Skip to comments.The burden of proof should favor Trump in election fraud litigation
Posted on 11/28/2020 7:49:36 AM PST by SeekAndFind
On Friday, President Trump tweeted something important. He asserted that Biden must prove that his votes did not result from fraud. People scoffed, but as a practical matter, Trump is correct.
Most people know about the different burdens of proof a plaintiff carries in court. In descending order of intensity, they are "beyond a reasonable doubt," "clear and convincing evidence," and "preponderance of evidence." Practically, speaking, what do those mean?
Imagine that the plaintiff and the defendant are on opposite sides of a tennis court. The plaintiff serves first.
With that first serve, the plaintiff has to get his evidence — his proof about the facts he's alleging — over the net onto the defendant's side of the court. If the case requires only a preponderance of evidence, the evidence just needs to clear the net. If the standard is clear and convincing evidence, it needs to go about halfway onto the defendant's side of the court. And if the plaintiff must prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence must go to the farthest edge of the defendant's side.
If the plaintiff cannot even do the bare minimum to get the evidence over the net, proving his case, the judge can direct that the defendant wins. However, if the plaintiff gets the evidence over the net and it travels the proper distance over that half of the court, it's now the defendant's turn.
The defendant does not have a burden of proof, so he doesn't have to get the evidence to any specific point on the plaintiff's side of the net. He just needs to get it over the net. There are two ways to do this: he can show that the plaintiff's evidence is factually incorrect (lies or mistakes), or he can introduce more compelling counter-evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
In Trump’s and Powell’s lawsuits, there are roughly three types of evidence:
1. Eyewitness evidence that
(1) people voted illegally;
(2) ballots were counted in secret;
(3) ballots were forged, backdated, altered, or repeatedly run through counting machines;
(4) there was no signature verification or the machines were altered to fail; and
(5) campaign-watchers were blocked.
2. Expert witness data analysis showing that the pattern of votes (when and how mail-in ballots arrived, the number of votes relative to registered voters, etc.) are so anomalous that they could not happen naturally but had to have been altered by the fraud described in item 1, above, or by computer data manipulation.
3. Expert witness information about problems with voting machines (their origin, manufacture, vulnerabilities, etc.).
The extra wrinkle in this case is incontestable evidence that paper trails and electronic trails were deliberately destroyed.
To date, some courts (as, for example, this Obama judge) have said Trump has no evidence. In fact, Trump has massive evidence for all three categories — and certainly enough to get the election fraud claims over the net onto Biden’s side.
The real question is about Biden’s return volley. He must prove either that the eyewitnesses, the mathematical experts, and the equipment experts lied or are mistaken, or he must provide a compelling counter-narrative to explain how he got more votes than Obama did in 2008
There is also the evidence presented that show the Pennsylvania mail-in ballots were unconstitutional.
I haven’t heard this asked before.
Why doesn’t the EVIL side have to prove their votes are legal ?
Tough to get absolute proof when Democrats block election observers and the Deep State won’t investigate any crimes against POTUS.
Because burden of proof is on the Plaintiff (civil cases) or the prosecutor (criminal cases). Defendant technically doesn't have to prove anything -- just throw enough doubt out there to plant a seed of doubt about the Plaintiff's or prosecutor's case.
RE: Pennsylvania mail-in ballots were unconstitutional.
OK, if mail-in ballots are unconstitutional, why are ABSENTEE ballots not unconstitutional? (we’ve had these forever).
Because Pennsylvania Constitution allows a class of ballots for absentee voters under stated conditions. It does not allow for a blanket mail-in ballot provision for all voters, which is what the lawsuit alleges makes Act77 unconstitutional.
RE: It does not allow for a blanket mail-in ballot provision for all voters, which is what the lawsuit alleges makes Act77 unconstitutional.
OK, I agree that mass mailing of ballots without checking residency or whether recipients are living or dead is an invitation to mass fraud.
But isn’t this all water under the bridge now? The time for litigating the constitutionality of this should have been MONTHS before the election. You don’t expect a judge to throw out millions of mail-in ballots after the fact...
Quote: “ To date, some courts (as, for example, this Obama judge) have said Trump has no evidence. In fact, Trump has massive evidence for all three categories — and certainly enough to get the election fraud claims over the net onto Biden’s side.”
It’s been real Alice in Wonderland type stuff.
Judge: you have no evidence.
Trump Lawyer: we will present evidence to support our allegations.
Judge: you can’t.
Judge: You have no case.
TL: but you can’t say that unless we present our facts.
Judge: they don’t exist.
TL: how can you tell if you don’t look?
Judge: your case is ridiculous, you are a fool and you have no facts, especially one’s I refuse to even allow you to present.
Before the election, it was an abstract argument, with the only party having standing being the state legislators, who actually signed off on this travesty! Now, there is an aggrieved party (some of those same legislators, who lost their election because of mail-in ballot margins), and who now have standing.
Is it a question of throwing out millions of votes after the fact or it a question oa allowing millions of illegal votes to nullify legal votes. Someone will be disenfranchised either way, so should the judge make a ruling based on law or emotion?
“Is it a question of throwing out millions of votes after the fact or it a question oa allowing millions of illegal votes to nullify legal votes. Someone will be disenfranchised either way, so should the judge make a ruling based on law or emotion?“
Seeing the Antifa/BLM commit murder, arson, and assault without repercussions leading into the election, I’m not entirely convinced we’re a nation of laws anymore. Not to mention Hillary’s classified home server and the yearly election fraud that goes unpunished.
The judge does need to declare the mail-in ballots invalid if they violate the state constitution.
Election Fraud burden of proof....
RE: The judge does need to declare the mail-in ballots invalid if they violate the state constitution.
Well, the state constitution and OUR national constitution tells us that the LEGISLATURE writes election laws.
PA’s election law clearly states that ballots received AFTER 8 PM on Election Day WILL NOT BE COUNTED.
Two problems we’ll have to deal with:
1) The PA State Supreme Court in effect, re-wrote the law to make an exception due to the pandemic. The Supreme Court should decide that this is exercising powers BEYOND what the constitution allows.
2) Even if you could win a case on constitutional grounds, the problem becomes this — HOW DO YOU SEPARATE BALLOTS THAT WERE RECEIVED *AFTER* the legislated deadline from those that were submitted ON TIME? They’re mixed in right now.
Justice Alito gave a directive ordering the separation of ballots that were received AFTER the legislated deadline but this was IGNORED by the PA canvassers. Who’s going to pay the penalty for that?
Also note the Pennsylvania State Constitution, Article VII, Section 14.
If the courts determine (as they should) that Pennsylvania mail-in ballots are unconstitutional (as distinguished from legal absentee ballots), all mail-in ballots can be tossed, regardless of when they were mailed in.
The media is trying to ignore the election fraud issues. So Trump makes a tweet which he knows they can’t resist attacking because of “can’t prove a negative”, but they can’t attack the tweet without quoting it. What is the tweet about? ELECTION FRAUD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.