A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife

The Book



Somebody put me on to an anti-Victor Zammit website – run by the JREF closed minded skeptics. They’re trying to fool the reader by writing a lot of nonsense.

They’re discussing my $1million challenge. The gist of long pages long is that ‘no one can prove the negative’ and according to these skeptics I could not have a legitimate challenge. WRONG!

It is critical for these uninformed skeptics to seek the services of a litigation lawyer to explain to them that in court and in debate once the evidence has been submited the role of the defendant (and in the case the skeptic) is to try to rebut what has been submitted in evidence.

My challenge is highly technical because the cash reward is very high: inevitably, I have to strictly adhere to the professional rules of debate.

I, as the lawyer presenting the evidence for the afterlife state that there are more than 23 areas of substantive evidence for the afterlife – especially chapters below 2 to 25:

THE AFTERLIFE EVIDENCE: Go to hhtp:// - go to right column, top.

1. Opening statement
2. Respected scientists who investigated
3. My sensational materialization experiences
4. Voices on Tape (EVP)
5. Instrumental Transcommunication (ITC)
6. Near Death Experiences (NDEs)
7. Out of Body Experiences
8. Scole Experiment proves the afterlife
9. Einstein’s E=mc2 and materialization
10. Materialization Mediumship
11. Helen Duncan
12. Psychic laboratory experiments
13. Scientific observation of mediums
14. The most investigated medium ever
15. Direct voice mediums
16. The Cross Correspondences
17. Proxy sittings refute the allegation of mind reading
18. Remote Viewing
19. Apparitions and after death contacts
20. Deathbed visions
21. The Ouija Board
22. Xenoglossy
23. Poltergeists
24. Reincarnation
25. Quantum Physics and the Afterlife
26. Lawyers who were convinced by the evidence
27. Answering the closed-minded skeptics
28. Closing statement: summing up the objective evidence
29. What happens when we die?

Now, in a courtroom situation the onus shifts onto the skeptic defendant to specifically explain why, where, when and how the evidence cannot be admitted.

In a courtroom or in professional debate, the defendant cannot state, “there is no paranormal, therefore there is no afterlife.” Neither can a skeptic submit, “you can’t prove the negative” and then sit down.

The judge would tell the defendant skeptic “The plaintiff has submitted evidence which he states and showed that it is repeatable and objective. For example, in chapter three the plaintiff submitted that he and six other professionals – all witnesses here, (many with professional law enforcement experience) produce objective afterlife evidence, repeatedly every week – and have been doing this for over fifteen months. The plaintiff even offered anyone in the world the sum of half a million dollars to duplicate what he is doing in the Circle he is in. No one took on the challenge. Now, all I want you to do is to tell the jury specifically, why the evidence submitted, chapter by chapter, is not evidence or not objective or not repeatable.”

A judge, then will add something like :" To be objectively procedural and fair to the plaintiff, the onus is on the defendant to try to rebut by way of cross-examination ALL the evidence the plaintiff submitted – some twenty three areas of afterlife evidence. He is NOT asking you to believe in the Tooth Fairy or red dragons on the moon. He has presented hard core substantive evidence to be rebutted. Now, go ahead, try to rebut all this voluminous, empirical and substantive afterlife evidence.”

For the purpose of the record, no reductionist genius scientist or some senior materialist lawyer, no closed minded skeptic, no materialist of any kind - just no one on earth in the last eight years has been able to technically rebut the voluminous 23 areas of submitted evidence.

So, why do these closed minded skeptics in the JREF show that they are uninformed?

1. They refuse to accept the objective procedure of professional debate where the defendant skeptic has to rebut the submitted afterlife evidence.

2. These skeptics show they do not understand the rules of professional debate.

3. They keep repeating inadmissible objections like "how can I rebut the tooth fairy? and other such-like nonsense.

4. They include the misinformation that Victor Zammit personally hand-picks the committee, whereas the fact is that the procedure is for the applicant to jointly select the committee to assess what the applicant proposes.

5. These uninformed skeptics go into the litany “you can’t prove the negative.” Who is trying to prove the negative when the plaintiff presented 23 areas of afterlife evidence –

6. They show colossal ignorance in rebutting submitted evidence. They state “there is no evidence” giving validation to Neurolinguistic Programming claim that the hard core skeptic’s mind deletes any information which is fundamentally inconsistent with deeply entrenched negative prejudices.

In professional debate, any substantiated evidence not rebutted will stay valid – hence, the afterlife evidence is valid and will remain valid.


Home | The Book | Radio FAQs | Articles | Hall of Fame
Appearances | About Victor | Links | Contact

Copyright © 2001 Victor Zammit.  All rights reserved.  --  
Web site by happysean