Witnesses running the fork should be aware of the risk of a civil suit in the US where the standard of evidence is lower than in criminal court and amounts to "the balance of probability" instead of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You're referring to evidentiary rules, but evidentiary rules have no bearing on matters of law, only on matters of evidence. All the arguments in my post are based on interpretations of law, not on the probability of any fact based on evidence, so there's no advantage to a civil suit versus a criminal suit when disputing those arguments.
I'm referring to the "standard of proof," as outcomes are going to be decided based on the evidence, and the standard of proof in a civil court case, preponderance of the evidence, is lower than a criminal court case, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm fully aware of what you're talking about. You just don't get what I'm saying. Please re-read my last reply. If you still don't get it, it I'll try to rephrase it a different way or add some more explanation. In my previous reply, I was assuming you might have some formal legal training (otherwise, my explanation so far is going to go over your head, because the operation of our legal system can be a strange thing to comprehend, even the parts that make sense).
A standard or burden of proof has two parts, the burden of production, which deals with evidentiary rules, and the burden of persuasion, which in a civil case is the preponderance of the evidence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I assume you have obtained legal counsel, but all witnesses voting on the fork should be aware of the lower burden of persuasion needed to assess financial penalties in US civil courts.
I think most people are already going to understand that when two normal parties disagree in a civil action that neither party is presumed to have an advantage when it comes to persuasion. I guess you're thinking that maybe some people think there should be an additional burden of proof on the side of the person claiming harm, but I don't think most people would anticipate that. Fundamental rules of law like that mostly come from the will of the people, or they would mostly likely have changed over time.
To me, this is something of a non sequitur to the legal analysis of forking I'm making. And the fact that you keep bringing the discussion back to the witnesses specifically as a direct warning, leads me to believe you have an agenda in making this non sequitur.