Can someone explain this one to me?

I keep reading it, but the lights are not coming on.



Rule 301. Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings.

In all civil actions and proceedings when not otherwise provided for by statute, by judicial decision, or by these rules, a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party on whom it was originally cast. The burden of going forward is satisfied by the introduction of evidence sufficient to permit reasonable minds to conclude that the presumed fact does not exist. If the party against whom a presumption operates fails to meet the burden of producing evidence, the presumed fact shall be deemed proved, and the court shall instruct the jury accordingly. When the burden of producing evidence to meet a presumption is satisfied, the court must instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, infer the existence of the presumed fact from the proved fact. (1983, c. 701, s. 1.)







I re-read it a couple more times, and I think I got it.



Does it meant that only evidence can change a presumed fact to a proved fact?



HB

only evidence <u>sufficient</u>...(which one would think would include evidence)



in other words a "copy" of a contract may be evidence sufficient vs. the real deal which would be evidence...



that's how i read it...



jon

[seeker]

I was reading WHO was responsible for "defense" "production" of the evidence -- "a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption<u>



</u> "but does not shift to such party the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion"<u></u> Does this mean -- don't argue?!?

But you do have to show them WHY they should not beleive it -- "evidence sufficient to permit reasonable minds to conclude that the presumed fact does not exist"



However, in the alternative, evidence could be produced to PROVE the presumption also -- " When the burden of producing evidence to meet a presumption is satisfied,"



NO wonder the average American is confused! They want it that way!



Seeker

[Akira]

Hi All,



This is how I read it...



When the court, or opposing party makes a presumption...

(example: you're a 14th amendment slave citizen)



the presumption stands as fact until properly rebutted...

(Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43... there is more than one class of citizen, which am I? -or- I am the Sovereign!)



which can be addressed / rebutted at any time during the trial.



If the presumption is properly rebutted, the jury is informed accordingly...



I think the grey part is:

: When the burden of producing evidence to meet a presumption is satisfied, the court must instruct the jury that it may, but is not required to, infer the existence of the presumed fact from the proved fact. (1983, c. 701, s. 1.)

To me, this is saying:



When a presumption has been satisfactorally been rebutted... the jury MAY infer the existence of the presumed fact from the proved fact.



in other words.. the sufficiently rebutted presumption may still be able to co-exist with the proved fact (actual truth) !! It may <u>not</u> be assumed that they are mutually exclusive... (unless sufficiently rebutted, also)



Proving you are a state citizen is not enough to prove you are not a US citizen... as you can be both.... you must also show you are not a US citizen through an unrebutted affidavit or some other means...



Is that what you all see? or do I need more coffee.. lol



For HIS Glory,

Akira

[sadie]

HB



I too have read this over and over and still can't quite get it. But, it seems to mean that in civil matters you are guilty until you prove you are not.



Bank Complaint

JOHN DOE used the credit card, here is a statement of the balance on the account. Request court to order judgment for JOHN DOE to pay Bank.



Presumption the Bank loaned JOHN DOE money so he owes the Bank.

a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed[JOHN DOE] the burden of going forward with evidence to rebut or meet the presumption, but does not shift to such party [JOHN DOE] the burden of proof in the sense of the risk of nonpersuasion, which remains throughout the trial upon the party [JOHN DOE]on whom it was originally cast.

If the party against whom a presumption operates [JOHN DOE]fails to meet the burden of producing evidence, the presumed fact shall be deemed proved,

They a really having a party over our confusion.



Anyone to help us out here?

[gregtu]

Do a Power of Attorney over JOHN DOE!!!!! Then they will have to deal with John Doe.