Rec count

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Watch you're step.

P-

"Whatch"

Originally posted by Nordlys
"Whatch"

Wristwhatch

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Wristwhatch

Alerted!

Originally posted by Nordlys
Alerted!

This topic is so lousy I no even know where to begin.

Originally posted by Phlabibit
This topic is so lousy I no even know where to begin.

Oh, throw in some cooking or baking stuff, you know you want to. 😉

Originally posted by Phlabibit
This topic is so lousy I no even know where to begin.

So it's a no-know?

Originally posted by Nordlys
So it's a no-know?

Way to ruin this discussion! Before yuo posted we were well on our way to being as sticky as mucus!

Originally posted by Phlabibit
Way to ruin this discussion! Before yuo posted we were well on our way to being as sticky as mucus!

I don't see yuo's post, was it removed?

Originally posted by Korch
1) "...but direct a quote is an entirely different matter." - can you argue this claim and explain difference?
2) For your notice - education and unethical behaviour are not corelated. So "educated man" and "lawyer twisting everthing to suit your own purposes" are not in conflict.

So please learn something about arguing and logic.

So you admit that you are twisting the facts to suit your own means 😛

A direct quote second hand would be inadmissable in a court of law as it becomes heresay
A direct quote from a conversation that you took part in is admissable
You are quoting second hand therefore inadmissable

Originally posted by Mctayto
So you admit that you are twisting the facts to suit your own means 😛

A direct quote second hand would be inadmissable in a court of law as it becomes heresay
A direct quote from a conversation that you took part in is admissable
You are quoting second hand therefore inadmissable

The only 'court' here is public opinion.

P-

Originally posted by Phlabibit
The only 'court' here is public opinion.

P-

Actually the Mods, are the court here. 😛

And can only be over ruled by Admins!

Originally posted by Mctayto
So you admit that you are twisting the facts to suit your own means 😛

A direct quote second hand would be inadmissable in a court of law as it becomes heresay
A direct quote from a conversation that you took part in is admissable
You are quoting second hand therefore inadmissable

"So you admit that you are twisting the facts to suit your own means 😛" - as usually you are wrong - pointing out your lack of logic is not admission itself.

And you are obviously unable to explain significant difference between "Talking to a third party re a conversation with someone else" and "direct a quote".

Originally posted by Mctayto
So you admit that you are twisting the facts to suit your own means 😛

A direct quote second hand would be inadmissable in a court of law as it becomes heresay
A direct quote from a conversation that you took part in is admissable
You are quoting second hand therefore inadmissable

You are incorrect as a general matter and incorrect according to the facts of this specific circumstance.

The general definition of hearsay is "a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." FRE 801. It doesn't matter if the statement is second hand or from a conversation that you took part in; it's still technically hearsay.

However, in this case, the statement is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but for impeachment purposes i.e. to show that RN was being untruthful.

Inconsistent testimony may be used to impeach a witness without being hearsay, on the theory that the use of hearsay for impeachment does not depend on whether any one statement the declarant made was true, but on the fact that the witness changed his story. The inconsistency between two statements can thus imply that the witness was lying, biased, or unable to accurately recall the matters to which he testified.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~jmellis/non-hearsay%20use.html

As RN's public forum statements are inconsistent with his private forum ones regarding recs, the statement is non-hearsay and would be admissable in a court of law.

As a side note there are plenty of exceptions to the hearsay rule and most hearsay does get admitted under one of them. Though in this case we need not look to hearsay exceptions as the statement is non-hearsay for the reason given.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are incorrect as a general matter and incorrect according to the facts of this specific circumstance.

The general definition of hearsay is "a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." FRE 801. It doesn't matter if the need not look to hearsay exceptions as the statement is non-hearsay for the reason given.

Let's forget tainted USA law and look at the proper definition as defined by UK courts

Statutory definition

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines hearsay as statements "not made in oral evidence in the proceedings" being used "as evidence of any matter stated".[16]

General rule

Statutory exceptions

Unavailable witnesses

Evidence of a witness may be read in court if he or she is unavailable to attend court.[17]

In order to be admissible, the evidence referred to would have to have been otherwise admissible, and maker of the statement identified to the court's satisfaction. Additionally, the absent person making the original statement must fall within one of five categories:

* he or she is dead
* he or she is unfit to be a witness because of his bodily or mental condition
* he or she is outside the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his or her attendance
* he or she cannot be found although such steps as it is reasonably practicable to take to find him or her have been taken
* that through fear he or she does not give (or does not continue to give) oral evidence in the proceedings, either at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement

In the case of absence through fear, some additional safeguards are impose prior to the statement's admission. The court must be satisfied it is in the interests of justice, particularly considering the statements contents, whether special measures (screens in court, or video live-link) would assist, and any unfairness to the defendant in not being able to challenge the evidence.

A party to the proceedings (that is, either the prosecution or defence) who causes any of the above five conditions to occur in order to stop a witness giving evidence cannot then adduce the hearsay evidence of it.

The scope of this rule has undergone consideration in cases when much of the prosecution case involves evidence by a witness who is absent from court. In Luca v Italy[18] it was held that a conviction solely or decisively based upon evidence of witnesses which the accused has had no opportunity to examine breached Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial). However in R v Arnold[19] it was said this rule would permit of some exceptions, otherwise it would provide a licence to intimidate witnesses - though neither should it be treated as a licence for prosecutors to prevent testing of their case. Each application had to be weighed carefully.

Originally posted by Mctayto
[/b]Let's forget tainted USA law and look at the proper definition as defined by UK courts

Statutory definition

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines hearsay as statements "not made in oral evidence in the proceedings" being used "as evidence of any matter stated".[16]

General rule

Statutory exceptions

Unavailable witnesses [/b osecutors to prevent testing of their case. Each application had to be weighed carefully.

The Criminal Justice Act is hardly applicable to the RHP forums.

Even assuming that English law now varies from common law precedents regarding what is and isn't hearsay (those precedents were codified in the FRE), your Civil Evidence Act of 1995 explicitly states:

"In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay"

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950038_en_1


EDIT: You might also want to check section 5(b) of the CEA:

2) Where in civil proceedings hearsay evidence is adduced and the maker of the original statement, or of any statement relied upon to prove another statement, is not called as a witness—
(a) evidence which if he had been so called would be admissible for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility as a witness is admissible for that purpose in the proceedings; and
(b) evidence tending to prove that, whether before or after he made the statement, he made any other statement inconsistent with it is admissible for the purpose of showing that he had contradicted himself.