Not being "in the loop" on the case, I'll make a comment w/r/t "court of
law" definitions. I think I can add this w/o entanglements since I'm
discussing basic principles here.
I learned the hard way (custody issues w/ my wife's ex-in-laws who had a
penchant for child-snatching 20+ years ago) I had no choice but to learn
about how civil cases work.
In a civil case the plaintiff holds the advntage having gotten the judge's
ear FIRST... and the burden of proof usually lands the defandant(s). Even
in Family Court.
In criminal court my understanding is that the state ties a hand behind
it's back because it already *has* too great an advantage, hence the need
to require proof of guilt.
So, in a civil case, the plaintiff starts out holding the high ground.
Have I muddied the water enough?
--------------------
John R. Campbell, Speaker to Machines (GNUrd) {813-356|697}-5322
Adsumo ergo raptus sum
MacOS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging
Windows.
IBM Certified: IBM AIX 4.3 System Administration, System Support
