Kavanaugh Hearing

This is the dungeon. It's what we do. I have evidence.

 

Here’s how it can be explained easily.

I show a photo of 1986 Mongo in Playgirl magazine (full spread)

But DaveK argues and says that there’s no way that’s mongo’s butthole. DaveK issues his own evidence with his own picture.

Then Mongo has to admit his was photoshopped and thus his evidence is falsified.

 

so is 'proper' lol

 

It's debatable in the same way one can sue for any wrong they perceive. The result is sterile discussions or frivolous lawsuits, neither of which change the reality.

Moving on to a different point unrelated to you, it's funny how people keep bringing up that it wasn't a court of law. The setting certainly had many attributes of a court of law, including testifying under oath under the threat of the kind of punishment that gets meted out in courts of law.

 

its a mixed jurisdiction 'with prejudice'

https://maritime.lawin.org/mixed-jurisdiction/

 

A cow has many of the attributes of a horse and yet...

 

If either one sits on you, you're going to feel it just the same.

But brilliant analogy, as usual.

 

An almost-legal proceeding isn't a legal proceeding.
Just because they adopted some of the proceedings from trial procedure doesn't give it the validity of a legal court proceeding.
You can't parse the meaning of the word evidence in a legal sense without applying the rules of evidence. Testimony is only evidence if it is admissible under the rules of evidence and since those rules weren't applied to determine admissibility then you can't call it evidence.
In general usage, the word evidence is synonymous with the word proof.

 

So you're done trying with cows and horses?

 

ok, I havnt dug through every law dictionary yet (I probably have more than most attorneys and judges, I collect them) but I dug into the current authorized one (Blacks Law 9th edition) and the most useful one (4th ed.), also Boviers and Balentines.

none so far have the term 'Legal Truth', All of them do however define 'Legal Fiction' this somewhat confirms my suspicion that there is no such thing but I plan to do an exhaustive search on this now.

It is all fiction! every legality is but this is very interesting to me now.

anyway, here a couple of screen shots of some other legal BS 'legal realism' lol

Blacks 9th:



Ballentines:



thanks for this lead Nigel ;-) will share my findings of whether or not there is any Truth of the legal society. I think, not. but I want to verify this.

 

If your child's face is covered in orange stuff and there is an empty Cheetos bag on the floor, is that not evidence that they ate the Cheetos? What does that have to do with a court of law?

Per IYC, this apparently isn't "Legal Evidence" so the legal definitions from Mr. Deep don't count. So what definition should we apply?

 

everything, who lays down the private law @ home ? your temple is your court. perhaps even the mom and dad of the child were at once courting prior to the child?

I volley this thought back over the net and back to you.

 

Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote since that Cheeto dust would be evidence as the word is usually used (my argument exactly), not the word "evidence" as dave and nigel want to use it in which case it can only fulfill the requirement by having the rules of evidence applied to it. Testimony can be evidence but testimony that is deemed inadmissible by a Judge applying the rules of evidence (and there were no Judges involved here) is not evidence.


When do people normally use the word evidence when it is not proving or disproving in nature?
Even in most legal usage, it would refer to something that proves or disproves something, not to mere allegations.








In every case, proof is an inherent part of the definition.
A mere accusation is not evidence of anything.
When people here asked for evidence of Ford's accusations they most certainly were asking for proof of her accusations, not an argument over arcane usage of the word "evidence".

 

In hindsight, I think you would be hard pressed to find a prosecutor that would file charges against Kavenaugh with her accusation/evidence.

 

No, it points out there would never be a court of law proceedings based on the evidence.