5 ms·

I guessed that much, but then aren’t you required as the filling party to prove: 1- that the removal did actually happen. 2- that you did not consent to the r

I guessed that much, but then aren’t you required as the filling party to prove: 1- that the removal did actually happen. 2- that you did not consent to the removal. (1) is probably doable in most cases, but I can’t see how could you prove (2).

nobody9999 5y ago
>(1) is probably doable in most cases, but I can’t see how could you prove (2). That's as may be, but I wasn't involved in drafting the legislation, IANAL and I don't live in California. So I have no basis to evaluate your statements. I merely answered your question, and even qualified it with "IIUC." I may not "UC". I may well be talking out of my ass. It doesn't smell that way, but... That said, I'd speculate that since the standard of proof in a civil case is "a preponderance of evidence" rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in criminal cases, it would likely be much easier to "prove" such a thing to a jury or a judge. Again. IANAL. I just regurgitated what I read in TFA. So YMMV.