No, you still go to court, but in the case of "there's no fucking evidence", you assume they're wrong, or lying, or confused, or whatever. False. This is why countries have justice systems.>>62413003
I never said we had to assume it's perjury, clarified above, by a "false" claim I mean any of confused, wrong guy, or lying.
But assuming that any claim of any crime, despite any lack of evidence, should be assumed to be true and the onus should be on the accused to provide evidence defending themselves, brings us back to the days of witch trials.