Scratch's Tactics

[_ttribe]

Pointing out your selectivity and hypocrisy in ascribing the label of blackmail to Doctor Scratch is not a derail, when you fail to ascribe it to Joseph Smith given the definition you rely upon. If it were, then no one could ever post anything contributory to any thread OP unless it was Amen.

And yet I agreed that the pattern you brought up was similar to black mail. Where's the selectivity and hypocrisy again?

If you genuinely feel I've derailed your whiny, self-indulgent little thread, then my apologies, sir.

As I've already pointed, the purpose of the thread is inform the uninformed on this issue. The man who hides behind his cloak of anonymity while taking potshots at people's professional reputations has developed something of a fan base. I thought it useful for people to know a little more about what goes on behind the scenes. Nevertheless, if you are so bothered by the content of this thread, you are welcome to leave at any time.

Unlike Joseph Smith or Mormonism in general, Doctor Scratch hardly needs anyone else to do his defense bidding for him. No apologists needed for Doctor Scratch. He is most capable on his own. I am an admirer of his many sources, his analytical mind and his witty prose. I find the hackneyed protests from a handful of defenders to everything Doctor Scratch posts here very predictable, very tiring and of course, adding nothing but additional posts, with additional words meaning nothing.

And yet, here you are, going from thread to thread defending the indefensible. Good job.

Not so. Murder is a specific intent crime and defendants are convicted of it in courts of this country every day without the benefit of a confession. Ergo, the jury finds, per the appropriate standard of evidence as instructed by the judge, the necessary specific intent element from the circumstantial evidence. Go to law school first if you want to argue evidentiary standards.

And yet, the case precedent for fraud (which is what we were talking about) has created a much higher hurdle than you are letting on.

I'm curious, since you've attempted to excoriate me for commenting on evidentiary standards, did you go to law school?

Ah, you see, I never claimed you had said it. Using the same evidentiary standards used by courts, I have drawn that conclusion from the circumstantial evidence--the facts that you can be relied upon to post your protest and inflammatory remarks in response to most every OP of Doctor Scratch's.

What inflammatory remarks?

[_sock puppet]

Not so. Murder is a specific intent crime and defendants are convicted of it in courts of this country every day without the benefit of a confession. Ergo, the jury finds, per the appropriate standard of evidence as instructed by the judge, the necessary specific intent element from the circumstantial evidence. Go to law school first if you want to argue evidentiary standards.

And yet, the case precedent for fraud (which is what we were talking about) has created a much higher hurdle than you are letting on.

I'm curious, since you've attempted to excoriate me for commenting on evidentiary standards, did you go to law school?

Actually, ttribe, the standard for which the intent is drawn from circumstantial evidence for murder is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for which the intent is drawn from circumstantial evidence for fraud is the same for criminal fraud and the lesser standard of clear and convincing to find fraud in a civil lawsuit. I will grant you, both are higher standards than that for a typical civil judgment--a standard of more likely than not--but the standard of evidence for fraud, even criminal fraud, is not higher than it is to find the specific intent needed for murder.

Yes, I do have a Juris Doctorate and I have an advanced law degree, Masters of Laws. (The reason a Masters degree in law is advanced beyond the first doctorate degree earned in law is historical and is explained here.)

[_Eric]

ttribe,

Did you go to the mall to have that picture taken?

[_ttribe]

Actually, ttribe, the standard for which the intent is drawn from circumstantial evidence for murder is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for which the intent is drawn from circumstantial evidence for fraud is the same for criminal fraud and the lesser standard of clear and convincing to find fraud in a civil lawsuit. I will grant you, both are higher standards than that for a typical civil judgment--a standard of more likely than not--but the standard of evidence for fraud, even criminal fraud, is not higher than it is to find the specific intent needed for murder.

Oh geez, I'm referring to actually getting the charges filed. Good luck getting a fraud case through the DA's office without good evidence of scienter. The court's have made these things a nightmare to try.

Yes, I do have a Juris Doctorate and I have an advanced law degree, Masters of Laws. (The reason a Masters degree in law is advanced beyond the first doctorate degree earned in law is historical and is explained here.)

Well, there you go then.

[_sock puppet]

Ah, you see, I never claimed you had said it. Using the same evidentiary standards used by courts, I have drawn that conclusion from the circumstantial evidence--the facts that you can be relied upon to post your protest and inflammatory remarks in response to most every OP of Doctor Scratch's.

What inflammatory remarks?

Well, let's see. Were you trying to endear yourself to Doctor Scratch with this? or was it entirely neutral--and if so, what's the point?

I think you were trying to inflame Doctor Scratch with that post by paraphrasing him with your word substitution, now don't you?

[_ttribe]

Well, let's see. Were you trying to endear yourself to Doctor Scratch with this? or was it entirely neutral--and if so, what's the point?

I think you were trying to inflame Doctor Scratch with that post by paraphrasing him with your word substitution, now don't you?

LOL! Context counselor. Oh, and, do you really consider that inflammatory? It seems we've found the hypocrite in this thread, and it ain't me.

[_ttribe]

ttribe,

Did you go to the mall to have that picture taken?

No.

Are you going to accuse me of stalking you again on this board now for answering your question?

[_sock puppet]

Actually, ttribe, the standard for which the intent is drawn from circumstantial evidence for murder is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for which the intent is drawn from circumstantial evidence for fraud is the same for criminal fraud and the lesser standard of clear and convincing to find fraud in a civil lawsuit. I will grant you, both are higher standards than that for a typical civil judgment--a standard of more likely than not--but the standard of evidence for fraud, even criminal fraud, is not higher than it is to find the specific intent needed for murder.

Oh geez, I'm referring to actually getting the charges filed. Good luck getting a fraud case through the DA's office without good evidence of scienter. The court's have made these things a nightmare to try.

Yes, I do have a Juris Doctorate and I have an advanced law degree, Masters of Laws. (The reason a Masters degree in law is advanced beyond the first doctorate degree earned in law is historical and is explained here.)

Well, there you go then.

Scienter is the accused having knowledge that act is wrong or illegal, as in Joseph Smith knew when he led others into believing he could find hidden treasure that in fact he (Joseph Smith) could not do so. Specific intent in the murder context means the prosecution must show that the defendant specifically intended to kill the victim without justification.

Do you yet think it's harder to show fraud than murderous intent without a confession from either accused?

Do you yet think that the scienter for fraud cannot be drawn by the finder of fact from the circumstantial evidence in the absence of a confession by the accused?

[_Eric]

ttribe,

Did you go to the mall to have that picture taken?

No.

So you got all dressed up at home and took that picture yourself?

[_ttribe]

Scienter is the accused having knowledge that act is wrong or illegal, as in Joseph Smith knew when he led others into believing he could find hidden treasure that in fact he (Joseph Smith) could not do so.

Which is what I said in the first place and is the standard in fraud cases.

Specific intent in the murder context means the prosecution must show that the defendant specifically intended to kill the victim without justification.

So they're different. I thought's that what I was trying to say.

Do you yet think it's harder to show fraud than murderous intent without a confession from either accused?

I don't pretend to be an expert on murder cases, but the fact is that you have a dead body and a cause of death (generally). In a fraud case, there are plenty more affirmative defenses; not the least of which is that a "loss" could have occurred just out of someone being bad at business, not an intent to defraud.

Do you yet think that the scienter for fraud cannot be drawn by the finder of fact from the circumstantial evidence in the absence of a confession by the accused?

Of course it *can*, I'm simply telling you that, in practice, it's very hard to do.