"Reef Fish" wrote in message
news:8fb7380b.0405262034.1fec53d4@posting.google.com...
> Such as knowing more about such simple things in law as "standards
> of evidence" that some folks with a law degree such as yourself?
Standards of proof, you mean. Standards of evidence is a whole different
ballgame, primarily focusing on the two concepts of reliability and
relevancy. But I digress.
In this country we have something called the U.S. Supreme Court. As the
highest court of the land, their word is law, no matter what you may recall
from some seminar by an amateur back before senility hit you hard.
"In Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966), dealing with deportation, and
Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S., at 125 , 159, dealing with
denaturalization, the Court held that "clear, unequivocal, and convincing"
evidence was the appropriate standard of proof. The term "unequivocal,"
taken by itself, means proof that admits of no doubt, a burden
approximating, if not exceeding, that used in criminal cases. The issues in
Schneiderman and Woodby were basically factual and therefore susceptible of
objective proof and the consequences to the individual were unusually
drastic - loss of citizenship and expulsion from the United States."
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 432 (1979).
I understand English isn't your first language, but perhaps you can try to
understand the above. I draw your attention to this sentence: "The term
'unequivocal', taken by itself, means proof that admits of no doubt, a
burden approximating, if not exceeding, that used in criminal cases."
This is the word of the U.S. Supreme Court, the law of the land, and
coincidentally it matches my definition as well:
> Greg> Uh huh. Unequivocal = "without doubt". Beyond a reasonable
> Greg> doubt = "without reasonable doubt". If it's unequivocal,
> Greg> there can be no doubt, reasonable or unreasonable. Therefore,
> Greg> it is a higher burden of proof.
What a surprise. I'm right again and you're still wrong.
> How do you think I got to be a tenured Full Professor 7 years
> after my Ph.D degree? I certainly did not lack "speed". But in
> my profession, KNOWLEDGE and factual accuracy matter. What you
> call "speed" in your case is "hasty judgment and faulty conclusion"
> which is fatal in every profession!
Lawyers have to be quick on their feet and accurate too since they have a
real live client's welfare at stake. Professors can research mundane topics
for years because no one really cares about their product except for their
poor future students.
So what was the competition like in the field of statistics? I've heard
that 99% of all college graduates dream of becoming statisticians, but
perhaps I heard wrong.
> If I made one single blunder in my profession as you did about
> LAW, I would have been laughed out of the profession the rest
> of my life.
I practically quoted the Supreme Court's opinion. Without looking.
> Greg> Uh huh. Unequivocal = "without doubt". Beyond a reasonable
> Greg> doubt = "without reasonable doubt". If it's unequivocal,
> Greg> there can be no doubt, reasonable or unreasonable. Therefore,
> Greg> it is a higher burden of proof.
>
> A community college drop-out would have known better than that!!
Chief Justice Burger wrote the opinion which neatly matches my own. I don't
think he was a community college drop-out, but you never know.
> This is why I read and write better English than many natives
> of the English language. This is why I know more about LAW
> than some lawyers ... ;-)
What is a "native of the English language"? Languages have native speakers,
but do they have natives? Perhaps your Engrish is less better than you had
thought. Obviously your knowledge of the law is sorely lacking.
> Good Night, and God Bless America.
Why, did it sneeze?
|