Evidence: Truth vs. Fact the Probative Value





Reason
Intuition
Senses
  Fact
K

Exactness
K

Precission
k
Belief
Truth


Evidence
Expert Advice
When the preponderance of the evidence as "elements" 1, or fact, the prerogative of the person as
natural in debate or plaintiff De Jure when reasoned thus has such burden (L. Onus Probandi) to
produce. Which if a secondary fact is put forth to a "test of knowledge" with the "tier of fact" as
reasoned the challenge of relevance to the rational character of the party proposing such debate or
burden to courts may be jeopardized by the argument for fact as knowledge (L. De Minimus) if an only if
not proven to the test.
The most evident of which both parties in the event of question is the mutual voluntary admission that
such facts are relevant to exist.2 The question of any fact which the reasoned evidence by
preponderance that the truth and or belief then expert advice is most likely the grounds of mutual
consent . The purpose of this understanding which W.A. Wilson has much proposed by legal letters
explains by "matters of logical necessity":
The distinction between questions of fact and questions of law is of some practical importance
but, although it has been discussed frequently in America...The object...to analyze the problems
involved in making the distinction in so far as these arise in the application of statutes.
Where a statute is invoked, the court is being asked (a) to find that the certain state of affairs
exists with respect to a particular person or thing, and (b) to ordain that the certain legal consequence
must follow in respect of that particular person or thing...3
1
Emanuel, L.S. Evidence 3rd Ed., The Crunch Time Series. Aspen Pub. Wolters Kluwer: New York, 2007 pg 127
West Group. Black's Law Dictionary 7th Ed. West Group St. Paul, Minn. 1999 pg 48
3
W.A. Wilson. The Modern Law Review. A Note on Fact and Law. Nov. 1963, Vol. 26, No. 6 pg 609
2
Andrew S. Drazdik Jr, National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO, ID: 92743
Page 1
Evidence: Truth vs. Fact the Probative Value
The issue of evidence when proposed and by whom for what purpose and when have the regards to be
tested as an element to any legal statute or counter argument by debate. The purpose of law such
proposed fact is then processed as truth if "admissibility"4 can be judged as "circumstantial evidence"5
Colo. 1886. The word "circumstance" and the word "fact" are frequently used interchangeable.
In 1 Bouv. Dict. 569, they are give as synonyms, and instances sometimes arise when it would puzzle a
professional philologist which of the two words would more accurately characterize the given action of
thing done. In cases where the conviction depends upon circumstantial evidence, it often happens that
one or more of the ultimate or essential matters may very appropriately be called "circumstances,"
Whether spoken of as "circumstances" or as "facts", they must be established by the state beyond a
reasonable doubt. - Clair V. People, 10 P. 799, 9 Colo. 122.6
In the role of historical means of fact by reason begs such expert advice as professional philologist the
universal language , or common language, is necessary for how the history of such case law must be
recorded as principle within its logical bounds. W.A. Wilson had proposed this as when such inference is
necessary that a "probability-question" be used with "primary facts", basic facts7, and "secondary facts",
presumed facts6 :
...inference from circumstantial evidence is a matter of probability and is completely
independent of the credibility and reliability of the witness.
It has also been expressed as a distinction between the perception of facts and the evaluation of
facts ("data of experience", Goodhart)8. Which to this point the forum that law resides to determine the
class and character (L. Lex Fori) begs the properties such that topical relevance by class (L. Genus) then
give inherent properties of probative value (L. Differentia) and knowledge requirement. Thus, it is the
jurisprudence of the evidence at the time which is the nature of debate by argument, or question of law
with such facts as knowledge.
Cal. App. 3 Dist. 1967. There is distinction between facts in issue. "facta probanda," and
subordinate facts, "facta probantia" which tend to prove facts in issue. - People v. Convert, 57 Cal. Rptr.
220, 249 Cal. App. 2d 81. - Crim Law 3379
App. D.C. 1941. Where knowledge is possible, one who represents a mere belief as knowledge
misrepresents a "fact".- Sovereign Pocohontas Co. v. Bond, 120 F.2d 39, 74 App. D.C. 175 - Fraud 13(3)10
4,5
West Group. Black's Law Dictionary 7th Ed. West Group St. Paul, Minn. 1999 pg 48
6
West's. Words and Phrases. Fact, Vol 16 Thomson West pgs 45-54
Emanuel, L.S. Evidence 3rd Ed., The Crunch Time Series. Aspen Pub. Wolters Kluwer: New York, 2007
8
From W.A. Wilson. A Note on Fact and Law. Goodhart, "Appeals on Questions of Fact" (1955) pg. 612
9
West's. Words and Phrases. Fact, Vol 16 Thomson West pgs 45-54
10
West's. Words and Phrases. Fact, Vol 16 Thomson West pgs 45-54
7
Andrew S. Drazdik Jr, National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO, ID: 92743
Page 2
Evidence: Truth vs. Fact the Probative Value
W.A. Wilson cites two experts in dissertation as such: Austin, "not what the law is, or what the
fact is, but whether the given law is applicable to the given fact"11, and Thayer, "between primary facts,
what may be called the raw material of the case, and the secondary or ultimate facts"; he argued that
his process of applying a rule of law to the facts was a question of fact12. However, the question of the
fact as an element given any test for knowledge as to whom should dictate its very admissibility - per
Lord Reid, Griffiths v J.P. Harrisson, Ltd. "But I can find no reason for supposing that the nature of the
judicial process is different when the question is said to be one of fact from what it is when the question
is said to be one of law".13
Ala. 1953. A "fact" is a statement of that which someone knows, an actuality, and not a
generalized statement of the extent of a proposed inquiry into what one might know; it is the assertion
or statement of a thing done or existing: An actual happening in time or space; an event; something
fixed, unchangeable, a thing done; a thing done or said. - American Life Ins. Co. v. Powell, 65 So. 2d 516,
259 Ala. 70.14
Mo.1906 The word "fact", as used in the proposition that representations must consist of
"matters of fact," distinguishes "fact" from mere matters of opinion. - Brown v South Joplin Lead & Zinc
Min. Co., 92 S.W. 699. 194 Mo. 68115
"Fact"- by a Fact Finder. Fact Finder - In a judicial or administrative proceeding, the person or group of
persons, that has the responsibility of determining the acts relevant to decide a controversy. Dictionary
of Selected legal terms 2nd Ed. Oceana Pub., Inc. Dobbs Ferry: New York 2001 pg 26. See Also Ibid pg 25
Evidence - A form of proof or probative matter legally presented...
The judicial process to the point of what questions that experts should ask with the logical process as
reason for jurisprudence as which "factors", and that of "degree" . The question of which factors have
to be taken into account in considering a question of degree and which factors have to be ignored as
being irrelevant would also appear to be a matter of law (Jaffe, 1955. 69 Harv. L.R. 239, 248; Esdell
Caravan Parks Ltd. v. Hemel Hempstead R.D.C. 1966.).16 The context of the arguments which the
requirement for knowledge under any such test for knowledge that "degree" is challenged W.A. Wilson
states, "When British judges are asked to determine whether a given set of facts falls within the terms of
a statutory provision they frequently say that it is all a question of degree.17 Whereas the context is
further argued that "open texture" for admission of facts depend on the words used themselves.18
11
From W.A. Wilson. A Note on Fact and Law. Lectures on Jurisprudence (4th ed. 1873) pg. 620
From W.A. Wilson. A Note on Fact and Law. Preliminary Treatise on Evidence (1898) pg. 620
13
From W.A. Wilson. A Note on Fact and Law. per Lord Reid, Griffiths v J.P. Harrisson, Ltd. pg. 621
14
West's. Words and Phrases. Fact, Vol 16 Thomson West pgs 45-54
15
West's. Words and Phrases. Fact, Vol 16 Thomson West pgs 45-54
16
From W.A. Wilson. Questions of Degree. July 1969 Vol. 32 No. 4 pg 363
17
Ibid. W.A. Wilson. Questions of Degree pg 361
18
From W.A. Wilson. Questions of Degree. Hart, The Concept of Law. pg. 363
12
Andrew S. Drazdik Jr, National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO, ID: 92743
Page 3
Evidence: Truth vs. Fact the Probative Value
"Truth"-The traditional presumption that a defamatory statement is false; truth is a defense that if
provided, would enable a defendant to avoid liability"19 ("Truth"-Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps,
475 U.S. 767, 1986).
Ct. Cl 1879 "Evidence"..."machine for discovery of truth". Hubbell v. U.S., 15 Ct. Cl. 54620
Mich. 1956 "Evidence"..."the means by which inferences may logically be drawn as to the
existence of facts. - Thornton v. Luria - Dumes Co- Venture, 79 N.W. 2d 457, 347 Mich. 160 - Evid 99 20
Cal. App. 2 Dist 1976 "Evidence" is a matter that makes clear truth of fact, persuades court of
existence of fact, or produces just conviction of truth. In re Eugene M. , 127 Cal. Rptr 851, 55 Cal. App.
3d 65020
Cf. 1. Evidence; 3. “Evidence” as "things"21
Cf. "Knowledge"-things known or learned; "thing" 1 real object or substance, 4. belongings.22
The test for knowledge then as the facts are weighed for evidence reasons which "factors" and
"degree" questions are proposed within the scope of law. As W.A. Wilson has stated the concern of his
experience with British judges that the statutory provisions, his opinion on relevant factors was "Where
there are two or more relevant factors the judge can approach the question in two different ways. He
may take each factor in isolation and consider whether it is present in a sufficient degree. Which, "If
every factor satisfies this test, he holds that the statutory term applies. If any one factor does not satisfy
the test, the statutory term does not apply." 23 This test for knowledge, which are the elements, then
have the probative weight that in summation the total test for evidence for the knowledge requirement
then is judged.
The statutory provisions given the burden of proof when relevance takes propositions of the
argument that argue the factual connection may require a philologist to provide expert validity and or
expert relevance. In terms of relevance this has been proposed by Douglas Walton as when argument
is a dialog that the facts in each factor statement are propositions to be proved as relevance to each
other, "the pair of propositions to be proved on each side, when put together as a pair, define the issue
19
Encylcopedia of American civil liberties. New York: Routledge, 2006. pg 404 by Candace Saari Kovacic Fleischer.
See Also - Smolla, Rodney A. Law of Defamation 2nd Ed., Eagen Minn. : Thomson West, last updated 2005
20
West's. Words and Phrases. Evidence, Vol 15A Thomson West. 2004
West Group. Black's Law Dictionary 7th Ed. West Group, St. Paul, Minn. 1999. pg 576
22
Agnes, M. Websters New World Pocket Dictionary. 4th Ed. Wiley Pub. Inc., Cleveland, OH 2000. Pgs 179, 335
21
23
Ibid. W.A. Wilson. Questions of Degree. pg 369
Andrew S. Drazdik Jr, National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO, ID: 92743
Page 4
Evidence: Truth vs. Fact the Probative Value
to be resolved by the dialogue."24 The relevance of the dialogue is put forth as an agenda which the
conjunctive propositions are given terms of conditional statements as a set of issues.
The set of issues for proving the fallacy of the fact which the conjunctive propositions are
relevant are local, global, topical, and probative. Local relevance by related terms in the dialog, global
relevance by the goal of the dialog, topical relevance by the topic with the goal to attain, and probative
that adds evidence to the dialog itself. Thus, global irrelevance the issue changes and deemed off track.
Internal irrelevance the dialog is changed by topical or probative falsehood, and external irrelevance
which the locally changes the dialog from the goal. 25
In other words and terms the argument of the facts as proposed by Herbert L. Searles could
argue the facts and propositions of each factor statement as a test for knowledge that the "implication"
or relationship between propositional statements has a cause fallacy, or epistemological fallacy. Which
the truth of empirical or factual statements are challenged for inferred validity (L. Causa Nexus, L.
Valere). The cause fallacy which could prove the De Minimus to the argument of the facts has been
given as The Joint Method of Agreement and Difference: "In other words given (1) several positive cases,
(2) several negative cases, and (3) one and only one factor that is both (a) present in all positive cases
and (b) absent in all negative cases, then that factor is the cause".26
An issue of the test for knowledge with how the weighed facts exists within the "tier of fact"
which time, exactness, and precision is necessary that expert opinion with special knowledge assists to
understand the facts and or how the special knowledge may be needed with scientific fact that method
and procedures are essential to establish the knowledge requirement.
U.S. Cal 1993. "Knowledge," within meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence stating that if scientific,
technical, or other specialized "knowledge" will assist tier of fact to understand evidence or to
determine fact in issue an expert may testify thereto, connotes more than subjective belief or
unsupported speculation. Fed. Rules Evid. Rule 702, 28 U.S.C.A.-Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786, 509 U.S. 579, 125 L.Ed. 2d 469, on remand 43 F.3d 1311,
rehearing en banc denied, certiorari denied 116 S. Ct. 189, 516 U.S. 869, 133 L.Ed. 2d 126. - Evid 50827
C.A. 11 (Ga.) 1999. Daubert standard for determining admissibility of expert scientific testimony
requires that assertions be derived from scientific knowledge: "scientific" means proper grounding in
the methods and procedures of science, or the "scientific method," while "knowledge" is more than
subjective belief or unsupported speculation, but applies to any body of known facts or to any body of
ideas from such facts or accepted as truths on good grounds. Fed. Rules Evid. Rule 702, 28 U.S.C.A. Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp., 184 F.3d 1300-Evid 555.227
D.Kan. 1996 Term "knowledge," as used in federal evidence rule governing admissibility of
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge, connotes more than subjective belief or
24
25
Walton, Douglas. A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Univ. of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, and London 1995
Ibid. Walton, Douglas pgs 171, 195-198.
26
Searles, Herbert L. Logic and Scientific Methods: An Introductory Course. The Ronald Press Co. New York 1968 pg 240
27
West's. Words and Phrases. Knowledge, Vol 23A Thomson West. 2004 pgs 524-550
Andrew S. Drazdik Jr, National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO, ID: 92743
Page 5
Evidence: Truth vs. Fact the Probative Value
unsupported speculation; term applies to any body of known facts or to any body of ideas inferred from
such facts or accepted as truths on good grounds. Fed. Rules. Evid. Rule 702, 28 U.S.C.A. -Miller v.
Heaven, 922 F. Supp. 495 -555.227
Bibliography:
Agnes, M. Websters New World Pocket Dictionary. 4th Ed. Wiley Pub. Inc., Cleveland, Ohio 2000. Pgs 179, 335
Emanuel, L.S. Evidence 3rd Ed., The Crunch Time Series. Aspen Pub. Wolters Kluwer: New York, 2007
Fleischer, Candace Saari Kovacic. Encylcopedia of American civil liberties. New York: Routledge, 2006. pg 404
Searles, Herbert L. Logic and Scientific Methods: An Introductory Course. The Ronald Press Co. NY 1968
W.A. Wilson. The Modern Law Review. A Note on Fact and Law Nov. 1963, Vol. 26, No. 6 pg 609
W.A. Wilson. The Modern Law Review. Questions of Degree. July 1969 Vol. 32 No. 4 pg 363
Walton, Douglas. A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Univ. of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, and London 1995
West Group. Black's Law Dictionary 7th Ed. West Group St. Paul, Minn. 1999 pg 48
West's. Words and Phrases. Evidence, Vol 15A Thomson West. 2004
West's. Words and Phrases. Fact, Vol 16 Thomson West. 2004 pgs 45-54
West's. Words and Phrases. Knowledge, Vol 23A Thomson West. 2004 pgs 524-550
Andrew S. Drazdik Jr, National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO, ID: 92743
Page 6