Findings of fact: Insurrection?

[Procrustes Stretched]

finding of fact​

finding

www.law.cornell.edu

conclusion of fact

www.law.cornell.edu

finding of fact

www.law.cornell.edu

Primary tabs​

A finding of fact, also known as a conclusion of fact, refers to decisions made by the trier of fact on questions of fact in a case.
Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts actually are. Findings of fact may be made by either a jury or a judge depending on whether the case is criminal or civil and/or if there is an agreement between the parties. These conclusions often dictate the outcome of a trial. Because questions of fact must be analyzed and decided, if there is a question of fact, a judge cannot enter a summary judgment until the factual dispute is resolved.

Trial courts are considered finders of facts and, therefore, their findings of fact are given a high degree of deference by the higher courts. On appeal, an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact’s decision was clearly erroneous. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny.

[Last updated in December of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]



With so many here professing legal expertise, I'm left wondering why I don't see this mentioned in most all posts (though that's a whole 'nother thread). I do see it in a signature of postman: "The most important difference between an appellate court and a trial court is that the appellate court generally does not decide issues of fact. In a trial court, the factfinder—usually a judge or jury—will make findings of fact."

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/president-biden-making-america-normal-again.876476/page-17603#post-33235844

Do people see how this affect posts they've made, ideas they've expressed, opinions?

 

[Donald H]

finding of fact​

Primary tabs​

A finding of fact, also known as a conclusion of fact, refers to decisions made by the trier of fact on questions of fact in a case.
Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts actually are. Findings of fact may be made by either a jury or a judge depending on whether the case is criminal or civil and/or if there is an agreement between the parties. These conclusions often dictate the outcome of a trial. Because questions of fact must be analyzed and decided, if there is a question of fact, a judge cannot enter a summary judgment until the factual dispute is resolved.

Trial courts are considered finders of facts and, therefore, their findings of fact are given a high degree of deference by the higher courts. On appeal, an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact’s decision was clearly erroneous. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny.

[Last updated in December of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

With so many here professing legal expertise, I'm left wondering why I don't see this mentioned in most all posts (though that's a whole 'nother thread). I do see it in a signature of postman: "The most important difference between an appellate court and a trial court is that the appellate court generally does not decide issues of fact. In a trial court, the factfinder—usually a judge or jury—will make findings of fact."

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/president-biden-making-america-normal-again.876476/page-17603#post-33235844

Do people see how this affect posts they've made, ideas they've expressed, opinions?

The Scotus can refuse the Colorado case cleanly. They have the Constitution at their backs.

But will they?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Scotus can refuse the Colorado case cleanly. They have the Constitution at their backs.

But will they?

It's too important an issue, and I doubt there exists an argument for ignoring the appeal based on a later appeal addressing concerns in a more constitutional manner.

I'm just wondering why so many self-described legal experts have argued around the District Court's ruling and the Supreme Court's ruling (Colorado courts), without acknowledging or arguing with the phrase 'findings of fact'

 

[Donald H]

It's too important an issue, and I doubt there exists an argument for ignoring the appeal based on a later appeal addressing concerns in a more constitutional manner.

I'm just wondering why so many self-described legal experts have argued around the District Court's ruling and the Supreme Court's ruling (Colorado courts), without acknowledging or arguing with the phrase 'findings of fact'

The point is, you're wondering why so many experts are giving it legs.

On a slightly different topic, your Scotus has made corrupt decisions based on their politics.

So maybe it's still a wildcard?

Does America need to stop Trump?

 

[martybegan]

finding of fact​

Primary tabs​

A finding of fact, also known as a conclusion of fact, refers to decisions made by the trier of fact on questions of fact in a case.
Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts actually are. Findings of fact may be made by either a jury or a judge depending on whether the case is criminal or civil and/or if there is an agreement between the parties. These conclusions often dictate the outcome of a trial. Because questions of fact must be analyzed and decided, if there is a question of fact, a judge cannot enter a summary judgment until the factual dispute is resolved.

Trial courts are considered finders of facts and, therefore, their findings of fact are given a high degree of deference by the higher courts. On appeal, an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact’s decision was clearly erroneous. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny.

[Last updated in December of 2022 by the Wex Definitions Team]

With so many here professing legal expertise, I'm left wondering why I don't see this mentioned in most all posts (though that's a whole 'nother thread). I do see it in a signature of postman: "The most important difference between an appellate court and a trial court is that the appellate court generally does not decide issues of fact. In a trial court, the factfinder—usually a judge or jury—will make findings of fact."

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/president-biden-making-america-normal-again.876476/page-17603#post-33235844

Do people see how this affect posts they've made, ideas they've expressed, opinions?

The only fact is no one has been convicted or even tried for insurrection for J6.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It's the Crazy Democrat Insurrection Conspiracy Theory

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The point is, you're wondering why so many experts are giving it legs.

On a slightly different topic, your Scotus has made corrupt decisions based on their politics.

So maybe it's still a wildcard?

Does America need to stop Trump?

"wondering why so many experts are giving it legs?" Huh? Nope.

and...

I don't believe America Needs to stop Trump. I believe Mr. Trump needs to held liable for crimes he's committed. I believe no man/woman should be above the law. I know powerful and connected people get different treatment than the average citizen. That's life. But -- Mr. Trump needs to face the music.

If Americans want to elect Trump. Okay. But one has to be found to be eligible to run for the presidency.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The only fact is no one has been convicted or even tried for insurrection for J6.

conclusion of fact​

Primary tabs​

Conclusion of fact (also referred to as finding of fact) refers to decisions made by the trier of fact on questions of fact in a case. Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts actually are. Conclusions of fact may be made by a jury or judges depending on agreement by the parties. These conclusions often dictate the outcome of a trial. Because questions of fact must be analyzed and decided, if there is a question of fact, a judge cannot enter a summary judgement until the factual dispute is resolved.

Conclusions of fact receive deferential treatment on appeal, and an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact obviously made an error. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny.
[Last updated in June of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Scotus can refuse the Colorado case cleanly. They have the Constitution at their backs.

But will they?

Colorado has no juridiction in a federal matter

 

[Donald H]

"wondering why so many experts are giving it legs?" Huh? Nope.

and...

I don't believe America Needs to stop Trump. I believe Mr. Trump needs to held liable for crimes he's committed. I believe no man/woman should be above the law. I know powerful and connected people get different treatment than the average citizen. That's life. But -- Mr. Trump needs to face the music.

If Americans want to elect Trump. Okay. But one has to be found to be eligible to run for the presidency.

America can't rely on being able to stop him at the ballot box. It's too risky.

You need to face up to the reality of the situation by recalling how government stopped Kennedy when no other solution was available.

With Trump, there are a few other solutions before anything extreme.

 

[Donald H]

Colorado has no juridiction in a federal matter

Go play.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

America can't rely on being able to stop him at the ballot box. It's too risky.

You need to face up to the reality of the situation by recalling how government stopped Kennedy when no other solution was available.

With Trump, there are a few other solutions before anything extreme.

To me, that is crazy.

Huh?

I don't deal well with other people's paranoid constructs.

 

[BackAgain]

Findings of fact also come after a pre-trial hearing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Colorado has no juridiction in a federal matter

The District and Supreme courts in Colorado were asked by Trump himself to resolve a state matter. And they both did. You just dislike the outcomes.

Please try and keep up

 

[martybegan]

conclusion of fact​

Primary tabs​

Conclusion of fact (also referred to as finding of fact) refers to decisions made by the trier of fact on questions of fact in a case. Questions of fact arise when parties disagree on facts, and after presenting evidence, the trier of fact must decide what the facts actually are. Conclusions of fact may be made by a jury or judges depending on agreement by the parties. These conclusions often dictate the outcome of a trial. Because questions of fact must be analyzed and decided, if there is a question of fact, a judge cannot enter a summary judgement until the factual dispute is resolved.

Conclusions of fact receive deferential treatment on appeal, and an appellate court will only overturn a conclusion of fact if the trier of fact obviously made an error. This is to be contrasted with a conclusion of law which will receive higher scrutiny.
[Last updated in June of 2021 by the Wex Definitions Team]

So you are blathering on about facts when you are actually discussing law.

Another example of a dolt just copy-pasting a wall of text and pretending to understand and apply it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Findings of fact also come after a pre-trial hearing.

read the links above in POST #1

then

 

[martybegan]

The District and Supreme courts in Colorado were asked by Trump himself to resolve a state matter. And they both did. You just dislike the outcomes.

Please try and keep up

Because a trial judge decided to play politics.

 

[Rawley]

It's too important an issue, and I doubt there exists an argument for ignoring the appeal based on a later appeal addressing concerns in a more constitutional manner.

I'm just wondering why so many self-described legal experts have argued around the District Court's ruling and the Supreme Court's ruling (Colorado courts), without acknowledging or arguing with the phrase 'findings of fact'

What's the argument you expect?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So you are blathering on about facts when you are actually discussing law.

Another example of a dolt just copy-pasting a wall of text and pretending to understand and apply it.

I know you hate fact checking and facts.

It's okay.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Because a trial judge decided to play politics.

again,
Trump himself to resolve a state matter. And they both did. You just dislike the outcomes.

Please try and keep up