Quote:
Originally Posted by sewhog
There are three parties involved, one event, and two witnesses. Both witnesses telling different stories about the event.
Witness one says it is rigged………..in the white corner [the good guys]
Witness two says it is not rigged……in the red corner [the communists]
The burden of proof is on both witnesses.
Just because the red team aligns itself with the event or poker industry [the crooks] dose not relive it of any of the Burdon of proof.
In murder trial the defendant is not required to take the stand
In a civil trial the defendant is required to take the stand, therefore the poker industry would have to produce more evidence of not rigged, than the rigged team.
There is (at least) one gaping flaw in your argument.
Consider:
There are three parties involved, one event, and two witnesses. Both witnesses telling different stories about the event.
Witness one says sewhog raped a seven year old girl………..in the white corner [the good guys]
Witness two says Sewhog did not rape a seven year old girl……in the red corner [the communists]
The burden of proof is on both witnesses.
Just because the red team aligns itself with the laws of natural justice [the crooks] does not relive it of any of the burden of proof.
In murder trial the defendant is not required to take the stand
In a civil trial the defendant is required to take the stand, therefore, if the child sued, sewhog would have to produce more evidence of not raping the child, than the 'did rape' team.
Your scheme of evidence and justice does not work.
DUCY?