3 ms·
“The US government has publicly claimed this was a hostile act by Russia” wins that argument, trivially, in a US courtroom. And it will be a civil trial; the st
by patio11 8y ago
“The US government has publicly claimed this was a hostile act by Russia” wins that argument, trivially, in a US courtroom. And it will be a civil trial; the standard will be “preponderance of evidence.”
- posterboy 8y agoI hope you mean officially, because e.g. a public fox news proclamation falls under hear say, IMHO. So much for the court as last instance of truth. So what, do they have to go to the international war courts where genocide is prosecuted instead, to rectify the unfair situation in which the claimant is caught between two hard places and the rock that is burden of proof?
- detaro 8y agoYes, as the article says, that's an official white house statement: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-press-secretary-25/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-pr...
- posterboy 8y agoBy the way, to get a trial going, you only have to raise reasonable doubt. Getting beyond reasonable doubt is the problem.
- patio11 8y ago“Reasonable doubt” is a term of art in law. Your use of the term does not agree with how the legal field understands it. “Preponderance of evidence” is another term of art, which is a strictly lower burden to meet than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Your understanding of which of these two standards the legal system applies in civil cases mispredicts the behavior of the legal system. You can confirm this representation with a lawyer of your choice. The standard to survive an attempt to dismiss will be approximately “even reading all factual representations as true in the most charitable reasonable way to the suing party, no reasonable finder of fact would see a justiciable controversy here.” You’re welcome to ask a lawyer on whether the suit would pass that burden.