🤦🏾♂️I almost don't believe you understand how important and useful your short videos are 🙋🏾♂️ you're efficient and are absolutely appreciated. Thank you & keep'em comin !!
You do a great job of clearly defining "fact". "My Cousin Vinnie", one of the greatest comedies ever!!! Question: If a person files a grievance against someone with a governing body, how does the person secure their right to know the judgement of the governing body?
David Cordani, the CEO of Cigna, made $21 million in total compensation in 2023: Salary: $1.5 million Bonus: $3.3 million Stock options: $3.2 million Stock: $12.7 million Other compensation: $310,437 Cordani's compensation has increased steadily as Cigna has grown over the past several years. He earns 277 times more than the average Cigna employee.
According to "Law", a fact is an unrebutted presumption. That's why it's legal to lie, even commit perjury. Both of them are extremely wrong and punishable; but unfortunately happen, way more often than you'd think. Lives are destroyed over undetectable innuendos in the system; as well as the masked elements of pecuniary greed and/or desperation. --------> "27 CFR 72.11" Immoral people are everywhere, even in the honorary judicial system; camouflaged by their attachés, black robes, and ivory towers. For unto whom much is given, much will be required. There are two sides, to every coin. Don't be a coin. Sincerely, The Gentleman
Thank you for this! TH-cam recommended this twice, before I finally added it to my Watch Later list. I saw it the first time as another page was loading.
Gail K. Boudreaux, the CEO of Elevance Health, formerly known as Anthem, made $21,889,039 in total compensation in 2023. This included: A base salary of $1,600,000 A bonus of $3,648,000 Stock options of $3,950,036 Stock awards of $11,850,043 Other compensation of $840,960 Boudreaux has been the CEO of Elevance Health since 2017. Before that, she was the CEO of UnitedHealthcare
2023, Bruce Broussard, the CEO of Humana, earned a total compensation of $16,327,384: Salary: Nearly $1.5 million Stock awards: Nearly $11 million Option awards: Nearly $3.5 million Other compensation: $465,784, which includes contributions to retirement plans, personal use of the company aircraft, and other benefits
Very well explained. Thank you (having had a few courses in civil procedures, I already did understand, but I do know the concept of "alternative facts" can be confusing, and I definitely want to explore more on this channel!).
Effective conveyance of concept and workings, the fact that our young people aren't being brought up on foundations of these types of understandings/ overviews proves this degree of intellectual awareness is a threat to some and their artifice to defraud, traffic and terrorize. Let the noticing be magnified.
I’m working on the tech. This one was actually shot a couple months ago when I was still really in the early stages. But it nailed the point so I decided to just post it anyway for now.
there's a lot of cases where lawyers mistakenly believe that their way of using a term is unique to their field. "fact" is regularly used to mean the same thing lawyers mean, as in the common phrase "let's stick to the facts". factivity does not imply veracitiy, even in folk talk. I'm not aware of facts being treated with any particular special status any logic, only in metaphysics.
1974-1977 I drove a 1964 "mellow yellow" colored Skylark convertible. And I miss it. V8 with aluminum heads. When I saw the photo of the burn out patches I knew only 3 cars can do that, the 63 Tempest with trans axel, post 63 Covair and Stingray.
Cool 😎, learned some "truth facts" about what levels of the court justice system focuses on. Yet fact, both those models of Pontiacs restored would be great to have, I believe that to be true also! 😅
That is something that drive me crazy. So many words and terms we use everyday have a common public definition. However with the legal system, in the court room or even with the local street level enforcers, those very same words and terms may, and often do, have a very different meanings. Meanings that can and likely will be used against you.
Believe it or not, this is actually an older definition. That’s usually the case with law. The modern use has evolved and we’re still stuck with the old one. In this case I think that the word fact (in the legal sense) may be used in the constitution even, so we’re definitely stuck with it.
I understood that appellate courts dealt with the "facts at hand" or the facts found by the lower court. The role of the jury in determining the "facts of the case" was something I really had not thought about, though after pondering it for a bit, I guess the reason I hadn't thought too much about it was I had always just considered it a given, ~that the jury is the arbiter of the facts of the case~ The penalty good men pay for lack of attention to public affairs is the be led by their lessors. PLATO
It is said while in an Ohio PAC shirt that appeals are only about laws not usually about facts. On that note as to what is true or not, Ohio appellate rule 2 clearly states appeals on questions of law and fact are abolished. It's confusing as to what appellate courts actually allow and actually abolish, be it not law nor fact or be it law and fact. Since law and fact are abolished, the only remainder is preponderance, presumption, feelings, and emotions only having factual jurisdiction in the lower local courts. That's a tough one to have gone through.
Enjoying your channel! Subscribed this week and wish I had this level of clarity in law school, particularly before I dropped out at the moment they tried to explain "Equity" in 3 different ways - Australian law seems undiverged at this level. So I didn't make it to Evidence - is a lay term for the legal definition of "fact" maybe "statement" or "assertion"? I do prefer the shorter words as a rule, particularly when they do a good job. But it does feel like the legal fraternity is knowingly misusing this term to an extent that confuses the lay public, avoidably to an egregious extent. Or, how about: "established fact" and "contended fact", asking the fraternity to always qualify the term, in all contexts until there is no opportunity for confusion?
Established fact or something would probably be closest, but it’s almost always used as part of the phrase “facts of the case” and that’s when you know what they mean. Another way to think of it is, each side’s lawyer presents evidence. Right? Little bits of paper. People’s perspectives. Whatever they have. Then the jury looks at all of that evidence and decides, “ok. Based on all of this evidence, this is the story of what happened…” and that story becomes the facts of this case. Then we can apply those facts to the law for this situation. Does that make it better or worse?
@@brynoDC Oh trust me, that's a beautiful description of how it is in my head already 🥰 but all I wanted to conjecture (conject?) was how to fix the ACTUAL problem of other people misunderstanding an important concept, when out of context. If this were any other industry but the legal one, it would pay more deference to the needs & ways of the common folk. (And it famously does so, spectacularly too, when it's far too late)
Very rarely does the judge act as finder of fact. The judge acts as finder of fact in cases at equity, because there’s too much judicial discretion for a jury to be involved. And in criminal cases if the defendant decides they want the judge to be the finder of fact. Or in civil cases I think the parties can also agree that they want the judge to be the finder of fact.
Ok. A) yes. You’re probably right. And B) it is the PERFECT example for explaining the whole intersection of fact and truth and objective and relative and just so many really abstract concepts that can be tough to get your head around. It’s just a perfect example.
David Cordani, the CEO of Cigna, made $21 million in total compensation in 2023: Salary: $1.5 million Bonus: $3.3 million Stock options: $3.2 million Stock: $12.7 million Other compensation: $310,437  Cordani's compensation has increased steadily as Cigna has grown over the past several years. He earns 277 times more than the average Cigna employee.
So the finder of fact is the absolute arbiter of fact-i-ness? Or is there some precedent for assertions to become factual-ated, such as contradictory assertions of fact nullifying the potential of an assertion attaining fact-i-ness.
Can’t tell if you’re really asking or just saw the movie wicked. But there are very limited situations where a finder of fact will be overruled. In most of even those few situations, a higher court will send the case back down to the lower court to re-find the facts with a new jury, rather than find new facts themselves. That would be if the lower court judge made a mistake of law in his or her instructions to that first jury, for example.
Generally, the policy, or philosophy of the whole thing is that no human beings are better at sniffing out BS than any others. Being a judge doesn’t make you better at reading people. So a jury, chosen from the population at somewhat random, is as qualified to say “I believed this witness, that witness was lying, those two things couldn’t have happened at the same time” as anyone else, so we hold their decision kind of sacred.
I would say that if you wanted a really honest answer to that question, the two are just unrelated. What did the witness see? What is the truth? She saw a car pull in, she saw a car pull out, she turned her head for 2 minutes, 3 minutes, the exact perfect 12 seconds for the cars to switch spots? HER truth is that those boys robbed the store. But it’s not actually what happened. There are situations in this world where the actual 100% god’s honest true truthy mctruth truth is just not ascertainable.
But we need a storyline, a narrative to apply the law to in a court case. A set of actions or occurrences, a set of little relevant details. Then we can say yes, based on that set of facts the person broke this law or didn’t. If that narrative is wobbly and unclear then we can’t really apply the law to it. So we give the jury all of the evidence we have, objective truths from people who were there or whatever we have (see rules of evidence). Not to mention neither side is going to bring a witness to the stand who doesn’t serve what they want the story to be. And then the jury combs through that evidence and pieces together its best attempt at what really happened. Those are our “facts. So it’s 12 people’s collective interpretation of of the individual “truths” of the witnesses that were hand selected to tell their stories and which we know aren’t necessarily the actual whole truth, even if they want to tell the truth, because they saw it from where they were standing.
@@brynoDC all you've succeeded in doing with me is I now believe the courts are useless... vigilant will just be the word from now on regarding "The Truth" and a "Fact"....In the legal system there is none of either one...
What I’m getting at, is that it’s better to think of a fact as something different. If you try to compare it to truth, your brain starts to melt. When you’re learning law, someone will give you a set of facts and they’re already set. When you want to study the art of presenting evidence to a jury, you learn that separately.
If you're going to bring up FACTS in the movie you have to go over the dripping faucet. As I see it a fact is a bit of historical information that is assumed to be true and accurate based on physical evidence and witness testimony until it can be disproven. The only thing that beats science is better science.
I'm confused i thought courts of appeal can review and decide that the lower court errored on what they decided was fact. like defendant was regularly late when time sheets showed the contrary . Saying that relying on testimony instead of time sheets was error as one piece of evidence was more reliable than hearsay.
Nothing in law is 100%, so I’ll say that first. There are going to be exceptions to every rule so I try (unsuccessfully) to avoid saying words like “always,” because that’s wrong (bad Bryan). What you’re describing there, though, sounds more like a question of law. If the judge was involved in the decision to rely on testimony instead of time sheets, that’s probably a law question that IS appealable. If the jury just decided they trust the testimony and not the time sheets, that’s up to them and probably PROBABLY can’t be appealed. The rules of evidence determine whether to allow the testimony or time sheets in and that’s a legal question for the judge.
@@brynoDC i watched because I understand concepts like unrebutted affidavits as fact but was hoping to understand better. I have an administrative appeal for sick leave where investigators and the attorney generals office grossly mispresented facts to the court lost critical evidence misrepresented that other wage theft wasn't within labor and industries ability to investigate. I'm not looking for legal advice just feel your video inadequate explanation. Maybe your talking points are to large and need better examples. I helped my wife on an appeal and won based on in a revision hearing the judge refused to properly go through the evidence. maybe define parameters because I want to understand better.
a fact is an observation of or by a or any number of observing witnesses,fact is neither"true' or "false" , neither "truth" nor "lies" merely extraneous observatory factual extrapelations of any event.quen bono,who benefits? principle, pattern, protocol, eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth in flagranti delictio! 🙋🏾♂salve' frater meos!bene tibi frater!!
How does this legal definition hold true for strict liability offence charges? Like a speeding ticket for example? Is it just the assumption of guilt which is implied, or is it also the statement of facts which is taken to be considered as proven? (not withstanding a successful defence which raises the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact. And there's another widely used but subjective and ambiguous legal term which is poorly understood / explained, REASONABLE....)
fact - something that is proven to be true OR known to be true. fact is not necessarily true by definition. this means that a fact requires proof in order to validate it as true. any defense should be able to bury any case that relies on fact to convict. if there was no tire tread left behind, there still would have to be consolidating proof that the first car was involved in a robbery. if driver and passenger deny involvement then the conformational proof is still required. if someone is convicted on the basis of fact then some ones defense needs a good slap.
Honestly, I bought that when I was buying books for my first semester of law school and I never opened it. It’s a dictionary. It has no more legal weight than Websters.
Most specific definitions in the law will be set within the document. So you’ll find the word defined elsewhere in the law or case. And it only applies for that one case. There aren’t a lot of definitions that apply across the entire law.
I think it’s the perfect example of how one person can absolutely tell the truth, but have it not BE the truth (subjective v objective). And it demonstrates the difference between evidence, facts of a case, and “truth” really well. AND it’s something that a lot of people have seen, so it’s relatable and fun. Plus it’s really visual.
The average layperson doesn't understand what a legal "fact" is because the word is used very loosely in everyday conversation. The majority of our normal communications involves hearsay, opinion and assumption. Facts are especially important in criminal law, because facts are the minimum standard of evidence the police can rely on to use force, detain, demand ID, etc. RAS, probable cause, etc.
It’s a tough concept to explain. I didn’t realize how tough until I tried explaining it in a video. The arguments I had with people on TikTok over that one. Omg. People did not like that.
According to "Law", a fact is an unrebutted presumption. That's why it's legal to lie, even commit perjury. Both of them are extremely wrong and punishable; but unfortunately happen, way more often than you'd think. Lives are destroyed over undetectable innuendos in the system; as well as the masked elements of pecuniary greed and/or desperation. --------> "27 CFR 72.11" Immoral people are everywhere, even in the honorary judicial system; camouflaged by their attachés, black robes, and ivory towers. For unto whom much is given, much will be required. There are two sides, to every coin. Don't be a coin. Sincerely, The Gentleman
🤦🏾♂️I almost don't believe you understand how important and useful your short videos are 🙋🏾♂️ you're efficient and are absolutely appreciated. Thank you & keep'em comin !!
Thank you so much!! :-) I really appreciate it.
Truth
Jesus H, your content is gold. Well done, and thank you.
You do a great job of clearly defining "fact". "My Cousin Vinnie", one of the greatest comedies ever!!!
Question: If a person files a grievance against someone with a governing body, how does the person secure their right to know the judgement of the governing body?
Depends on the governing body. You talking about the Bar or the judicial review board?
@@MostLawyersAndJudgesRLawless
State medical board, board of regents, DHHS...
@@MostLawyersAndJudgesRLawless I broke down and asked chat gpt...
My Cousin Vinny. Classic lol. I’d love for you to do more law lessons based on movies.
Yes! I concur!
Let me see what I can think of.
@@brynoDC Is there something useful in Jack Nicolson's scene: "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"?
David Cordani, the CEO of Cigna, made $21 million in total compensation in 2023:
Salary: $1.5 million
Bonus: $3.3 million
Stock options: $3.2 million
Stock: $12.7 million
Other compensation: $310,437
Cordani's compensation has increased steadily as Cigna has grown over the past several years. He earns 277 times more than the average Cigna employee.
“The two yoots…😂” Great job on this- 🔄👍I got my head wrapped around it.
According to "Law",
a fact is an unrebutted presumption.
That's why it's legal to lie, even commit perjury.
Both of them are extremely wrong and punishable;
but unfortunately happen, way more often than you'd think.
Lives are destroyed over undetectable innuendos in the system;
as well as the masked elements of pecuniary greed and/or desperation. --------> "27 CFR 72.11"
Immoral people are everywhere, even in the honorary judicial system;
camouflaged by their attachés, black robes, and ivory towers.
For unto whom much is given, much will be required.
There are two sides, to every coin.
Don't be a coin.
Sincerely, The Gentleman
Thank you for this!
TH-cam recommended this twice, before I finally added it to my Watch Later list. I saw it the first time as another page was loading.
I’ll get the rest up soon. Just need to finish the edit.
@@brynoDC Don't rush, though.
Many laws have become deceptive writings.
All
I'm glad you are doing this .. very much needed .. and you are filling a need really well.
Gail K. Boudreaux, the CEO of Elevance Health, formerly known as Anthem, made $21,889,039 in total compensation in 2023. This included:
A base salary of $1,600,000
A bonus of $3,648,000
Stock options of $3,950,036
Stock awards of $11,850,043
Other compensation of $840,960
Boudreaux has been the CEO of Elevance Health since 2017. Before that, she was the CEO of UnitedHealthcare
Thank you for your excellent presentation. ❤
2023, Bruce Broussard, the CEO of Humana, earned a total compensation of $16,327,384:
Salary: Nearly $1.5 million
Stock awards: Nearly $11 million
Option awards: Nearly $3.5 million
Other compensation: $465,784, which includes contributions to retirement plans, personal use of the company aircraft, and other benefits
You are a blessing to the public
Thank you so much!!
Very well explained. Thank you (having had a few courses in civil procedures, I already did understand, but I do know the concept of "alternative facts" can be confusing, and I definitely want to explore more on this channel!).
Effective conveyance of concept and workings, the fact that our young people aren't being brought up on foundations of these types of understandings/ overviews proves this degree of intellectual awareness is a threat to some and their artifice to defraud, traffic and terrorize. Let the noticing be magnified.
Andrew Witty, the current CEO of UnitedHealth Group, made $25 million in 2023. He was the highest-paid US health insurer CEO in 2023.
An interesting and informative video.. Tech notes: audio is considerably lower in volume than most other videos on the platform.
I’m working on the tech. This one was actually shot a couple months ago when I was still really in the early stages. But it nailed the point so I decided to just post it anyway for now.
@brynoDC Right on. Keep it up!
@@brynoDC*Who (NOT a What) has been Damaged?* 😮
there's a lot of cases where lawyers mistakenly believe that their way of using a term is unique to their field. "fact" is regularly used to mean the same thing lawyers mean, as in the common phrase "let's stick to the facts". factivity does not imply veracitiy, even in folk talk. I'm not aware of facts being treated with any particular special status any logic, only in metaphysics.
1974-1977 I drove a 1964 "mellow yellow" colored Skylark convertible. And I miss it. V8 with aluminum heads. When I saw the photo of the burn out patches I knew only 3 cars can do that, the 63 Tempest with trans axel, post 63 Covair and Stingray.
Exceptional description!
Dictionary
FACT: Reference BrynoDC TH-cam video
Can you do a video on "on or about" dates
Very few facts in family courts.
Perfectly clear.
Thank you! :-)
Cool 😎, learned some "truth facts" about what levels of the court justice system focuses on. Yet fact, both those models of Pontiacs restored would be great to have, I believe that to be true also! 😅
Oh yeah. If I didn’t already have a couple of moody project cars, I’d definitely add one of those.
De Facto vs De Jure?
That is something that drive me crazy. So many words and terms we use everyday have a common public definition. However with the legal system, in the court room or even with the local street level enforcers, those very same words and terms may, and often do, have a very different meanings.
Meanings that can and likely will be used against you.
Believe it or not, this is actually an older definition. That’s usually the case with law. The modern use has evolved and we’re still stuck with the old one. In this case I think that the word fact (in the legal sense) may be used in the constitution even, so we’re definitely stuck with it.
Positraction 😂
🤣 yesss 👏
Ooh talk dirty to me
I understood that appellate courts dealt with the "facts at hand" or the facts found by the lower court. The role of the jury in determining the "facts of the case" was something I really had not thought about, though after pondering it for a bit, I guess the reason I hadn't thought too much about it was I had always just considered it a given, ~that the jury is the arbiter of the facts of the case~
The penalty good men pay for lack of attention to public affairs is the be led by their lessors.
PLATO
It is said while in an Ohio PAC shirt that appeals are only about laws not usually about facts. On that note as to what is true or not, Ohio appellate rule 2 clearly states appeals on questions of law and fact are abolished. It's confusing as to what appellate courts actually allow and actually abolish, be it not law nor fact or be it law and fact. Since law and fact are abolished, the only remainder is preponderance, presumption, feelings, and emotions only having factual jurisdiction in the lower local courts. That's a tough one to have gone through.
Enjoying your channel! Subscribed this week and wish I had this level of clarity in law school, particularly before I dropped out at the moment they tried to explain "Equity" in 3 different ways - Australian law seems undiverged at this level. So I didn't make it to Evidence - is a lay term for the legal definition of "fact" maybe "statement" or "assertion"? I do prefer the shorter words as a rule, particularly when they do a good job. But it does feel like the legal fraternity is knowingly misusing this term to an extent that confuses the lay public, avoidably to an egregious extent. Or, how about: "established fact" and "contended fact", asking the fraternity to always qualify the term, in all contexts until there is no opportunity for confusion?
Established fact or something would probably be closest, but it’s almost always used as part of the phrase “facts of the case” and that’s when you know what they mean. Another way to think of it is, each side’s lawyer presents evidence. Right? Little bits of paper. People’s perspectives. Whatever they have. Then the jury looks at all of that evidence and decides, “ok. Based on all of this evidence, this is the story of what happened…” and that story becomes the facts of this case. Then we can apply those facts to the law for this situation. Does that make it better or worse?
@@brynoDC Oh trust me, that's a beautiful description of how it is in my head already 🥰 but all I wanted to conjecture (conject?) was how to fix the ACTUAL problem of other people misunderstanding an important concept, when out of context. If this were any other industry but the legal one, it would pay more deference to the needs & ways of the common folk. (And it famously does so, spectacularly too, when it's far too late)
Thought the title said "legal definition of the word fat" and there was your picture... absolutely fitting, factually correct.
What’d you call me? (Kidding. :-)
@brynoDC I applaud you for being able to take a joke, most can't. I really enjoyed the video. Keep up the good work!
That was clear.
Now I Wana see u start parse syntax.
How about when can I meet the claimant/accuser ? The one with first hand knowledge of the facts? lol great vid thanks
*Who (NOT a What) has been Damaged?* 😮
This shit is EXACTLY why everyone hates lawyers.
We know this all goes over your head.
Love it.
nice thank you! How many meanings for FAIR for example my client was denied a Fair Trial
The jury is the fact finder. A judge is a fact keeper. For a judge to act as fact finder and fact keeper is a conflict of interest.
Very rarely does the judge act as finder of fact. The judge acts as finder of fact in cases at equity, because there’s too much judicial discretion for a jury to be involved. And in criminal cases if the defendant decides they want the judge to be the finder of fact. Or in civil cases I think the parties can also agree that they want the judge to be the finder of fact.
Too bad small sundown towns own the narrative desired and enforce all too
Often false ‘facts’ and ‘conclusions’.
The sound is too low. I had to increase my volume to hear you. It got better once you got closer to the mic.
I've never even heard of a lawyer that didn't love My Cousin Vinny. I think its a requirement to pass the bar.
Ok. A) yes. You’re probably right. And B) it is the PERFECT example for explaining the whole intersection of fact and truth and objective and relative and just so many really abstract concepts that can be tough to get your head around. It’s just a perfect example.
David Cordani, the CEO of Cigna, made $21 million in total compensation in 2023:
Salary: $1.5 million
Bonus: $3.3 million
Stock options: $3.2 million
Stock: $12.7 million
Other compensation: $310,437

Cordani's compensation has increased steadily as Cigna has grown over the past several years. He earns 277 times more than the average Cigna employee.
Cleanse earth of the IEGAI system.
What is iegai?
So the finder of fact is the absolute arbiter of fact-i-ness? Or is there some precedent for assertions to become factual-ated, such as contradictory assertions of fact nullifying the potential of an assertion attaining fact-i-ness.
Can’t tell if you’re really asking or just saw the movie wicked. But there are very limited situations where a finder of fact will be overruled. In most of even those few situations, a higher court will send the case back down to the lower court to re-find the facts with a new jury, rather than find new facts themselves. That would be if the lower court judge made a mistake of law in his or her instructions to that first jury, for example.
Generally, the policy, or philosophy of the whole thing is that no human beings are better at sniffing out BS than any others. Being a judge doesn’t make you better at reading people. So a jury, chosen from the population at somewhat random, is as qualified to say “I believed this witness, that witness was lying, those two things couldn’t have happened at the same time” as anyone else, so we hold their decision kind of sacred.
@ I will interpret your responses as expressing that fact is wholly determined by the finder of fact.
So...Basically a FACT is an INTERPRETATION of the TRUTH then? I REALLY would love your take on the question brother...
I would say that if you wanted a really honest answer to that question, the two are just unrelated. What did the witness see? What is the truth? She saw a car pull in, she saw a car pull out, she turned her head for 2 minutes, 3 minutes, the exact perfect 12 seconds for the cars to switch spots? HER truth is that those boys robbed the store. But it’s not actually what happened. There are situations in this world where the actual 100% god’s honest true truthy mctruth truth is just not ascertainable.
But we need a storyline, a narrative to apply the law to in a court case. A set of actions or occurrences, a set of little relevant details. Then we can say yes, based on that set of facts the person broke this law or didn’t. If that narrative is wobbly and unclear then we can’t really apply the law to it. So we give the jury all of the evidence we have, objective truths from people who were there or whatever we have (see rules of evidence). Not to mention neither side is going to bring a witness to the stand who doesn’t serve what they want the story to be. And then the jury combs through that evidence and pieces together its best attempt at what really happened. Those are our “facts. So it’s 12 people’s collective interpretation of of the individual “truths” of the witnesses that were hand selected to tell their stories and which we know aren’t necessarily the actual whole truth, even if they want to tell the truth, because they saw it from where they were standing.
@@brynoDC all you've succeeded in doing with me is I now believe the courts are useless... vigilant will just be the word from now on regarding "The Truth" and a "Fact"....In the legal system there is none of either one...
What I’m getting at, is that it’s better to think of a fact as something different. If you try to compare it to truth, your brain starts to melt. When you’re learning law, someone will give you a set of facts and they’re already set. When you want to study the art of presenting evidence to a jury, you learn that separately.
Let me know if that actually made sense. I wrote it while walking down the street so i apologize if i skipped a step anywhere.
If you're going to bring up FACTS in the movie you have to go over the dripping faucet. As I see it a fact is a bit of historical information that is assumed to be true and accurate based on physical evidence and witness testimony until it can be disproven. The only thing that beats science is better science.
I'm confused i thought courts of appeal can review and decide that the lower court errored on what they decided was fact. like defendant was regularly late when time sheets showed the contrary . Saying that relying on testimony instead of time sheets was error as one piece of evidence was more reliable than hearsay.
Nothing in law is 100%, so I’ll say that first. There are going to be exceptions to every rule so I try (unsuccessfully) to avoid saying words like “always,” because that’s wrong (bad Bryan). What you’re describing there, though, sounds more like a question of law. If the judge was involved in the decision to rely on testimony instead of time sheets, that’s probably a law question that IS appealable. If the jury just decided they trust the testimony and not the time sheets, that’s up to them and probably PROBABLY can’t be appealed. The rules of evidence determine whether to allow the testimony or time sheets in and that’s a legal question for the judge.
@@brynoDC i was referring to a judicial decision not jury and civil maybe a longer video is necessary.
@@brynoDC i watched because I understand concepts like unrebutted affidavits as fact but was hoping to understand better. I have an administrative appeal for sick leave where investigators and the attorney generals office grossly mispresented facts to the court lost critical evidence misrepresented that other wage theft wasn't within labor and industries ability to investigate. I'm not looking for legal advice just feel your video inadequate explanation. Maybe your talking points are to large and need better examples. I helped my wife on an appeal and won based on in a revision hearing the judge refused to properly go through the evidence. maybe define parameters because I want to understand better.
a fact is an observation of or by a or any number of observing witnesses,fact is neither"true' or "false" , neither "truth" nor "lies" merely extraneous observatory factual extrapelations of any event.quen bono,who benefits? principle, pattern, protocol, eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth in flagranti delictio! 🙋🏾♂salve' frater meos!bene tibi frater!!
How does this legal definition hold true for strict liability offence charges? Like a speeding ticket for example? Is it just the assumption of guilt which is implied, or is it also the statement of facts which is taken to be considered as proven? (not withstanding a successful defence which raises the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact. And there's another widely used but subjective and ambiguous legal term which is poorly understood / explained, REASONABLE....)
Ooooh. Ok. I have an answer. Let me think it through and make sure I get it right. I’ll come back.
fact - something that is proven to be true OR known to be true. fact is not necessarily true by definition. this means that a fact requires proof in order to validate it as true. any defense should be able to bury any case that relies on fact to convict. if there was no tire tread left behind, there still would have to be consolidating proof that the first car was involved in a robbery. if driver and passenger deny involvement then the conformational proof is still required. if someone is convicted on the basis of fact then some ones defense needs a good slap.
In law, a fact is whatever the finder of fact determines to be a fact.
@@brynoDC you have not actually told me that i am wrong.
Great, now do it for all of blacks law
Honestly, I bought that when I was buying books for my first semester of law school and I never opened it. It’s a dictionary. It has no more legal weight than Websters.
Most specific definitions in the law will be set within the document. So you’ll find the word defined elsewhere in the law or case. And it only applies for that one case. There aren’t a lot of definitions that apply across the entire law.
Of means without.
USofA
US without America
That is… so incorrect.
The word “of” takes up 7 pages of the Oxford English Dictionary. I don’t know where to start explain the many many MANY ways that you are incorrect.
Leave it to law to complicate a simple word with a clear definition. .
Actually you have that backwards. We’re still using the original definition. It’s come to mean something else more recently.
It's like how deer meant wild animals and most fruits were technically apples. Also most alcoholic fruit drinks were wine.
Here's a few more that need attention in defining
Light
Field
Wave
Quantum
Gravity
Correct observation of these but wrong conclusions
BTW... Why use the cars from My Cousin Vinny? 😂
I think it’s the perfect example of how one person can absolutely tell the truth, but have it not BE the truth (subjective v objective). And it demonstrates the difference between evidence, facts of a case, and “truth” really well. AND it’s something that a lot of people have seen, so it’s relatable and fun. Plus it’s really visual.
Just looked up the legal meaning and it the truth of an event... So she did not see ALL the event thereby it is not truth so not a fact.
Ya know. You can argue with me, or you can learn. I think you’ll find the latter more useful.
😀
Got it
Volume is a little low in the recording. At least at first.
The average layperson doesn't understand what a legal "fact" is because the word is used very loosely in everyday conversation. The majority of our normal communications involves hearsay, opinion and assumption. Facts are especially important in criminal law, because facts are the minimum standard of evidence the police can rely on to use force, detain, demand ID, etc. RAS, probable cause, etc.
It’s a tough concept to explain. I didn’t realize how tough until I tried explaining it in a video. The arguments I had with people on TikTok over that one. Omg. People did not like that.
According to "Law",
a fact is an unrebutted presumption.
That's why it's legal to lie, even commit perjury.
Both of them are extremely wrong and punishable;
but unfortunately happen, way more often than you'd think.
Lives are destroyed over undetectable innuendos in the system;
as well as the masked elements of pecuniary greed and/or desperation. --------> "27 CFR 72.11"
Immoral people are everywhere, even in the honorary judicial system;
camouflaged by their attachés, black robes, and ivory towers.
For unto whom much is given, much will be required.
There are two sides, to every coin.
Don't be a coin.
Sincerely, The Gentleman