On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is one conclusion that can be drawn. Rossi submitted all kinds of information to the court docket, under oath. The claim against him was fraud. > > The legal burden of proof in a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence". IH obviously couldn't even meet that level of proof. > > The legal burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher, "beyond a reasonable doubt". So if IH couldn't meet the lower standard there is no chance Rossi is going to be prosecuted for fraud with all that juicy evidence. In effect, it is legal proof that Rossi is not a criminal fraud.
That's about the most cogent thing I've read on this e-List in a long time.
