I think you'll find that the law has been constructed in such a way as to purposefully protect women in circumstances where they are too drunk to understand what is happening i.e. not to be taken advantage of. You won't get a bloke saying I was drunk therefore she raped me, it's a more worldly and wise law than that.

I think there must be a degree of reasonable doubt from the evidence we can see (of course jurors will be privy to more information than us). Legal system cannot make a conviction as long as there is a seed of doubt if the jury system works properly.

if the girl was asleep when he first penetrated her with his fingers and she objected...he's f***ed......afaic...but you never know with a jury.....

[vacuous space]

yep...and yep......but you blew it with your last sentence....remains not guilty.....more like it.....

Well, the line is 'innocent until proven guilty' - but that's a legal principle which doesn't bind the court of public opinion. I happen to think that Lovett's an overgrown man-child who thinks he can do what he wants without much thought of the consequences. He has a history alcohol abuse and violence against women. I think you can tell which way I'm leaning.

That said, I'm not convinced he will be found guilty. The preliminary hearing didn't seem to be presenting us with much more than a he said, she said account. Some of the players may have sided with her, but I'm not sure their testimony will be particularly useful to either side. It doesn't seem like they saw or heard anything particularly conclusive. If there isn't anything else, I think GO has shown how hard it will be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. No doubt Lovett's hired help is the pricey sort who will be able to construct a convincing argument.

I believe the burden of proof is different in a civil suit though. I found it awfully distateful that Lovett got a payout in the manner that he did. Unless it surfaces that I'm completely wrong about the incident, I would hope, at the very least, that money gets redirected in a more just manner.

[Mr Magic]

Mr Magic I find your posts on consent bewildering to say the least. Just because you have an altered state of mind doesn't mean you can't consent to something. Are you trying to tell me that if a bloke meets a girl at a pub, she's pissed and they go home. She willingly has sex with the guy but in the morning regrets it for whatever reason and reports the act as rape. In your mind the guy is automatically guilty because the woman was drunk??? You're not making sense.

Moods, I'm not sure why my take on the legal definition on 'consent' whilst under the influence is so bewildering?

There are road laws which state that if your blood alcohol level is over 0.05 then you are drink driiving adn therefore breaking the law.
Why did they determine the figure of 0.05?
SUrely because the lawmakers were convinced that at that level
your ability to drive is impaired.

Now translate that same judgement to a sexual encounter.
Surely if you've been drinking to the point where you feel the need to lie down and sleep, then the same judgmentt that was impaired many drinks before (at 0.05) is even more impaired.
How can you be expected to give informed consent?

I don't quite understand what it is you're arguing?
Are you saying that whilst you are too impaired to drive, operate machinery on a building site, fly an airplane etc. etc., that you are ok to give consent to sex whilst asleep?

The legal definition is that if you are under the influence of various substances (including alcohol) you cannot give legal consent?

[stinger]

yep...and yep......but you blew it with your last sentence....remains not guilty.....more like it.....

Well, the line is 'innocent until proven guilty' - but that's a legal principle which doesn't bind the court of public opinion. I happen to think that Lovett's an overgrown man-child who thinks he can do what he wants without much thought of the consequences. He has a history alcohol abuse and violence against women. I think you can tell which way I'm leaning.

That said, I'm not convinced he will be found guilty. The preliminary hearing didn't seem to be presenting us with much more than a he said, she said account. Some of the players may have sided with her, but I'm not sure their testimony will be particularly useful to either side. It doesn't seem like they saw or heard anything particularly conclusive. If there isn't anything else, I think GO has shown how hard it will be to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. No doubt Lovett's hired help is the pricey sort who will be able to construct a convincing argument.

I believe the burden of proof is different in a civil suit though. I found it awfully distateful that Lovett got a payout in the manner that he did. Unless it surfaces that I'm completely wrong about the incident, I would hope, at the very least, that money gets redirected in a more just manner.

take your point


criminal trial.....the burden of proof is beyond any reasonabl doubt...less in civil....balance of probabilities...more likely than not......


ciao....

[Milan Faletic]

ciao stinger. out of here