Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="V. Kurt Bellman, post: 2833438, member: 71723"]Here's the problem - the courts operate under a theory of infallibility. At a forum put on by my state's Board of Probation and Parole, they said taking responsibility for one's criminal act is key to being granted parole. I asked about the truly innocent who are convicted. They said that the Board of P&P HAS TO operate on the theory that what a court has found is CORRECT and FACTUAL, or else anarchy results. Courts are assumed by the legal profession to be correct, and Supreme Courts downright infallible. What courts, and a few other portions of what governments do, such as election administration, are entitled to a "presumption of validity". It's more a statement of policy than irrefutable fact. The "presumption" not ONLY places the burden of proof onto a critic of a judicial or quasi-judicial act, although it certainly does that. It also heightens the STANDARD of proof beyond preponderance to "clear and convincing" proof of the contrary. That's lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt", but WAAAAY higher than preponderance. The validity of ANY additional private claim to ANY 1933 Dub will now require "clear and convincing proof" of an individual's claim. The Mint lawyer, who was ADAMANT about the number in the wild being 3 and not some other number, is that the whereabouts of 1 is known with high confidence, but it is not on U.S. soil.[/QUOTE]