--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@...> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mjackson74" <mjackson74@> wrote: > > > > A comment on the article about the 8,000 flyers in Mexico > > > > "I too am a former TM sidha. I gave thousands of pounds to the organisation > > over many years, but had no more to do with it after I got close to an > > Indian working for the organisation at a senior level. He confided in me > > that the top people close to Maharishi had asked him to smuggle gold during > > his trips from Europe and USA back to India!! When he refused they > > pressured him and made him break down, threatening he would have no future > > in the organisation if he didn't comply. Thus was back in the 90's when > > Maharishi was still alive. No wonder the movement in India is rich!" > > > > http://www.mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=broadcast&broadcastid=366529 > > > > No one brought charges against Maharishi for smuggling gold. Hearsay is not > proof.
Quite so. Something for which we should all be immensely grateful. Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit I live in the UK. Here employment law does not follow this principle. That is quite some shock when you come up against it. As a small business owner/manager you can suddenly find yourself 'in the dock' without this ancient guarantor of your rights (i.e having to *prove* your innocence). Quite disturbing. I once employed a fruitcake who accused me of 'touching her up' (and this person accused others of other dramatic violations, e.g. racist abuse). So now I *really* appreciate the importance and value of "innocent until proved guilty". And I'm inclined to thank my lucky stars no one has yet realised what a wonderful guru I could be, and come knocking on my door and putting me on a grand pedestal (as per MMY/MJ?). Crucifixion isn't the half of it. It is a racing certainty that the fruitcakes will gravitate to anyone with an ounce of charisma (like moths to the flame that obscure the light) and create mayhem. "My" MMY predicted as much. How awful it must be to have to cope with TB fanatical "followers" and their inevitable disappointment. > "The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the > accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. > > The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper > necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which seems > to be: "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." > > He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, > meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of > proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of > proof off to another party." > > Wikipedia: Burden of Proof >
