100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Top court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
wiley
on
Tue 02/19/08 01:59 PM
|
|
Preponderance of evidence would never be met there.
I'm not sure what you mean with that... Balance of probabilities Also known as the "preponderance of evidence", this is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50% chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning in Miller v. Minister of Pensions[2] described it simply as "more probable than not". Since the scenario would probably be a criminal case, I think "preponderance of evidence" would be out anyway, since it would have to be "beyond reasonable doubt" Beyond reasonable doubt This is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system. This means that the proposition being presented by the government must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty. If the doubt that is raised does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond a "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. In the United States, it is usually reversible error to instruct a jury that they should find guilt on a certain percentage of certainty (such as 90% certain).[citation needed] Usually, reasonable doubt is defined as "any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."[citation needed] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also known as the "preponderance of evidence", this is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50% chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning in Miller v. Minister of Pensions[2] described it simply as "more probable than not".
thats the definition that I know...I didn't understand the use of it in that post when discussing the legalities of search and seizure.. There was a recent disturbing case in the court of appeal up here where 7 kilos of coke was introduced into evidence that was discovered by way of an illegal search of the defedants car. Two judges acknowledged the search was illegal but allowed the evidence saying basically the public wouldn't mind since it's better to allow the evidence than to let the defendant go free...the third judge went the other way and slammed the cops for conducting an illegal search and slammed the ruling... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boy i missed some of the good part lol
as for the wire taping just because congress passes a law it does not make it legal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boy i missed some of the good part lol as for the wire taping just because congress passes a law it does not make it legal Hahaha usually if it manages to get support, it's ipso facto illegal hahaha. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Tue 02/19/08 07:30 PM
|
|
boy i missed some of the good part lol as for the wire taping just because congress passes a law it does not make it legal Hahaha usually if it manages to get support, it's ipso facto illegal hahaha.
yeah kinda like the illegal wire taping law that is what the supreme court is there for to strike down illegal laws |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boy i missed some of the good part lol as for the wire taping just because congress passes a law it does not make it legal Hahaha usually if it manages to get support, it's ipso facto illegal hahaha.
yeah kinda like the illegal wire taping law Lol circular logic still won't change the fact that the case was properly dismissed in the lower court and denied cert. in the supreme court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well you answered b4 i added this
the supreme court is in place to strike down illegal laws to permit warrant less wiretapping is an illegal law |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep that's why the supreme court is there.
...but they have specific requirements for which cases they should accept and when. One of these justiciability requirements is that there be an actual harm caused to the plaintiff in the action. If no one can prove that they have actually been affected by the law, then they can't decide the case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to permit warrant less wiretapping is an illegal law Huh? 
Lindyy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
to permit warrant less wiretapping is an illegal law Huh?
Lindyy 4th ammendment Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. makes it illegal what they need to do is fight it with the constitutionality issue and then go after the needed info later |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
soxfan94
on
Tue 02/19/08 07:42 PM
|
|
4th ammendment Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. makes it illegal what they need to do is fight it with the constitutionality issue and then go after the needed info later They can't do that. They don't have the power to reach in and grab an issue that isn't properly presented to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that is what i said
they need to fight it on the constitutionality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
soxfan94
on
Tue 02/19/08 07:45 PM
|
|
that is what i said they need to fight it on the constitutionality They Cannot Fight It On Constitutionality It Has Not Been Properly Presented Before The Court. (without a specific showing of harm, it cannot go before the Court!) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that may be but on a constitionality issue the harm is
that it undermines the freedoms and liberties of the "people" should be ENOUGH but who really cares about the "people" anymore |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that may be but on a constitionality issue the harm is that it undermines the freedoms and liberties of the "people" should be ENOUGH but who really cares about the "people" anymore Yes it should be enough, I agree. But, legally, it is not. Write an angry letter to the Supreme Court, I'm just explaining their jurisprudence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well if you say so
actually they should act on illegal law without anyone bringing it before them they are the check and measure of the legislative branch of the govt but oh well it maybe that the law has been repealed (i think) that it was treated as a non issue |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok I need to go to bed, this is giving me a headache.
Have a nice night. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i guess i sox it to ya
be well man was nice debating with you |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No worries, they will get it right
This is illegal also and they will find the right avenue to pursue it so that it sticks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No worries, they will get it right
This is illegal also and they will find the right avenue to pursue it so that it sticks. where you been girl ya came in at closing time 
|
|
|
|
|
