The Jurisprudence of Bad Budo

[Matt Stone]

When initiating a line of questioning toward an individual whose claims, background, lineage and/or skill are of a questionable nature, what standpoint does the entire discussion take on?

I offer that the individual who has made the claims that are the instigating factor in the questioning takes on the role of a prosecuting attorney and/or the client thereof, and that the people asking the individual to provide proof to support his/her claims is more akin to the defense attorney whose primary role is simply to create reasonable doubt, or to air same publicly as a means by which further examination can occur...

I have been told, and heard elsewhere, that the person asking the questions is the prosecutor, and the person being asked is the defendant... But that goes against the entire judicial analogy.

The defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty. However, the defendant is the one against whom allegations are made. Up to that point, I can see the connection to the counter-argument against my position.

However, since the responsibility for providing evidence to support an allegation lies in the lap of the prosecution, and all the defense really needs to do is to have a sound argument against which the evidence must be measured, I feel that the person making the questionable claims is responsible to provide the proof to support their claims... Not the other way around.

How do the rest of you feel?

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[RyuShiKan]

Yiliquan1,

I agree.

I would also like to add to this if I may some common tactics made by those people claiming certain things when they do come under fire.

When cornered and pretty much found dead to rights they whine “everyone has skeletons in their closet they don’t want to talk about”
This is nonsense.
People have skeletons in their personal life….be it a nasty divorce, getting a DUI, being fired from a job etc…..
However, those that claim they have skeletons in their “martial life” I have to ask “why?”
People that willing take rank they didn’t earn, or buy a Soke license from a known bogus organization DO have skeletons because they knowing did the wrong thing.
Folks that got duped by a bogus instructor or organization have no skeletons since they were merely victims.


anyone else have any they have noticed?

 

[Zepp]

I'm not entirely sure what you just wrote, but I think I at least partially disagree with you. I believe that it depends what the claims in question are. If its something along the lines of Ashida Kim's super secret ninja club actually having something to do with ninjutsu, then of course the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. But as for claims about one's lineage or training, the burden of proof definitely lies with the person challenging the claim.

Ya know, for all I really know, all you Yili people could just be a cult of circus midgets trying to recruit people to train in a made up art so you can brainwash them into helping you take over the world. If I thought this, is there really anything any of you could do to prove otherwise beyond a doubt over the internet? I'm sure you could in person, but not between computers.

I accept your claims about who you are and what you do at face value because they sound reasonable and because I have no evidence to the contrary. I think that's the only way a place like Martial Talk can work.

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by Zepp
....... But as for claims about one's lineage or training, the burden of proof definitely lies with the person challenging the claim.

Actually that’s not really true.
If someone were claiming rank in the style I teach and I had never hear of them and found their claim to be suspicious then they would have to cough up some proof. An ID card or certificate would do…………or even a personal reference.

 

[Zepp]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
If someone were claiming rank in the style I teach and I had never hear of them and found their claim to be suspicious then they would have to cough up some proof. An ID card or certificate would do…………or even a personal reference.

Yes, but that's because you have first hand knowledge of the training they claim to have.

Would an ID card, or certificate or personal reference from me really prove anything to you about my Tae Kwon Do rank?

I'm not trying to make a statement about about anyone's fraud-busting activities in particular. I just think that Yiliquan1's statement is too general.

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by Zepp
Yes, but that's because you have first hand knowledge of the training they claim to have.

That wouldn’t really matter because there are many people in our Assoc. I don’t know. All I would need to do is ask for an ID card and I could see their rank, when they joined etc.

Originally posted by Zepp
Would an ID card, or certificate or personal reference from me really prove anything to you about my Tae Kwon Do rank?

Yes it would as a matter of fact.
Several folks have scanned their certificates and emailed them to me.
All but one was an obvious fake.
Most had improper stamps/seals that Japanese teachers would never use on certificate…….2 were actually upside down.
Several had hand written kanji that was obviously done by someone that didn’t read or write Japanese.
One was supposed to be for Karate but had Kung Fu written on it.
Some were done on word processors.
The others had Japanese that made no sense.

 

[Zepp]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
Yes it would as a matter of fact.
Several folks have scanned their certificates and emailed them to me.
All but one was an obvious fake.

So then you must be the final authority on what constitutes legitimate rank in all Asian martial arts?
So what if a certificate was done with a word processor?
What if someone learned Karate from an American instructor with no knowledge of the Japanese language and no formal ties to any organization you recognize? Does that make the rank they award to their students illegitimate?
Are you a judge of what constitutes legitimate rank in Filipino martial arts? Howabout in Capoeira?
Just what are the limits of your knowledge in this matter?

 

[RyuShiKan]

Originally posted by Zepp
So then you must be the final authority on what constitutes legitimate rank in all Asian martial arts?

Nope, but I can spot fakes supposedly issued by Okinawan or Japanese systems when I seem them.

Originally posted by Zepp
So what if a certificate was done with a word processor?

Legit ranks issued by Okinawans or Japanese are not done on word processors.

Originally posted by Zepp
What if someone learned Karate from an American instructor with no knowledge of the Japanese language and no formal ties to any organization you recognize?

Fine by me.

Originally posted by Zepp

Are you a judge of what constitutes legitimate rank in Filipino martial arts? Howabout in Capoeira?
Just what are the limits of your knowledge in this matter?

Judging from the tone of your questions it sounds like you are either trolling or picking issue with every word in my posts.
As my previous posts states the certificates were in Japanese,
Therefore one would conclude that I am talking about Japanese or Okinawan arts.

 

[TargetAlex]

I am going to use an example to try to demonstrate the way the law looks at it.

"X" is a martial arts instructor, runs a school, and claims to have certain qualifications and lineage.


"Z" is a member of the public, perhaps even a former student of "X", who comes to this forum (for example) and claims that "X" has misrepresented himself, and been dishonest about his claims.

Once "Z" has posted the allegation of 'fraud' in writing, it can be subject to a libel suit by "X". In court, "Z" is now the defendant, and "X" is the prosecutor.

Under libel law, it is up "Z" to prove that his allegation that "X" misrepresented himself is true. If he cannot prove that his claims are true, he will be ruled to have been libelous in his claims, and suffer the penalty. "X" is under no legal obligation in a libel suit (as prosecutor) to prove his claims were true, the court assumes they are true unless during his defense, "Z" can prove beyond reasonable doubt the claims were false.

Of course, proving libel can often be difficult to prosecute, and each state has their own definition of what constitutes libel, although there is some common ground among the state laws.

You can post anything you want about anyone, SO LONG AS IT IS TRUE (and you have evidence), without fear of being sued for libel; the one common ground in libel law is that if the statement was true, then no libel occured.

Questioning a person's credentials on a forum such as this, in my opinion, does not have a prosecutor and/or defendant. There is the investigator (questioner) and the investigated. Anyone who is prepared to make claims in public about their business, be it a martial arts instructor or a house painter, should be prepared to have their credentials scrutinized by the public. If you want the public's business (money), you should be prepared to demonstrate why you deserve it.

 

[jdmills]

You guys are using a criminal standard of proof for a civil claim. In a criminal case, the standard of proof for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt" but that is NOT true for a civil case where the standard is "more likely than not" in most states. That's why O.J. Simpson was acquitted in the criminal case but forced to pay damages in a civil action, there is a lower standard of proof.

Jim

 

[Matt Stone]

Alex and Jim -

Thanks for reminding me about civil practice... We don't get a lot of that in the military, at least not in the areas that I have worked. We don't deal with libel nor slander (we charge it as insubordination), and the only lower standard of proof we deal with is in administrative actions (not the area I work in).

So, essentially, we have the issue of a lower standard of proof (more likely than not, a 51% / 49% ratio), and an expectation on the part of the claimant to both have their claims scrutinized as well as being prepared to demonstrate proof of their claims...

Good discussion. Thanks for correcting my perceptions.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[jdmills]

Of course, for libel or slander the language used is critical. If I say "I do not believe XYZ ever earned a black belt" and ask him to prove it, my statement is merely a statement of opinion and would probably not support a slander or libel claim. However, a statement that "XYZ has falsified his certificates" probably would support a libel or slander claim, unless, as Alex pointed out, the statement is true.

Proving libel and slander are not easy since it directly conflicts with a constitutional right to free speech.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

1 point: free speech

"constitutional right to free speech." does not apply outside the US. Inside the US, I believe it only applys to the government and press. Otherwise, it is different. Online, its a whole new world.



:asian:

 

[TargetAlex]

jdmills:
You are correct, 'reasonable doubt' is a criminal standard. The standard of proof in a civil case, is, as you said, lower.
However, in libel we must remember that it is the defendant's responsibilty to prove his allegations are true. The court assumes that the Plaintiff's claims are true unless the defendant can give verifiable evidence that they are false.

You are also absolutely correct when you said "for libel or slander the language used is critical."

Generally, from the little bit of precedent that I have seen, when I post something on a bulletin board, the laws of the state, country or province where I was when I posted the comments prevail. There have been exceptions in some Spamming cases though.

Law...there are always exceptions, LOL!

 

[jdmills]

It's certainly true that the US Constitution, and the resulting right to free speach only applies in the US. It does NOT only apply to the Government or the press, it applies to everyone in the US. See Cohen v. California, 91 S.Ct. 1780 (1971) where an individual who walked through a courthouse wearing a jacket with the words "F**K THE DRAFT written on it was found to have a constitutionally protected right to do so. Discussions forums such as this are precisely they type of speech that is intended to be protected. I do not worry too much about being sued in a foreign jurisdiction since another country would have a nearly impossible time obtaining jurisdiction over me and in a US court I have a constitutionally protected right.

Now, that does not mean that the administrators of this board cannot establish their own rules regarding what is permissible and what is not and I either need to abide by them or get barred from the site. I think that is where you are a bit confused, the government cannot limit my constitutional right to free speech except in certain situations but you can. The right, however is mine, and yours and everyone elses.

Enough of this, this is a Martial Arts forum and this is starting to sound too much like work.

 

[Matt Stone]

So it seems we have reached something of a consensus, based on legal procedure...

Essentially, a person posts his disagreement with claims made publicly by some individual. So long as his disagreements are framed in such a fashion as not to be libelous, e.g. "I do not believe XY and Z claims made by Mr. Q," or words to that effect.

Then we allow the claimant to either provide (or fail to provide) the proof necessary to substantiate their claims.

In the event that they fail to provide such proof, or an argument sufficiently convincing to substitute for such proof, then in accordance with the rules of the board, we allow the thread to stand as is, the lack of proof being, in a certain sense, proof to support the original disagreement...

I think we can move on now...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[jdmills]

Of course, none of this is set in stone, at least as far as who will believe what. Any individual reading any post will reach their own decision and there is no way to determine a "standard of proof", at least not to dictate one that everyone must use. If you question my rank (such that is is) for example, and I did not respond with anything to show that I actually trained with X or whatever, then readers could (if they wish) infer that my ranking is bogus. Of course, those that know me may also infer that you are an idiot for questioning me and that I do not need to justify myself to you. I think this is what we are encountering here and there is just no way around it. People are free to ask whatever questions that they like and others are free to provide supporting documentation, or not. Everyone then draws their own conclusions and both camps are right:

1. If I claim to have a certain rank or degree (I claim a Juris Doctorate) then I should be able to back it up

However, it is also true that:

2. I have no obligation to prove anything to anyone if I do not want anything from that individual or organization

It's really a complete impass if you ask me.

 

[kkbb]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
When initiating a line of questioning toward an individual whose claims, background, lineage and/or skill are of a questionable nature, what standpoint does the entire discussion take on?

I offer that the individual who has made the claims that are the instigating factor in the questioning takes on the role of a prosecuting attorney and/or the client thereof, and that the people asking the individual to provide proof to support his/her claims is more akin to the defense attorney whose primary role is simply to create reasonable doubt, or to air same publicly as a means by which further examination can occur...

I have been told, and heard elsewhere, that the person asking the questions is the prosecutor, and the person being asked is the defendant... But that goes against the entire judicial analogy.

The defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty. However, the defendant is the one against whom allegations are made. Up to that point, I can see the connection to the counter-argument against my position.

However, since the responsibility for providing evidence to support an allegation lies in the lap of the prosecution, and all the defense really needs to do is to have a sound argument against which the evidence must be measured, I feel that the person making the questionable claims is responsible to provide the proof to support their claims... Not the other way around.

How do the rest of you feel?

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

I think its funny to see people who have vendettas against people (justified or not) carry on in such a fashion as this thread and on this board. I have read throughout MT your posts and you just don't "let it rest"

First of all, if I was on the recieving end of you and your friends accusation I would do 2 things
1) ignore the hell out of you
2) ignore the hell out of you

Whether someones rank is "verifiable" or not is really none of your or anyone elses business. If the people that this "someone" teaches finds value in what they learn then who is anybody to question their validity.

Consumer beware.

Rather than "internet" vendettas's, the next time you or your friends have a problem with someone's rank or claims would it not be wise to go to thier place of business and confront personally?

After all, this would be the sign of true maturity, would it not. And if this person was truly "bogus" then you could let his/her students know in person.

But, before you let thier students know... ask them if they find value in what they are learning. Then make that decision.

All of this said without predjudice or malice.

 

[Zepp]

Originally posted by RyuShiKan
Judging from the tone of your questions it sounds like you are either trolling or picking issue with every word in my posts.
As my previous posts states the certificates were in Japanese,
Therefore one would conclude that I am talking about Japanese or Okinawan arts.

Sorry, I didn't mean to for my tone to sound so strong.

When you replied that a certificate from me would be proof of my training, and then went on to explain what was wrong with the certificates people had sent you, I took it to mean that you felt you could judge the authenticity of a certificate from any Asian martial art. I guess that's not what you meant. :asian:

(That's the danger of posting when it's 1:00 am and you're tired. :shrug: )

kkbb,
That's the healthiest attitude I've heard yet about this whole thing.

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by kkbb
I think its funny to see people who have vendettas against people (justified or not) carry on in such a fashion as this thread and on this board. I have read throughout MT your posts and you just don't "let it rest"

Let what rest? What vendetta? I started this thread to try to determine what the overall opinion was regarding the stance I took. I was rewarded with good insight and corrective commentary to better align my thinking with comparable examples in the legal community. Any questions I have for persons in particular have been levied elsewhere directly toward them. This thread was about the method of questioning and approach to the topic, that is all... If you read more into it, it would seem that is your problem and misunderstanding, not mine.

First of all, if I was on the recieving end of you and your friends accusation I would do 2 things
1) ignore the hell out of you
2) ignore the hell out of you

Well, good for you. Feel free to ignore your way out of the thread then... If you were so inclined to ignore me, Mr. Mysterious Incomplete Profile, then you should have done so. Having chimed in makes me believe you are just making the above statements for show... Feel free to ignore me to prove me wrong...

Whether someones rank is "verifiable" or not is really none of your or anyone elses business.

Really? Then whose business is it? Someone makes a public claim, they need to be prepared to defend it. If they don't want to defend it, fine. But the possible repurcussions of failing to at least make a modest effort at correcting misperceptions about their claim will follow them.

If the people that this "someone" teaches finds value in what they learn then who is anybody to question their validity.

Well, folks found value in the teachings of Jim Jones, and look where it got them. David Koresh, too, and a host of others. But I think most right minded folks won't deny the fact that the folks who were busy finding value were more than a little too subjective to determine whether there was value or not. Sometimes folks just don't know any better, and can only go with what they see in front of them. If all they see in front of them is fraud, then they won't see it for what it is, and they will be the next victims on the hit parade.

Consumer beware.

Well, that is a rather handy and simplistic argument, but I really don't think it applies. Consumer beware is fine if you are buying second hand clothing, or something else relatively safe, but it just isn't enough when what the consumer may not know could potentially endanger their lives... At that point I think a higher standard applies.

Rather than "internet" vendettas's, the next time you or your friends have a problem with someone's rank or claims would it not be wise to go to thier place of business and confront personally?

That's a very mature and well thought out response... You're right... I should instead approach the person face to face (especially when there is a large amount of distance to cover in such a commute), and run the risk of a verbal altercation turning physical when they take issue with my questioning... Or not. Or are you suggesting I simply show up with a challenge hanging from my belt? Not wise, either. Either way, doing such a thing in person is beyond most people's means, and isn't that what the internet is here for, to decrease the distance between people, provide information and education and to increase communication?

After all, this would be the sign of true maturity, would it not. And if this person was truly "bogus" then you could let his/her students know in person.

See the above comment regarding the wisdom of issuing challenges in this litigation-happy society.

But, before you let thier students know... ask them if they find value in what they are learning. Then make that decision.

Without the benefit of information to the contrary, how would they know whether it was of value or not? To paraphrase an old story, three blind men will all describe the elephant they grope in completely different terms. Without knowledge of what is beyond their experience and perception, they are limited in their ability to make decisions.

All of this said without predjudice or malice.

Sure it was.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: