– Re: JUDGE BERMAN, the PYSCHOLOGIST on ARROGANCE, FEDERAL ELECTION GUIDELLINE...
In Reply To
source - nolo.com
At an administrative hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) reviews the decision of a government agency, such as the DMV or an unemployment agency. A citizen affected by the decision brings a challenge, and the ALJ reviews the decision. Appellate judges who in turn review administrative judges’ decisions often use the "substantial evidence" standard. This standard falls between probable cause and preponderance of the evidence, and requires more than a “mere scintilla of evidence.” Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” (Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971).)
Preponderance of the Evidence
The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard is the default for most civil lawsuits. In these cases a plaintiff is typically suing a defendant for lost money because of acts like breaking a contract or causing a car accident (the money loss might be due to vehicle damage and medical bills, for example). Preponderance of the evidence is met if the trier of fact (judge or jury) believes the evidence shows the defendant is more likely than not—more than 50% likely to be—responsible.
Clear and Convincing Evidence
The clear-and-convincing-evidence standard goes by descriptions such as “clear, cogent, unequivocal, satisfactory, convincing” evidence. Generally, this standard is reserved for civil lawsuits where something more than money is at stake, such as civil liberties. Examples include:
dependency cases (loss of parental rights)
probate of wills, and
(Conservatorship of Wendland, 26 Cal. 4th 519 (2001); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).)
“Clear and convincing” means the evidence is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue; the trier of fact must have an abiding conviction that the truth of the factual contention is highly probable. (Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984).
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
”Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest legal standard. This is the standard the U.S. Constitution requires the government to meet in order to prove a defendant guilty of a crime. (In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970).)
Courts over the years have debated the extent to which the government has to prove its case to meet this high standard. But it’s clear that, according to the standard, it’s not enough for the trier of fact to simply believe the defendant is guilty. Rather, the evidence must be so convincing that no reasonable person would ever question the defendant’s guilt. The standard requires that the evidence offer no logical explanation or conclusion other than that the defendant committed the crime. Courts sometimes describe this level of confidence in a verdict as a moral certainty.
Brady calls signals and handles the balls in practices or games as the League's best QB. He does not inflate, deflate or maintain them either before or during any game in the NFL. The ref's & the ball boys are charged with these tasks - period. Either way the Colts, the ref's, the NFL (the League) or the courts slice & dice this one the fact remains that whether over inflated or under inflated, no matter the condition of the ball - once in Brady's hands for the Colts game, all bets were off and he scored more points in the second half than he did in the first half; when he was falsely accused of a scheme to under-inflate the game balls to gain some invidious advantage.
Brady's experience and skill set as the best NFL QB overcomes the false allegations and the phony legal hurdles put forth by NFL Commissioner Pete Godell or the sore sports on the Colts who got their butts kicked regardless of the P.S.I. range of the balls. The clear & convincing evidence in this case is that Brady didn't have anything to do with this alleged scheme.
The legal hurdles are farcical at best and easily surmountable as noted above. Brady just hired a top gun Supreme Court lawyer who has appeared 62-times; winning 75% of the cases he presents tot he U.S. Supreme Court.
To date, Godell & the NFL have wasted $20 Million dollars in their bogus journey to put a cloud on Brady's legacy due primarily to every other teams jealousy that they, verses the Patriots failed to draft him as a first pick etc. The 2-1 ruling by the 2nd Cir. Ct. of Appeals will be over-turned - whether en banc or should it proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Brady should opt for the latter over the former given the idiotic semantics & ruling by two judges who misconstrue labor law 101; notwithstanding their inherent bias & the plethora of outs they left themselves from their rather emotional verses soundly logical legal opinion which is factually and legally wrong.
This case should be a no brainer for Olsen given the fact that these two judges devised one legal standard under the rules of evidence for the NFL & Godell while holding Brady and his legal team to a much higher standard; thus, the bias is established there as was the outcome of the case and their abuse of discretion. This one must be vacated and tossed in the trash can where it belongs.
I posted the dissents argument because I agree with Judge Berman & the dissent on this case. Further genius, it's applicability to labor relations and our CBA's being far beyond your grasp, you resort only to the typical UBC bullying tactics. Your critical thinking abilities leaves you limited to writing crap on the bathroom/shitter walls, so stay there where you belong.