Re: thanks for clearing it up
Posted by Mary on 6/27/03
You know, I kinda thought I was the grand master, or queen, or something like that. I'm pretty bummed
out by the apparent demotion.
Ah... a lesson on the rules of evidence. Welcome to the land of fun and frolic.
Each jurisdiction will establish 'rules of evidence'. Usually they look sorta like the Federal rules,
but not always. Federal court is different than state court is different than traffic court is
different than, say, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Each comes with its own
Take a look at this link at Cornell:
Most of your questions are addressed there. (Johncodie, that is Cornell, not Corndog)
A tricky scenario, though maybe applicable in johncodiethecrazyengineer's case, is what happens when
the plaintiff, defense, witness, judge and jury are all the same person. AND and argument breaks out.
Haven't figured that one out yet.
On 6/27/03, ff wrote:
> Mary -
> Just out of curiosity, assume johncodie is an attorney in addition to grand master of the board,
> engineer, judge, jury, and enforcement authority for agencies. Would the hearsay, anonymous posts,
> and his false conclusions based on incomplete, anecdotal, and fragmented information, be
> Just how would he go about authenticating this information, in order to support his conclusions
> Sally, when "johncodie" does not actually exist (I know, who's Sally and who cares?)?
> On 6/27/03, Mary wrote:
>> Hey johncodiethecrazyengineer:
>> Thanks for clearing up how depositions work. It was all kinda fuzzy until you explained it so
>> well. You've been a great help.
>> Best Regards,
>> On 6/27/03, johncodie wrote:
>>> Mary has to ask Phares if a client should post, if he/she is in litigation. If you have never
>>> been in litigation, or or deposition, you should know that you can't bagger your witness being
>>> disposed of having any specific knowledge. It just gets you own to the next question. If you
>>> have specific knowledge that later comes back, and you responded negative, it indicates you were
>>> being untruthful. I told you before Frank, if you don't have any specific knowledge, just say
>>> you don't. Nobel to try to defend Dr. Shoemaker, but I don't think he would return the favor.
>>> On 6/27/03, ff wrote:
>>>> What? Too many flaws inherent in his post/thinking for me, or is it just me? How truthful is
>>>> the response if the attorney cannot make you answer because you responded "I don't have any
Posts on this thread, including this one