THE INCONTROVERTIBLE STANDARD OF PROOF
Have you ever made an important point in everyday conversation and then had your relevant point discredited? Think about it: sometimes, real Americans on both sides find themselves arguing over the same point. Millions of Americans on both sides agree that special interests should not be able to ship out jobs overseas and otherwise pillage our economy. The reason partisan advocates are capable of arguing over how much they agree with each other is partly because the publishers on one side present the info they like, the other side's do the same, and neither likes to acknowledge each other's parts of the totality of circumstances or whenever they themselves are wrong. Reality is clearly not a matter of all opinions being equally credible like postmodern tradition says, information simply does not work like that. One side generally has more of the totality of circumstances than the other per topic, sometimes everybody can be wrong, often do so many deny critical info, and very rarely does "the other side" have nothing credible to say like politicians and news-anchor looney toons say. One simply cannot make a credible conclusion if they do not take relevant information into account, it is like doing a math problem by omitting part of the problem. Accusing the other side of having no relevant information is almost certainly far less credible and more suspicious than whatever circumstance in question. The nature of conclusivity is why jury instructions for reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence do not constitute complete standards of proof. Through trial and error, juridical standards have been found to be a reliable way for a jury to make a verdict rather than a pure or accountable evidentiary standard. There is a bottom standard for nonevidence bullshit, there are above-average, everyday proof standards we have been using for trial, and there are largely nonexistent high standards for extremely credible and incontrovertible evidence. Incontrovertible evidence is rarely achievable and has been clear to juries in the past when the concept of the highest possible, "purely undeniable" standard of proof has been made clear to them. However, let's say an agency keeps demanding thousands of dollars in undue burdens from everyday citizens who don't have so much money, but there is even already case law for this major premise, and a particular plaintiff has gathered ten primary sources of the agency changing their "legal" reasoning in this case. This is not ten unclear exhibits, it is extremely credible evidence of government crime (18 USC 241-242) and pattern behavior. If there were pretrial motions for clearly-defined, high standards of proof then affirmed in trial and process for unreasonable suspicions/doubts/expectations, the burdens of proving white collar crime would not be so constitutionally lopsided by technocrat professionals!