How a Court Case Works
Note: this writing is a stream of consciousness exploration of the author. This is intended for your entertainment or education only.
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. Parties may outright lie to deceive for their advantage. Facts shown may be cause prejudice, preventing fair reasoning on the matter (such as presenting gory pictures of violence). Facts may be distorted to produce distorted conclusions. Sequence may be misrepresented, producing misleading evidence. Facts may be distorted statistically. False witnesses may be presented. Witnesses may lie under oath. And a 100 other ways that facts can be distorted. In a system based on honor and integrity, both parties would admit to their faults, however the general principles of scarcity economics and scarcity mindsets dictate that each party will be inclined to bias the facts to their favor.
Thus, for best results, the ideal case would be one of both parties admitting to their faults and strenghts. Since the chance of this happening is small, a legal system has purportedly been designed to become very good at distinguishing fact from fiction. That is at least its intent.
While the court strives to provide a forum for justice, every detail of enforcing it is up to the party involved. Evidence does not present itself automatically, ill faith of the opponent must be negotiated, and one is responsible for securing justice actively, not passively. Justice will not be given, one must use a set of tools to extract it.
This
- 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.