On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry about repeating myself, but R101 is all about burden of proof. > If two members disagree on what was agreed to, or if one member claims > agreement and the other isn't present, the judge should judge on the > preponderance of evidence of course, but err on the side of no > agreement having been given. That's all I was trying to say by > bringing up R101 in the first place. -Goethe
A reasonable standard to be sure, but why should it be backed by R101 in particular? This is an application that would protect the judicial system, not the individual. -root
