legal difference between unsubstantiated and unfounded?
91140
unsubstantiated means that there's no direct evidence of 'something' where unfounded means that there is no direct or even circumstantial evidence of 'something'.
234542
An out of sourt statement by other than the person on the stand (the declarant) to assert the truth of the matter put forward.\n\nI hope this is what you needed.
214624
Both are true. No proof required.\n\nNot many details as far as your question goes, sorry I couldn't be more specific.
22149
It's the same as the difference between the prevention and the cure.\n\nMitigation means you take steps to limit the problem.  Litigation means "to heck with mitigation, I'm gonna sue someone".
719106
The Rules of Professional Conduct, which varies by jurisdiction, generally prohibits a lawyer from advancing an unmeritorious argument in court, except where the lawyer is defending a criminal defendant, who is constitutionally entitled to have the government prove every element of the case against him/her beyond all reasonable doubt.\n\nJust because a case is ultimately a lost cause, does not mean that an attorney cannot make a good faith argument to defend his/her client's interests.\n\nIt is only the plaintiff/petitioner's attorney in a civil action who is ethically not permitted to advance a case where there is no meritorious good faith legal argument.\n\nAnd, as a practical matter, there are very few circumstances where some good faith argument cannot be presented.\n\nUltimately, all cases depend upon their facts, and it is impossible to accurately answer your question without knowing the facts of your particular case. So, if you believe that an attorney has taken an unmeritorious case to court against you, then you should file a complaint with the lawyer disciplinary agency in your jurisdiction, and allow the agency to investigate your claim.
1020188
Not according to the dictionary:\nhttp://www.m-w.com/dictionary/undevoited
592924
typically, and invalid question doesn't relate to the focus discussion. and an unsound argument isn't justified due yto lack of data, of unprovable data.\nin computer terms, unsound argument has too many variables but is understood by the language.\ninvalid agument isn't understood at all by the programming language you are using.\n\nit's like using a linux command on a unix system...unsound. but could be fixed and cleaned to be more specific to the command.\nbut if you use a windows command on a unix system...invailid since the sysetm doesn't recongize it at all.\nkinda like an open ended question versus a question that cant be answered at all because the speaker and the person being asked don't speak the same language
266512
1).  Little to no responsibility over the information released on news sources and the internet --> false information and easier ways to gain access to illegal materials.\n\n2).  Uncontrolled media --> masses reacting to uncensored material.  For example, with the threat of the Bird Flu, economies are going bust even though the actual threat may be minimal.
402445
I am not sure of the lie.. but if you have proof you didn't say it let people know.  And depending on the lie.. you have a right to say whatever you want.  Constitution says so.
945883
Claim preclusion prevents a party from attempting to re-litigate a claim (complaint) that has already been ruled upon.\n\nIssue preclusion prohibits arguing one specific legal question, such as one element of a tort, even in unrelated proceedings.\n\nFor example, I sue you for assault, because you threw a bottle at me. The trial determines that you didn't throw the bottle. I then sue you for trespass, because the bottle landed on my property. That's not barred by claim preclusion because it's a different tort -- assault vs. trespass. However, issue preclusion can be raised as a defense, since the issue of whether you threw the bottle has been litigated. So, I'd have to prove my case, given the fact that you didn't throw the bottle.\n\nNot a great example, but it's what came to mind.
1031325
It's tangible evidence that can't be impugned or easily dismissed.
535769
When you do something wrong, but don't want to admit it, you can come up with excuse upon excuse to prove your case.\n\n'Even the devil can cite the scriptures', to quote Christ.\n\nI have a friend who in an argument or debate raises just 1 valid percentage point as opposed to you raising 99% and he will insist that he is right based solely on his 1%.\n\nIn his court, the prosecution must prove his case beyond a shadow of doubt, to convict.
1073724
Depends on the circumstances - the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff.  If they can prove that you owe the money, for services rendered or whatever, then you need to prove why you don't.  A denial is not considered adequate, if the plaintiff has proven his case.
766910
If you are talking in terms of definition, lots. If you are talking in terms of actual application of suspicion, there are some differences as well. For instance, I'm feeling suspicious of something, as opposed to reasonable suspicion, which is a legal standard that has requirements to apply to a situation. \n\nShort and sweet, from my viewpoint: Suspicion = the feeling or viewing of something as being out of sorts, or out of place. Not quite right, more of a hunch.\n\nReasonable suspicion = the standard that tells us that an individual may have been involved with or is involved with committing criminal activity, based on reasonable inferences made from facts, such as statements, objects in that persons possession, the situation, etc. Not a hunch.. solid factual implications that something criminal is or is about to take place.
77158
Slander is when you publicly say untrue things about someone that damage that person.  You won't be arrested for it, but you can be sued for it.\n\nLibel is the saying/printing of untrue things by the media.  Once again, you won't be arrested for it, but you can be sued for it.
1097400
a).\n\nBut it's "case AND controversy."
551099
I'm not sure I understand your question.  I certainly think that the meaning of counterfactuals can be unraveled in a systematic way.