The Aaron Hernandez Project Freedom

The Aaron Hernandez Project Freedom

By: Jesus Christ

This is what Aaron will result in.  Like they said, only because this case is high profile that he will get off. Why?  They know the burden of proof is clearly Beyond reasonable doubt, which in the case would require my NSA data.

Have the defense attorney create a team ASAP.

Have my Brother Louis decide who runs this fund, because at the time I do not like what is going on with NAAPC and how they created Ferguson.  Set up my law offices and  lawyers in all 50 states, hand pick my BOD,  and I will start this with $10 billion.  Do more than just spend my money, make sure your purpose creates money earning also, to sustain this operation, because lawyers will not extort me, by create demands, maybe some of you might need a new profession if crime is required to make a living.  So if I was you, I would use this $10 billion wisely and not play games. Just set up a board by a petition to President Obama allowing these recommendation to be heard by a committee against corruption.  I need a legal system that guides and not just enforce lies.

Any case that does not meet "Beyond reasonable doubt," when it was required, get out of jail with payment for everyday in jail or prison.  To qualify you will require a GED  or a competency certificate. If they cannot learn to read, they are developmentally disable and has been identified to get a guardian representation.

That is the order and being lazy is not the fast track out, everybody will at least try to learn to read.

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund:

Hyperlink:

Felony Convictions:

Burden of proof refers most generally to the obligation of a party to prove its allegations at trial. In a civil case the plaintiff sets forth its allegations in a complaint, petition or other pleading. The defendant is then required to file a responsive pleading denying some or all of the allegations and setting forth any affirmative facts in defense. Each party has the burden of proof of their allegations.

In this case cover every aspect of law to create legal precedence in the future.

• Legal standards

• Reasonable suspicion

• Reasonable to believe

• Probable cause for arrest

• Some credible evidence

• Substantial evidence

• Preponderance of the evidence

• Clear and convincing evidence

Beyond reasonable doubt:

This is the highest standard used as the burden of proof in Anglo-American jurisprudence and typically only applies in criminal proceedings. It has been described, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise. If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that one would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of one's own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent unless and until proven guilty.

If the trier of fact has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty which precludes the existence of any reasonable alternatives. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence presented. Further to this notion of moral certainty, where the trier of fact relies on proof that is solely circumstantial, i.e., when conviction is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, certain jurisdictions specifically require the prosecution's burden of proof to be such that the facts proved must exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable hypothesis or inference other than guilt.

The main reason that this high level of proof is demanded in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which monetary damages are the common remedy.


Jesus Christ