Charismatic Bishop In Lawsuit.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

group Hug!

Awwwww......

[coadie]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I just hope Long is more innocent than Tiger Woods, Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, etc, etc, I'd like someone to show me where one of these types of situations has hit the media and it turns out that the alleged victims were all lying!

So, my "prognostication" is based upon past events not my hope of either guilt or innocence. I hope the guy is innocent. However, all my belief and hope and faith in this situation is worthless.....whatever happened has already happened and no amount of prayer is going to change that. I can't pray for his innocence and neither would I dare pray for his guilt! I wouldn't wish that on anyone! I only pray for truth to be paramount because only truth sets us free.

You're right Coadie, I guess that means that I hope the alleged victims are all filthy rotten scum bag liars? Hmmm...how does that fit?

They are asking for damage settlements. I don't know how you place a dollar value on loss of innoscence.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by coadie

More clueless gibberish. This is Not a criminal trial.

This is a civil case. Your education limits seem to stand in the way. They are asking for damages. Not a criminal verdict. The question is if there was damage done.

You are completely clueless. Not a partially clueless, just plain ole', completely clueless.

In this instance, someone has been ACCUSED. When one is ACCUSED, one is either GUILTY or INNOCENT of that accusation. Is it remotely possible you can understand that or do you need cartoon pictures?

Your hero, MOW, used the words "Guilt" and "Innocence". Go yell gibberish, nonsensical, hooey at him.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

You are completely clueless. Not a partially clueless, just plain ole', completely clueless.

In this instance, someone has been ACCUSED. When one is ACCUSED, one is either GUILTY or INNOCENT of that accusation. Is it remotely possible you can understand that or do you need cartoon pictures?

Your hero, MOW, used the words "Guilt" and "Innocence". Go yell gibberish, nonsensical, hooey at him.

Not a criminal case.
It is a civil case.



Directed Verdict
•Trial judges, not juries, issue directed verdicts. A judge would direct a verdict against a party with the burden of proof if that party closed its case and stopped presenting evidence without meeting its burden. For example, if a prosecutor closed her case against a defendant before proving all the elements of the charges, the judge would direct a verdict against the state.
Special Verdict
•Juries, not judges, issue special verdicts. The definition of a special verdict, according to Thefreedictionary.com, is "a verdict rendered on certain specific factual issues posed by the court without finding for one party or the other."

Parties request special verdicts when a core factual issue is so contested that it makes settlement impossible. The jury would answer only the factual question, which might allow the parties to settle the case. This approach can save money for both sides by "cutting to the chase" on the main point of contention.
Judgment Not Withstanding Verdict
•A judge issues a judgment not withstanding verdict when the judge determines that the jury verdict is not supported by fact or law. Judges prefer not to direct verdicts and they rely on juries to reject bad cases, as such results are more likely to hold up on appeal. However, sometimes juries award money damages on bad cases, leaving the judge to decide whether to overrule the jury's verdict.
Compromise Verdict
•Compromise verdicts occur when jurors split the difference in how they value the case. For example, some jurors may value a case at $20,000 while others value the case at $50,000. A compromise verdict would occur if the jurors decided to award $35,000 even though none of them actually valued the case at that amount.


Read more: Civil Court Verdict Definition | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5827353_ci...#ixzz10w1A03LB

Civil trial will find for the lligant or the bishop.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

You are completely clueless. Not a partially clueless, just plain ole', completely clueless.

In this instance, someone has been ACCUSED. When one is ACCUSED, one is either GUILTY or INNOCENT of that accusation. Is it remotely possible you can understand that or do you need cartoon pictures?

Your hero, MOW, used the words "Guilt" and "Innocence". Go yell gibberish, nonsensical, hooey at him.

The plaintiff in a criminal case is the state. Not the victim.

intentional infliction of emotional distress How much was inflicted?

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by coadie

Not a criminal case.
It is a civil case.



Directed Verdict
•Trial judges, not juries, issue directed verdicts. A judge would direct a verdict against a party with the burden of proof if that party closed its case and stopped presenting evidence without meeting its burden. For example, if a prosecutor closed her case against a defendant before proving all the elements of the charges, the judge would direct a verdict against the state.
Special Verdict
•Juries, not judges, issue special verdicts. The definition of a special verdict, according to Thefreedictionary.com, is "a verdict rendered on certain specific factual issues posed by the court without finding for one party or the other."

Parties request special verdicts when a core factual issue is so contested that it makes settlement impossible. The jury would answer only the factual question, which might allow the parties to settle the case. This approach can save money for both sides by "cutting to the chase" on the main point of contention.
Judgment Not Withstanding Verdict
•A judge issues a judgment not withstanding verdict when the judge determines that the jury verdict is not supported by fact or law. Judges prefer not to direct verdicts and they rely on juries to reject bad cases, as such results are more likely to hold up on appeal. However, sometimes juries award money damages on bad cases, leaving the judge to decide whether to overrule the jury's verdict.
Compromise Verdict
•Compromise verdicts occur when jurors split the difference in how they value the case. For example, some jurors may value a case at $20,000 while others value the case at $50,000. A compromise verdict would occur if the jurors decided to award $35,000 even though none of them actually valued the case at that amount.


Read more: Civil Court Verdict Definition | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5827353_ci...#ixzz10w1A03LB

Civil trial will find for the lligant or the bishop.

Heavens to Betsy. You are hopeless.

I suppose I do hold out hope that you are, in actuality, a genius who sits at your computer and laughs your head off at our exasperated responses to your posts. You egg us on, tweak us beyond our boiling point and then high-five your friends as you all choke on laughter.

It's either that or you're a complete and utter idiot. I can't make up my mind. If you're doing all this just to laugh at me and all of us that end up flipping out at your absurdity, then I can only bow down to you and offer my congratulations.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Heavens to Betsy. You are hopeless.

I suppose I do hold out hope that you are, in actuality, a genius who sits at your computer and laughs your head off at our exasperated responses to your posts. You egg us on, tweak us beyond our boiling point and then high-five your friends as you all choke on laughter.
It's either that or you're a complete and utter idiot. I can't make up my mind. If you're doing all this just to laugh at me and all of us that end up flipping out at your absurdity, then I can only bow down to you and offer my congratulations.

You are so uneducated that I can't laugh at you.
It is sad. I post info that tells me it is a civil case and in your head you act like it is criminal case.
I hope the deviant Long has good attorneys because the rules of evidence and jury instructions are greatly different between civil and criminal cases.

I bet a lot of money the case will never see a jury because the embarassing testimony is something Mr Long can not afford. The depositions and discovery will crucify him.

Long's empire is shakin'

The reason they do the downlow is because the culture is openly against these male on male deeds.

I repeat myself. In cases of medical malpractice, IRS or sexual harrassment. sexual misconduct cases, you are guilty until proven innocent.

That is not the way the law is written, but how the courts and juries operate.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by coadie

You are so uneducated that I can't laugh at you.
It is sad. I post info that tells me it is a civil case and in your head you act like it is criminal case.
I hope the deviant Long has good attorneys because the rules of evidence and jury instructions are greatly different between civil and criminal cases.

I bet a lot of money the case will never see a jury because the embarassing testimony is something Mr Long can not afford. The depositions and discovery will crucify him.

Long's empire is shakin'

The reason they do the downlow is because the culture is openly against these male on male deeds.

I repeat myself. In cases of medical malpractice, IRS or sexual harrassment. sexual misconduct cases, you are guilty until proven innocent.

That is not the way the law is written, but how the courts and juries operate.

Bishop Eddie Long has been accused. I'm saying he may be innocent. I didn't ever say it was a criminal matter. AAAAACCCCCKKKKKK!!!!! I just pulled all my hair out.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Bishop Eddie Long has been accused. I'm saying he may be innocent. I didn't ever say it was a criminal matter. AAAAACCCCCKKKKKK!!!!! I just pulled all my hair out.

Eddie Long done Wrong.
This is a civil tort and will be found in favor of the complainant.

[Mr. Smith]

Originally Posted by coadie

Eddie Long done Wrong.
This is a civil tort and will be found in favor of the complainant.

This has to be the part where you and your buddies are laughing at me.