Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (669639)	1/24/2005 4:08:19 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Actually, this is probably a more generally accepted definition of the burden of proof for fraud in a civil case: EVIDENCE, CLEAR AND CONVINCING - The level of proof sometimes required in a civil case for the plaintiff to prevail. It means the trier of fact must be persuaded by the evidence that it is highly probable that the claim or affirmative defense is true. The clear and convincing evidence standard is a heavier burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. In an election context, I'm not sure what the burden would be. I suspect that proving voter fraud of this type differs from trying to prove that a plaintiff was defrauded by a defendant. Alas, I've no time to research the suit to which you refer.