TIL: Today I Learned

[Arakhor]

I hadn't considered that before, but it stands to reason. A visceral reation is one that you feel in your gut, rather than your mind, after all.

 

[madviking]

and the term viscera

 

[Commodore]

TIL: It has never been scientifically proven that every fingerprint is unique.

 

[Tee Kay]

What's "proven" in your case?

 

[Arakhor]

It's not proven that we're alone in the universe either.

 

[Commodore]

What's "proven" in your case?

I don't know. I'm just getting all my TILs from that show "Adam Ruins Everything". That fact came from the episode on criminal forensics and how unreliable it all really is. So unreliable in fact, that most forensic evidence really should be inadmissable in court.

 

[madviking]

i imagine it's tons easier to prove the negative than prove the positive, i.e. it's easier to prove that human fingerprints are not unique than that they are unique.

 

[Lohrenswald]

There's no reason two people's fingerprints couldn't be the same. It's just probability that makes it so that they aren't.
Like, it's not like you get a dibs on a pattern, and that ensures nobody else can.
Same thing with snowflakes.

 

[trader/warrior]

TIL about OPCA's

So much crazy stuff in there. It's like they believe contracts and laws are arcane forces of nature.

OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct.

Gurus claim that their techniques provide easy rewards – one does not have to pay tax, child and spousal support payments, or pay attention to traffic laws. There are allegedly secret but accessible bank accounts that contain nearly unlimited funds, if you know the trick to unlock their gates. You can transform a bill into a cheque with a stamp and some coloured writing. You are only subject to criminal sanction if you agree to be subject to criminal sanction. You can make yourself independent of any state obligation if you so desire, and unilaterally force and enforce demands on other persons, institutions, and the state. All this is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals.

Declaring the court to be a boat:

Spoiler :

[24] Mr. Meads then asked me “about the sign above my head”, which is the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, and declared:

This is an admiral court, your jurisdiction is on water, it’s not on land; I am a freeman on the land, and for you to play down some of the statements I am making is not acceptable unless you prove it to me in law, and just saying it to me is nothing.

3. The reference to Admiralty Law relates to an OPCA concept that there are two kinds of law, “common law” and “admiralty law”, and Mr. Meads rejected application of the latter to himself.

Being 2 different people at once, one person and one "corporate entity" that has a secret government bank account with billions of secret cash:

Spoiler :

When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid. Mr. Meads, for example, has presented the Court with documents that appear to be a contract between himself, and himself. One Mr. Meads promises to pay for any liability of the other Mr. Meads. One owns all property, the other all debts. What is the difference between these entities? One spells his name with upper case letters. The other adds spurious and meaningless punctuation to his name. Mr. Meads (with punctuation) is the Mr. Meads who appeared in court. He says the Mr. Meads (all capitals) is the one who should pay child and spousal support.

So where is that Mr. Meads (all capitals)? At one point in the June 8 hearing Mr. Meads said that Mr. Meads (all capitals) was a “corporate entity” attached to his birth certificate. Later, he told me that the other Mr. Meads was a “person” - and that I had created him! Again, total nonsense.

5. a commercial security agreement where DENNIS LARRY MEADS assumes all debts and obligations of Dennis-Larry:Meads, while granting Dennis-Larry:Meads all his property;

6. an “Actual and Constructive Notice” from Dennis-Larry: Meads to the Bank of Canada that “accepts for value” enclosed documents in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code and the Bank of Canada Act to charge his “public treasury”, which is identified by his social insurance number, for $100 billion Canadian dollars or the equivalent in silver or gold;

7. a “Hold Harmless and Indemnify Agreement Non Negotiable Between the Parties”, that DENNIS LARRY MEADS generally indemnifies Dennis-Larry: Meads;

 

[Commodore]

There's no reason two people's fingerprints couldn't be the same. It's just probability that makes it so that they aren't.
Like, it's not like you get a dibs on a pattern, and that ensures nobody else can.
Same thing with snowflakes.

Then fingerprints on a murder weapon should not be admissible as evidence in a murder trial since the prosecution cannot prove with absolute certainty that those fingerprints belong to the suspect in question. Do they likely belong to the suspect? Sure, but maybe we need to move towards a criminal justice system that requires the prosecution to prove their case beyond ANY doubt rather than just reasonable doubt.

So basically, since that would be near impossible, the only way anyone would get convicted would be if they just outright confessed to the crime or got caught in the act by police.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They don't have to prove 'absolutely', just 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

 

[Arakhor]

Or, you know, leave DNA behind.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That's also problematic and often not able to prove something absolutely.

 

[Commodore]

They don't have to prove 'absolutely', just 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

I know. I'm just saying maybe we need to move towards a system that does require absolute proof. Sure, there's a lot of criminals who would get away with their crimes, but it would also eliminate the possibility of wrongful convictions.

 

[Arakhor]

Wrongful convictions are an excellent argument against capital punishment.

 

[Takhisis]

til "disembowel" and "eviscerate" literally mean the same thing

No kidding.

Wrongful convictions are an excellent argument against capital punishment.

+1

 

[Commodore]

Doesn't the Bible say something about death being a release, not a punishment?

 

[Takhisis]

It says nothing about the existence of the U.S.…

 

[Borachio]

Doesn't the Bible say something about death being a release, not a punishment?

I thought it said something about death being the wages of sin.

 

[Tee Kay]

I know. I'm just saying maybe we need to move towards a system that does require absolute proof. Sure, there's a lot of criminals who would get away with their crimes, but it would also eliminate the possibility of wrongful convictions.

With the accelerated move towards ubiquitous state and corporate surveillance you may get your wish.