> Matthew wrote: > So if I believe the both of you (Sam and Dana), either > > 1) The judge who was there heard all of the evidence that he deemed > necessary and made a decision based on that. > > 2) The evidence was not submitted by the Schindlers. >
The judge has the responsibility to make a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence. Just because someone submits evidence doesn't mean a judge has to believe it. She may decide the witness or evidence isn't credible - that's not "activist" that judging! For example, yesterday on Judge Judy the plantiff's witness submitted "evidence" to prove the case. Judge Judy said, "Sit down" and then proceeded as if the evidence hadn't been submitted. It seems that some would call Judge Judy "activist" because when they read the transcript they see dismissed evidence. The viewers, however, know that JJ made the right call because the witness was clearly lying. The point is, the judge's job is to decide if evidence is credible. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Dreamweaver with Homesite Plus from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=54 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:153100 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
