Stipulation of Facts

 One reason why the legal process is orderly and predictable is because of something called a “stipulation of facts.” The original complaint outlines the facts upon which the case is based. The response looks at each of the paragraphs and decides what things they will agree upon at the outset. These “stipulations” have the effect of narrowing down the areas of disagreement.

Stipulations may also occur later in the proceedings. For example, you might remember that in Guiliani’s oral argument, he stipulated that “this is not a fraud case.” Subsequent stipulations like this are not uncommon. It allows the parties to help the judge decide which issues are ultimately the most important. It is the orderly development of facts, often through stipulations, that eliminate extraneous noise. Whether or not you agree with the conclusions of law, you at least have some assurance that these conclusions are based on facts as determined by the judge rather than innuendo or opinion.

As individuals, we can learn much from this deliberative process. All too often, I see people posting supposedly factual allegations that even basic research shows to be untrue. I will never argue that people are not entitled to their own opinions. But opinions are not facts. We will be able to move forward together more effectively if we to use the judicial approach of insuring factual accuracy first. [Written on January 24, 2021]