Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Karen Selwyn on 11 Aug 2006 13:16 mrtravel wrote: > > >> In civil matters "proof" is not a criterion. >> > > Really? There is no need for evidence? Hatunen was subtly riffing on Mixi's ignorance of the law. The standard of proof for a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence." That's a different standard than the more-familiar "beyond a resonable doubt" associated with criminal law. Karen Selwyn
From: Hatunen on 11 Aug 2006 13:32 On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:52:50 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hatunen writes: > >> In civil matters "proof" is not a criterion. > >In all matters depriving persons of property or liberty, due process >is a necessary prerequisite, according to the Constitution. In the USA "due process" does pot necessarily require "proof"; in fact there is no proceeding that requires "proof", not even a crimina;l trial, for which the criterion is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil matters it requires only the preponderance of the evidence. Even administrative procedures can fulfill the requirement of due process; so long as you have resort to a hearing and a means of appeal, it is due process. ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen(a)cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
From: Dave Frightens Me on 11 Aug 2006 13:48 On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:52:50 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hatunen writes: > >> In civil matters "proof" is not a criterion. > >In all matters depriving persons of property or liberty, due process >is a necessary prerequisite, according to the Constitution. You snipped all the stuff that showed you to be silly. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: mrtravel on 11 Aug 2006 14:16 Karen Selwyn wrote: > mrtravel wrote: > >> >> >>> In civil matters "proof" is not a criterion. >>> >> >> Really? There is no need for evidence? > > > Hatunen was subtly riffing on Mixi's ignorance of the law. The standard > of proof for a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence." That's a > different standard than the more-familiar "beyond a resonable doubt" > associated with criminal law. Is there no proof associated with "perpderence of evidence"?
From: mrtravel on 11 Aug 2006 14:36
mrtravel wrote: > Karen Selwyn wrote: > >> mrtravel wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> In civil matters "proof" is not a criterion. >>>> >>> >>> Really? There is no need for evidence? >> >> >> >> Hatunen was subtly riffing on Mixi's ignorance of the law. The >> standard of proof for a civil trial is "preponderance of evidence." >> That's a different standard than the more-familiar "beyond a resonable >> doubt" associated with criminal law. > > > Is there no proof associated with "perpderence of evidence"? Yeah, I see the typo :) |