The legal basis of Pacquiao's actions....

What about Berto, what about Mosely? The list is starting to grow and its due to his own doing. Take the proposed random drug test and all is well. Not to mention, here is a guy who is going into politics and should leave no leaf turned over. I really think its a foolish thing to do on his part. Easiest way out. My opinion, the fight has already started between these two. The psychological battle has commenced, and he who blinks in this extremely tense situation by giving in to the other's demand loses round one of the mind game. I am a chess player too (any other chess player here?). In the chess world, this is comparable to Karpov-Korchnoi Baguio Philippines 1978 World Championship Match. In that match, even the color of Karpov's juice drink was hotly contested. It's a mind game and Pacquiao is not blinking. :boxing:

summary: Innocent until proven guilty. not the other way around summary: Suspicious until proven innocent

Why hasnt he filed suit against Paulie? What about Berto, what about Mosely? The list is starting to grow and its due to his own doing. Take the proposed random drug test and all is well. Not to mention, here is a guy who is going into politics and should leave no leaf turned over. I really think its a foolish thing to do on his part.

Words with multiple syllables, paragraphs with several sentences and a dash of legal jargon/latin? This thread is not likely to reach 3 pages. Does not matter whether it reaches just one page or 100 pages, as long as I get a chance to be (heard) read. I've had 10+ page posts before.

You are misrepresenting the criminal legal system. People are charged all the time upon affidavit of an officer or other individual who at the time cannot produce evidence that can presumably overcome reasonable doubt in court. It only needs to overcome probable cause- not perfect cause. Investigations, discovery, etc. will provide the missing pieces. After charges are brought by the State, due process requires that the defendant have a reasonable opportunity to mount a defense by deposing accusers, officers, etc.; collect and examine physical evidence; and at trial, may choose to not bear witness against himself and continue the enjoy the presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, innocent people are found guilty everyday in our legal system. Some of them are only guilty of bad circumstances. This is the case with Pacquiao. It is suspicious that somebody from his beginnings would have the type of success he's having now. It is more suspicious that his body has transformed the way it has. That does not mean he's guilty, but as we discussed, if are continuing the analogy, filing charges don't require perfect evidence- just something. However, unlike a defendant, Pacquiao can choose to ignore the charges and send everyone to hell. For now, he has choosen that option. It is too bad the people that end up in jail everyday on bullshit charges do not enjoy the same. No I did not. My focus is not the "charging" part, which I agree requires only probable cause. In this case, we can say that our accuser is Mayweather Sr. The focus is on when the accuser is REQUIRED to present evidence in his defense. Just because someone accused you of doing something criminal does not automatically require you to present evidence in your defense. The evidence of the prosecution has to be tested first, and if the evidence fails to establish prima facie evidence of guilt, then the case can be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence upon a timely motion for demurrer to evidence, without the accused presenting a single iota of evidence. This is Rules of Court 101.

Words with multiple syllables, paragraphs with several sentences and a dash of legal jargon/latin? This thread is not likely to reach 3 pages.

an accused is not required to produce evidence in his defense until after the prosecution has established his guilt prima facie. By prima facie we mean that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, standing alone, that is without any evidence adduced by the accused, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The judge is tasked to determine whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient, and only until the judge rules in the affirmative is the accused required to present evidence in his defense. This is a universal rule in all civilized societies, the essence of due process. Nobody is required to present evidence in his defense if in the first place there is no evidence establishing his guilt prima facie. As a lawyer I find the clamor for Pacquiao to "prove his innocence" revolting to my sense of justice. He should not be required to present evidence in his defense if there is not a single iota of evidence showing his guilt. the people clamoring for him to "defend himself", are saying, in effect, that his guilt has been established on the mere say so of a convicted felon by the name of Mayweather Sr. Those who do have their own agenda for doing so, and I hope the rest of the boxing world will see through what they are doing. You are misrepresenting the criminal legal system. People are charged all the time upon affidavit of an officer or other individual who at the time cannot produce evidence that can presumably overcome reasonable doubt in court. It only needs to overcome probable cause- not perfect cause. Investigations, discovery, etc. will provide the missing pieces. After charges are brought by the State, due process requires that the defendant have a reasonable opportunity to mount a defense by deposing accusers, officers, etc.; collect and examine physical evidence; and at trial, may choose to not bear witness against himself and continue the enjoy the presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, innocent people are found guilty everyday in our legal system. Some of them are only guilty of bad circumstances. This is the case with Pacquiao. It is suspicious that somebody from his beginnings would have the type of success he's having now. It is more suspicious that his body has transformed the way it has. That does not mean he's guilty, but as we discussed, if are continuing the analogy, filing charges don't require perfect evidence- just something. However, unlike a defendant, Pacquiao can choose to ignore the charges and send everyone to hell. For now, he has choosen that option. It is too bad the people that end up in jail everyday on bullshit charges do not enjoy the same.

Ask Him Why hasnt he filed suit against Paulie? I can only guess that for Paulie he reserved something special, something more than a mere lawsuit, and that is to BEAT THE HELL OUT OF HIM INSIDE THE RING. How else can Pacquiao LEGALLY beat him black and blue for his accusations if not to make him the next opponent? Seriously though, I think Pacquiao respects the opinion of others for as long as it remains an opinion. But to require him to prove his innocence (or else we will try you and crucify you by publicity) is a different matter altogether.