great share !thanks @marcstevens for this discovery of clear and undeniable truth on where we are at right now in so many important domains! dark times indeed ! bring the light )
the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to issues of fact, not issues of law. issues of law, in countries that use the english common law system (canada and the US among them), are decided based on stare decisis -- the judge's interpretation of prior court rulings.
That is a common tactic to conflate a practical application of law with a theoretical one, stare decisis and res judicata. Whether a written instrument applies and creates obligations on someone is NOT a theoretical issue of law or interpretation. You're confusing what the law says and means, as opposed to application. Quackery indeed.
great share !thanks @marcstevens for this discovery of clear and undeniable truth on where we are at right now in so many important domains! dark times indeed ! bring the light )
downvoted for quackery.
the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies to issues of fact, not issues of law. issues of law, in countries that use the english common law system (canada and the US among them), are decided based on stare decisis -- the judge's interpretation of prior court rulings.
Its not a bug, its a feature.
That is a common tactic to conflate a practical application of law with a theoretical one, stare decisis and res judicata. Whether a written instrument applies and creates obligations on someone is NOT a theoretical issue of law or interpretation. You're confusing what the law says and means, as opposed to application. Quackery indeed.