Skip to main content

View Diary: More on Research 2000 (474 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I imagine the lawyers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Radlein

    are still mulling this ... but where will the suit be filed and what are exact grounds?  What does DK ask for in damages?

    "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

    by TLS66 on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:13:58 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If nothing else (3+ / 0-)

      this case may require "reasonable doubt" to be statistically enumerated.  Is reasonable doubt a 5% confidence interval?

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 10:19:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Knowing only enough about (8+ / 0-)

        law to be dangerous, and from what I picked up watching a certain MN recount:
        "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard in criminal law. Those cases are brought by the District Attorney on behalf of "the people."

        Markos is a private party suing another private party for damages (at the very least a refund of fees paid over the last many months; and a good bit more beyond that you can count on it!). That makes it a CIVIL case, and here the burden of proof on the one bringing the suit (Markos) is "preponderance of the evidence." This is a MUCH easier standard than the criminal one.

        To put it in very crude mathematical terms (and there is no way this could happen; its just an illustration): in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove its side "beyond a reasonable doubt", like 97, or 98 or 99% certain.
        In a civil case the one bringing suit has to prove its side by a "preponderance of the evidence," like 51, 52, 53% is on your side and not the other side.

        (BTW thats why when someone is arrested and charged with crimes AND someone also wants to sue for damages everyone waits for the criminal case to be tried first. If there is a conviction at that standard, then the civil case can be a slam dunk.)



        "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

        by WineRev on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 11:13:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, in fraud cases the standard of proof (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Geotpf, bagman, WineRev

          is higher:  "Clear and convincing evidence."  This is a higher standard than the usual "Preponderance of the Evidence."  Really clear evidence such that it's clear on the face of it that the fraud occurred.  Kos may also sue in contract alleging that he didn't receive what he contracted for.  That can be shown with a 'preponderance of the evidence.'

          Legal stuff.  The above choice in what to sue for allows for tactics and choice in the method and manner of suit.

          "It's too LATE to stop now!" - John Lee Hooker

          by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Jun 29, 2010 at 11:58:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It probably best not to get into the nitty gritty (8+ / 0-)

      details of pending litigation.

      i.e. number one piece of advice from lawyers is usually "shut up."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site