Pacquiao Lawsuit: "It was Floyd's camp who told Tim Smith about the FAKE emails"

[The Gambler1981]

Wikipedia says:

Preponderance of the evidence
Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases. This also is the standard of proof also used in Grand Jury indictment proceedings, (which however unlike civil proceedings, are procedurally unrebuttable), and in family court determinations. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions,[3] described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.
This is also the standard of proof used when determining eligibility of unemployment benefits for a former employee accused of losing their job through alleged misconduct. In most US states, the employer must prove this case based on preponderance of the evidence.

Bare minimums don't win you cases~ that was how I learned it anyways.

Plus we all know what kind of source wiki is~

[Pacquiao'd]

*******umbs are getting ****d in this thread

[Ray*]

You missed the point of his post.

You are asking for evidence now that it is brought up in court that Floyd's team sent the email. Yet before when it was announced Pac's team sent the email you didn't ask for evidence.

Nah i didnt miss the point, I understand the whole point perfectly..Firstly i wasnt asking for evidence for myself (I hope all the ******s can get that through their respective thick skulls), My point was what evidence have they got to think "The Mayweather camp told smith" because the evidence would have to be proven in court...I guess i have to spell that out to people who cant read in between the line.

Secondly, I implore anyone of you to please dig out a post of mine where i have ever imply that Pac or his team did indeed send anyone any email, Not only that but i also questioned the "Supposely email" that was seen by a few..

So in conclusion before you or anyone else reply to my post about "How i didnt get it" please go back and dig out my post where i didnt question or ask for evidence of the "Supposely email" if not all you mutha****as can ****ing take a suicide pill.

[Chups]

I'm still amazed at the *****'s knowledge about everything, but couldn't figure out how many years in a decade.

[Dale Cardon]

Hahahahahaha!!! The funny thing is Floyd was ****** enough to think that this set up was viable and people would not see right through it... This is the first thought that would have honestly crossed most sensible peoples brains.. *****s not included.

True, and unlike verbal conversations (unless recorded) emails are verifiable.

[Chups]

*******umbs are getting ****d in this thread

Coming from the dumbest ***** who does one liners and nothing else to say or share input.

[Dale Cardon]

Bare minimums don't win you cases~ that was how I learned it anyways.

Plus we all know what kind of source wiki is~

LOL... and you are a better source... thanks for clearing that up.

[The Gambler1981]

LOL... and you are a better source... thanks for clearing that up.

Believe whatever but wiki is not a reliable source I thought this was well known, especially on a topic like percentage of doubt which is a highly misunderstood topic.

I am telling you what I learned, up to you if you believe or not.

[The Gambler1981]

Preponderance in general terms means to be superior in number or weight. Preponderance as used in evidence law means having the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil lawsuit needed to convince the jury or judge without a jury to decide one's favor. Preponderance of the evidence is the level of proof required in a civil case, as opposed to the stricter "beyond a reasonable doubt," standard of proof required to convict in a criminal trial.

Preponderance of the evidence could be interpreted to mean a 51% chance that the evidence presented is to be believed. However, the actual application of the standard of proof is more subjective and not capable of numerical quantification.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/preponderance/

[sNiTcH]

*****: they should provide an evidence to prove that email is true


----- and yet accusing pac using peds without evidence.... what kind of logic is that?