Rule of Law Radio Archive Search Engine

So I think we've got all the factual evidence in the world.

it's not. Fine. If it's not a presumption, on what factual evidence do you base that

and whatever the case it would be nice to have some factual evidence just in

Therefore it was unlawful. However, the moment you show no accident, no property damage, no nothing, no loss of control, so on and so forth, then you have defeated the prima facie evidence with actual factual evidence.

And the factual evidence will supersede the prima facie evidence any day of the week.

presumptions and inferences rather than true and correct factual evidence properly introduced

There's no factual evidence that supports it not being reasonable and prudent. It's just someone's opinion of reasonable and prudent.

There's never factual evidence to make the conviction, never, but they make them every day.

based entirely on presumption of law rather than real, tangible and factual evidence.

Yeah, there is no justiciable issue. The officer is going to testify to an assertion with no factual evidence to support of that assertion.

It has to proceed any type of statement unless that statement goes directly to the discovery of factual evidence and circumstances that prove a crime occurred.

And again, they don't get that. In a DUI case, no blood, no breath, no evidence, no factual evidence consistent with the circumstances proving the guilt of the accused. Isn't there?

But all it takes to refute prima facie evidence is opposing factual evidence.

based upon factual evidence that I am actually committed or participated in the alleged offense

You simply want to know, where is your factual evidence that the signature you claim to be in possession of is mine and was put there by me?

It's up to them to produce whatever factual evidence, whatever form it is, not for you to say and dispute what the evidence is before you even know if it exists.

I absolutely, totally believe, and there is strong factual evidence that the government

What is your factual evidence that I was engaged in commerce?

But the factual evidence that would prove it would be under 351 where it says that you

as I believe that this court will do as it pleases despite the law, the rules of procedure, and the complete lack of factual evidence in this case,

based entirely upon legal presumptions rather than factual evidence proving every element of the alleged offense.

and prior to the presentment of factual evidence,

without presentment of any factual evidence supporting that presumption?

and to convict based upon personal presumptions of law rather than factual evidence.

prior to the introduction of factual evidence,

including the accused, despite no presentation of factual evidence by the prosecution,

If he cannot produce factual evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to each

despite having neither seen nor heard any factual evidence proving

All of those things are confessions and prima facie factual evidence that you are engaged in an activity over which they have regulatory authority

But this court is simply presuming jurisdiction without any factual evidence to support it.

than one inference, logical inference from actual factual evidence and documentation

and everything that you bring to the table is being denied without any rebuttal or factual evidence

goes. What I'm asking you is where did you get the factual evidence to support that it

Okay, does the complaint contain factual evidence of pecuniary loss in excess of $750?

Randy, I have a property tax issue that I'm trying to resolve with a tax collector, and I asked for factual evidence that I owed the tax using the debt validation process and that the state had titled to the land where without that evidence,

how much factual evidence you put in front of these people as to why the courts are going

apply without providing even one iota of factual evidence as to its use.

Well, if you can't back it up with factual evidence

How do you determine that? On what factual evidence are you making the determination that there are more good cops than bad cops?

After all it worked with Acevedo's crew in Houston didn't it. It took a private shooting investigator to prove that the Houston crime lab for its police department was intentionally hiding the factual evidence about who shot who and that raid that killed that man and woman in their home.

So my understanding is that jurisdiction is an essential element of a case that the prosecutor should submit factual evidence for.

Yes, but the way to keep the judge on your side and put the prosecutor on a dime is when you go to arraignment, you ask the judge if the prosecutor has submitted any evidence that the factual evidence that proves the element of jurisdiction.

And then will take no amount of argument or factual evidence that contradicts this information

there's actual factual evidence