Re: Diversion tactics

More | Report Post

I like juries for matters this controversial, especially when someone is
being retaliated against by someone who has a grudge. Exposing the
fallacies that impact public health in a paper written and promulgated
by a principal in the company might make the exposee a bit testy. I'd
be curious to see if any of the "deciders" were ever involved in any
cases using where the disgruntled party was used as an expert witness,
either behind or in front of the bench; that would include law partners,
firms, other businesses, etc.

On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
> In this case, it was "judges" - the trial judge, and an appellate
> panel of judges who affirmed the trial judge.
>
> On 2/15/08, Deborah wrote:
>> On 2/15/08, Mike B. wrote:
>>>" So, you're willing to defend your statement based upon "the paper
>>> and the transcripts" even though there has been a finding by a
>>> court which says that the doctor did not alter his testimony?"
>>>
>>
>> When you say the "court", do you mean a judge or a jury?