Talk:Fraud and Scam Center/@comment-98.150.129.129-20121216224001/@comment-5877143-20121216225333

I am not sure who you are, for you are using an alias like everyone else who has commented on the forum. I am not sure how well knowledged you are about courts, but putting an effort and showing circumstantial proof is NOT proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

In order for circumstantial evidence to uphold you need some kind of evidence that clearly links it such as a fingerprint from the scene of the crime, which in this case is easy, just a simple blank trade would suffice.

Also, you tell me what evidence I can provide to prove I did not scam? You pretend to be knowledgeable and yet you do not know the relaitonship between plaintiff vs defendent. It is not the defendants job to prove innocence, but the plaintiff's job to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you cannot prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then from what I know about the court system, they cannot judge someone based on circumstantial evidence.

Zero evidence or not, it is the plaintiff's or accusers job to bring about proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, I would like to ask you, if someone calls you a scammer and ask you to prove you did not scam. What would you do? Provide them a screenshot of them telling you, you didn't scam? Provide a screenshot of a blank trade (sarcasm)? Oh wait that wont help prove your innocence either. There is no solid proof especially over the internet to prove someone's innocence because then you would need an alibi or something along the lines. Everything else that I could think of at this moment would be circumstantial proof.

You talk about wasting time? I am wasting my time trying to prove my innocence right now. Right and wrong is not judged by how much effort put into it.

You want to talk about court system? You just got lawyered then.