6 ms·

That doesn't work either. What happens, for example, if I sue you, you don't show up, I tell the judge you owe me a million dollars and show him a bill I printe

That doesn't work either. What happens, for example, if I sue you, you don't show up, I tell the judge you owe me a million dollars and show him a bill I printed on my computer that morning for a million dollars. You aren't there to tell the judge otherwise, so going on the "facts" I present doesn't solve the problem either.

talmand 10y ago
Well, if I were the judge on that case, I would simply ask if you had any evidence to show that the bill presented was not printed on your computer that morning and actually was presented to the other party. Just presenting something in court does not make it a fact, actual real evidence is required.
- phil21 10y ago
  > Just presenting something in court does not make it a fact, actual real evidence is required. It actually kinda does... If the other party does not challenge it. If I show up in court with a bill that shows you owe me a million dollars, I attest that we agreed to it, and you don't challenge that fact? That's the truth as far as the court is concerned. However, the overall point I believe still stands. Weigh the case based on the evidence presented - if it later turns out that a plaintiff committed fraud to get a favorable ruling you now have actual evidence of foul play on the record.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >If I show up in court with a bill that shows you owe me a million dollars, I attest that we agreed to it, and you don't challenge that fact? That's the truth as far as the court is concerned. // Absolutely not. A court shouldn't sit on "anything said that isn't challenged is 100% true", it should look in a tort case on the balance of probabilities. IMO courts should attempt to discover what is true and rule on that, not attempt to find who can afford to pay for the best lawyer.
    - jeffmould 10y ago
      "IMO courts should attempt to discover what is true and rule on that" But how do the courts do that when only one party is presenting the evidence? The only way that would work is if you filed a case, a neutral investigator from the court investigated your claim, and the judge ruled on what the investigator found. Otherwise, the court has to base its decision on the evidence provided. If only half the evidence is provided, unfortunately the decision must be made off that evidence. IMO, the default judgement is the best solution. It is fairly easy to get a default judgement overturned if you truly want to or believe that it is wrong. Otherwise, you are admitting you owe the amount with a default judgement. So in reality it would be like you showed up and the plaintiff proved you owed the debt. Either way you have to pay.
      - talmand 10y ago
        I believe somewhere in there the judges have the ability to ask questions and determine things on their own despite what either party wants or desires. It's the whole point in having a judge. If everything could be decided solely on evidence presented without question then people are not required for most cases, just an elaborate evidence decision tree is needed.
        jeffmould 10y ago
        Completely agree. However, when only one party is there to answer questions, the judge is left with whether to believe or not believe what the plaintiff is saying. If that is the case, the reverse would also have to apply. Currently if the plaintiff doesn't show up the case is dismissed. If only one party is required though, now the defendant is left to argue why he/she is not guilty. That doesn't work either.

talmand 10y ago

Well, if I were the judge on that case, I would simply ask if you had any evidence to show that the bill presented was not printed on your computer that morning and actually was presented to the other party. Just presenting something in court does not make it a fact, actual real evidence is required.

phil21 10y ago
> Just presenting something in court does not make it a fact, actual real evidence is required. It actually kinda does... If the other party does not challenge it. If I show up in court with a bill that shows you owe me a million dollars, I attest that we agreed to it, and you don't challenge that fact? That's the truth as far as the court is concerned. However, the overall point I believe still stands. Weigh the case based on the evidence presented - if it later turns out that a plaintiff committed fraud to get a favorable ruling you now have actual evidence of foul play on the record.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >If I show up in court with a bill that shows you owe me a million dollars, I attest that we agreed to it, and you don't challenge that fact? That's the truth as far as the court is concerned. // Absolutely not. A court shouldn't sit on "anything said that isn't challenged is 100% true", it should look in a tort case on the balance of probabilities. IMO courts should attempt to discover what is true and rule on that, not attempt to find who can afford to pay for the best lawyer.
  - jeffmould 10y ago
    "IMO courts should attempt to discover what is true and rule on that" But how do the courts do that when only one party is presenting the evidence? The only way that would work is if you filed a case, a neutral investigator from the court investigated your claim, and the judge ruled on what the investigator found. Otherwise, the court has to base its decision on the evidence provided. If only half the evidence is provided, unfortunately the decision must be made off that evidence. IMO, the default judgement is the best solution. It is fairly easy to get a default judgement overturned if you truly want to or believe that it is wrong. Otherwise, you are admitting you owe the amount with a default judgement. So in reality it would be like you showed up and the plaintiff proved you owed the debt. Either way you have to pay.
    - talmand 10y ago
      I believe somewhere in there the judges have the ability to ask questions and determine things on their own despite what either party wants or desires. It's the whole point in having a judge. If everything could be decided solely on evidence presented without question then people are not required for most cases, just an elaborate evidence decision tree is needed.
      - jeffmould 10y ago
        Completely agree. However, when only one party is there to answer questions, the judge is left with whether to believe or not believe what the plaintiff is saying. If that is the case, the reverse would also have to apply. Currently if the plaintiff doesn't show up the case is dismissed. If only one party is required though, now the defendant is left to argue why he/she is not guilty. That doesn't work either.