How a Court Case Works
A court case is a conversation between two parties. Like in regular conversation, you can say things back and forth to negotiate a solution, except there are several differences compared to a regular conversation. Here we examine the difference, the sufficiency evidence, how we may admit it, and how we may block it. This discussion revolves around the case of a hostile, bad faith, egregious, reckless, and dishonorable opponent as evidenced by their performance. This extreme case is taken to underscore methods by which a pro se party can secure justice.
Ideally relevant facts are proferred in an objective way, and an neutral referee selects a judgment. However, this is not the case, with hearsay indicating that a law suit is a 'crap shoot.' This means that an ethical logician may be troubled by the operating principles, which are (once again remining the reader that this is the extreme case of an evil opponent:
- Facts are not proffered. They may be hidden or obfuscated deliberately. Witnesses may be discouraged or prevented from testifying. The opponent may attempt blockage of relevant information.
- The court can hear anything, but it doesn't mean that what you say will be admitted into evidence. Before you admit something into evidence, a basis must be established for the relevance, non-prejudice, hearsay, first hand knowledge, and other factors. Here, one must understand all the Qualities that Allow Evidence To Be Admissible. Otherwise - this evidence will be ignored completely.
- You can say anything, but you are liable for verity, and liable for perjury if under oath.