In legal disputes, the party making a claim bears the burden of proof and must provide evidence to support their assertion; if they refuse to provide evidence, they are in breach of the fundamental legal maxim that 'the one who makes the claim must provide the evidence,' and their silence can be strategically interpreted as an admission or avoidance pleading.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
Legal Maxims: Make Them PROVE Their Claims! #shortsAdded:
You tell an adversary they have to provide evidence. Well, if they've made the claim, they need to provide the evidence. Yes. And they say, "No, we don't." What would you do if they don't agree with the maximum of law? The one that makes the claim must provide the evidence. And you can't come to an agreement.
Well, you got to set them up to get them to concur with you. You would say to them, "Who has to provide evidence to support the claim?
to support a claim. Is it the one that makes the claim or the one receiving the claim? And if they say the one receiving the claim, okay, where's your evidence?
I need to see it now.
Otherwise, it's taken that you just told me a porky and the maximum of law, the one that makes the claim bears the burden of proof does not stand. But if you're going to rely on maximums of law, take a few of them in with you. You can download them from the internet. That gives you a little bit of credibility then and just ask have you seen this maximum of law before and if they say no well that's not not your problem is it just holding position again okay so I hope that helps but yeah you do have to set them up so that their silence shows that they are concurring with you and I give them three opportunities I say to them look if you don't answer this third time. I'll take it as as an avoidance pleading when you are admitting to a um pleading of guilty and I will answer for you in that case.
And by the way, here is the definition of silence and then read it out to them because that's very incriminating.
Also you could take in the um code of conduct for the um um third tier of government industry for councils and in there they are to be transparent, open, honest, fair and transparent and accountable. So if they're not answering the question, how's that being fair and transparent and accountable? So they're in breach of their own code of conduct. You you really need all these weapons to throw at them to make them comply.
Related Videos
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02











