You and I may know in our hearts that OJ was guilty. However, do we know for an absolute fact that he really was guilty?
If I am not wrong, OJ actually wrote a biography later, in which he detailed on how he murdered his ex-wife (Nicole Brown Simpson) and Ronald Lyle Goldman. How can you argue that he is innocent, after all this evidence. And in the United States, many people are sentenced to death or life without parole, with even less evidence.
Personally, I didn't know of OJs biography, although I suspected that he might have admitted it somewhere along the line.
The jury at his trial didn't know for a fact, so he was judged the way he was by them.
A common law loss of property suit never falls under the no-retrial clause when new evidence arises, so the family can bring suit for loss of property (Nicole), even though the government can't. It seems that they did, and OJ lost certain aspects of that case.
The point isn't really OJ. The point is Ross and the "many people" who "are sentenced to death or life without parole, with even less evidence." The innocent among these folks have not evoked corpus delicti at their trials. Or else they have agreed with the government's verdict in some way. Of course, there is corruption all over the place, so some of it is not just at all.
I agree that the system is corrupt by not informing the people of their rights, that they can require corpus delicti, and how they can avoid a contract or agreement.
The people are learning about the things that Karl Lentz is teaching. He isn't the only one who is teaching this, but he is the simplest, getting right down to the nitty gritty immediately. The biggest point that Karl teaches is the simplest. It is way too simple for most people to grasp. It is this: The plaintiff must appear.
The plaintiff must appear. Not his attorney or representative. In American law, when anyone is accused of anything and taken to court, if the defendant demands, the plaintiff must appear - and be sworn in, and take the stand, and verify under oath all the aspects of the case, whatever they may be.
In all cases where government - THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE STATE OF XXXXXX, THE CITY OF XXXXXX, THE COUNTY OF XXXXXX, etc. - brings a case, the government is required to take the oath, get on the stand, and "viva voce" express all the aspects of the case. In almost all cases where government is the plaintiff, government itself can't do this, even though it is required. No case!!!
In the event that there is some plaintiff who CAN AND DOES appear, there must be harm or injury, and it must be proven to be the defendant who did it. There are two additional things that are required for this proof. But what is said here was enough to get Ross's case thrown right out of court, if Ross had only demanded the above.
