What is the burden of proof and where does it lie? To win in court you must understand what the burden of proof is, who has the burden of proof, and why it matters!
To keep it simplistic, the burden of proof is the obligation to prove with admissible evidence a claim that is made. If you’re being sued, then the other side has filed a claim and thus has the burden of proof regarding any and all statements they have made against you. Should you be the claimant and are suing another party then the burden of proof rests with you.
SHOW ME HOW TO WIN
Filing of motions also affects the burden. If the other side files a motion, they have the burden of proof. Because of this sometimes the burden shifts back-and-forth. Knowing who has the burden is critical at all times.
Don’t be victimized by lawyers tricking you into thinking the burden is yours, making you struggle to “disprove” a fact or the application of law when the burden is not on you! First, you can never prove a negative and second when lawyers do that it’s because they have to proof themselves and they are trying to dodge their responsibility.
The burden is always on the party asserting a fact or law to prove what he asserts. It’s never your job to disprove what he asserts! I’ve won many cases simply by forcing the court to require the prosecutor to “put up or shut up”.
Think how this can be applied to foreclosure or credit card “loans”! A credit lender asserts his alleged debtor owes, and far too often the alleged debtor spins his wheels trying prove he doesn’t owe: instead of forcing the creditor to prove what he claims or that the matter be dismissed. Knowing how to shift the burden is power to win!
Why be tricked by prosecutors or other legal “professionals”?
Click HERE to check out the number one legal school online and become a member here to find other like minded people who can assist you in winning your legal battles.
Rob
Love it. This is such a simple concept when you break it down like that, and interesting to think about using in court. When the defendant is sitting there being accused of something it’s natural that in the moment they might feel the need to “defend” themselves by trying to prove the negative, how they “didn’t” do it. All they really have to do is put the burden of proof back on the person making the claim in the first place.
Applies to real life so much, and I especially love using this when talking to religious people about their beliefs. In my experience Christians are constantly using the fact that you can’t prove there is “NOT” a god, and therefore their claims can’t be invalidated (thinking they somehow win with that ridiculous argument). But that’s just not the point! They can’t prove that there IS a god, and they are in fact the ones with the burden of proof because they are the ones making that claim.
Keep up the good work spreading the “word” 😉
Angie