Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Nate The Lawyer" channel.

  1. From the moral rationality of the inspiration of The Law, not our law but The Law of God, innocent until proven guilty is a subject protecting the innocent from false accusations being capable to even capably convict. According to The Law of God that Jesus reinforced in his trial with Pontius Pilate He refuses to respond to accusation of guilt because it is not up to to accused to demonstrate their innocence before they are without a doubt guilty. God establishes in that case that the guilty should never be compelled (in order to demonstrate innocence) nor required in any matter of law to speak until they are held so far as to be without a doubt as guilty. Any law that does not follow this rule is an immoral law and is convicted as tyrannical by Christ. So there should never be a case that an accused be forced to demonstrate innocence of the accusation. Big problem I have with this entire case is that by making the assumption that Amber can say things that, were they enacted upon her, they'd be criminal, she would be foremost required to demonstrate by The Law that case. Refusal in such a case should be an admission of guilty accusation, which we could suggest as being a much lesser crime compared to malicious accusation which I'll explain in a moment. (after all she made a criminal accusation she refuses to back up, in which case she should be punished without the need of a case) Now personally I don't care about libel and slander because the free market unimpeded can solve this issue without government wrecking its way in it, but if we're gonna have that then this is a clear case where she has to demonstrate his guilt first, and failing that all that needs to be proven is that the result of her actions were malicious. As for guilty accusation vs. malicious accusation (as I'm defining them, perhaps there are better terms) guilty accusation would be an accusation that is unsupported and convicted as an admission of guilt upon themselves before a case could be brought up, resulting in less punishment for attempt to harm the accused maliciously. A malicious accusation would be a failed attempt to convict someone on an accusation that does not follow through with "guilty without a doubt" and was by intent or result of intent made to maliciously harm someone by a false conviction, in that case they are to receive the exact worst punishment they expected on the defendant. That includes all the prosecution subjects, if they desired money, they all owe money, if they were seeking a death sentence, they are sentenced to death, if they were seeking reparative enslavement or community service, they service it to the defense or at behest of the defense. After all God had laid doctrine down that if an accuser can not be settled with and has gone out with false accusations they should be punished on the crime they expected to convict the accused.
    1