It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is "PROOF"?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 10:50 PM
link   
In the thread posted by MorningStar8741 here's the link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I was told by the OP and others that my evidence was not proof.

What is PROOF?

There are many definitions.

what does it take to prove something in a legal matter?

Evidence.

What is EVIDENCE? the definition applicable in this case is:

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Evidence \Ev"i*dence\, n. [F. ['e]vidence, L. Evidentia. See
Evident.]
1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which
furnishes, or tends to furnish, proof; any mode of proof;
the ground of belief or judgement; as, the evidence of our
senses; evidence of the truth or falsehood of a statement.
[1913 Webster]

from source:
www.dict.org...

If evidence, (paraphrasing) - is furnishing any mode of proof,

I maintain that if I submit evidence in court, and the evidence being a document,



and within the document is written "Common Sense" and those two words are the entire text inclusive to same, and it is labeled
"exibit #1",
Unless objected to, or rebutted properly per rules and procedure, and there is no other evidence submitted contrary to or in support of the document,
Then, the decision of the court must only include that which is submitted into evidence.

Therefore, any ruling other than that which is made by the evidence submitted to the court would be deemed improper.

So, whether or not the evidential proof is outstanding or complete rubbish, it is the only factor allowed to be used when considering a ruling on the matter at hand. (at least that has been my experiences).

Now calling evidence of proof non-proof doesn't change the fact that it is the only proof whether absolute or of lessor value.

an example would be to dispute that you were entitled to 30% of a bulk purchase and the purchase was 300 units, yet you counted only 30 units when you received the percentage, but the contract stated you were entitled to 30% of the units purchased. How could you be awarded 60 additional units when the total number of units was not written within the contract? there would be no basis for mathematically proving the number that equals 30%.

So to say that the evidence is not proof, is just like saying a melted popsicle soaked up by a carpet is not a stain.

Proof is not proof and comon sense is not proof. But either, submitted into evidence unchallenged is both.




new topics
 
0

log in

join