Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Wow, if you actually manage to pass [b]LAW SCHOOL, assuming you are even a LAW STUDENT at all - which at this point is a pretty big assumption, you're going to be perhaps the most pathetic lawyer ever.Ted from Scrubs could beat you in trial. [/B]
its abundantly clear now that he is not only lying about being a law student, but trolling as well. he's whob's anal slave gimp. perhaps we should all ignore him.
Originally posted by PVSMost probably. He could have at least tried to make up some legal loophole precedent relevant to overruling an objection of hearsay towards his second-hand bullshtatistic. But instead kept parroting an inane statement about a baseless statement in itself being evidence of itself. But what would I know, not being a law student and all.
its abundantly clear now that he is not only lying about being a law student, but trolling as well. he's whob's anal slave gimp. perhaps we should all ignore him.
Originally posted by StarhawkI have already posted evidence to support my claim, you haven’t so it is your turn.
Still waiting
OK, here are just some things to debunk your statement as evidence.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm
Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
A statement can not be submitted as evidence unless the person is considered an expert on the subject or they have been proven to be knowledgeable on the subject or have been witness by other parties. There are other sub-categories but these are the major ones that we are talking about. Every thing that you have said is plain and simple hearsay which is not admissible in court. It is funny that everyone here knows more about law than you do and we are not going to “law school”.