Johnny <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:

"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>

Which is why hearsay is not considered evidence.

Statements like that just show your ignorance of your laws. I am not
even American and I have a better understanding of your laws. I
suggest you read this:

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect11.htm

You're not a US Citizen and you are telling me that you have a better
understanding of the laws of the nation I live in?

Sure looks that way.

Do you really want to put your $$ where your mouth is and take a test on it?

You'd lose. Do you have any money to give away?

You doggish liar.
I do not like your disrespectful tone of voice to me.

Tough *****.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:46:11 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"Alan Ferris" <alan@spamddandd.com> wrote in message
news:crncb1horsvotmrofkb6ans3rmobeglf2t@4ax.com...

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:38:01 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

Which is why hearsay is not considered evidence.

Statements like that just show your ignorance of your laws. I am not
even American and I have a better understanding of your laws. I
suggest you read this:

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/405/405lect11.htm

You're not a US Citizen and you are telling me that you have a better
understanding of the laws of the nation I live in?
Do you really want to put your $$ where your mouth is and take a test on
it?
You doggish liar.
I do not like your disrespectful tone of voice to me.

Yes I will put my money where my mouth is,

especially as it is clear
you cannot follow a simple link.

Did you bother to check the link
before putting your head into your *****?

"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com> wrote in message
news:vqvdb193vsr4v1mc1v2lak1pg9bco7tp8b@4ax.com...

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:34:35 -0400, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:

"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndbb3m8.1cfb.eighner@goodwill.io.com...

In our last episode,
<F5fte.142408$J25.26361@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
the lovely and talented Johnny
broadcast on alt.atheism:

"Lars Eighner" <eighner@io.com> wrote in message
news:slrndba121.19di.eighner@goodwill.io.com...

In our last episode,
<64u9b1t9mcsbacq13gduj6pu0e5b2r3m2l@4ax.com>,
the lovely and talented Darklady
broadcast on alt.atheism:

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:31:18 GMT, "The other Donald"
<the_donald_13@yahooX.com> wrote:

<needham@syix.com> wrote in message
news:78_se.4498$Pa5.333@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

I'll just consider you too f--king ignorant to understand the
fallacy
of
your below non-argument....

He is dead on target. You just are man enough to realize you're as
fucked
up
as a football bat, as is evidenced by your inability to point the
"fallacy"
you claim exists.

I *think* what Johnny keeps missing is that whether or not
something is considered hearsay has nothing to do with whether or not
it is true.
I can tell you that my mom confessed to being a vampire but it
doesn't mean she IS one. My testimony can be false and still be
legally admissable AS testimony.

I think the confusion comes from trying to take "hearsay" apart
and deduce its meaning from "hear" plus "say." That leads
people to think if you hear something and then say it in court,
it is "hearsay." Of course there is not much excuse for not
looking it up in the dictionary once you are told that you are
wrong.

It is perfect nonsense that you if you testify to what you heard
that it is heresay. For example, consider this hypothetical
witness to a bank robbery:

Prosecutor: Tell us what happened.

Teller: The defendant walked up to the counter with his
hand in his pocket. He said "I have a gun in my pocket
and will blow your head off if you don't give me all the
bills in your drawer."

Moron: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.

The Court: You have to be kidding.


Yes, you have to be kidding. How much law would be left if
people could never testify about what someone said to them or
said in their presence?

Husband: He said he would sent the photographs to my wife if I
didn't give him $5,000.

Moron: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.

Whoops! There goes blackmail. Pretty much all crimes of
extortion and conspiracy would be out the window.

Now exactly the same testimony can be hearsay in regard to one
thing, but not hearsay in regard to another.

Victim: Richard told me that his brother Bob had sworn to kill
my son if I did not give him - Richard - $20,000.

That is direct evidence that Richard was extorting the victim.
It is hearsay as to whether Bob had anything to do with the
crime.

Now if Michael testifies: "Terri told me that she wanted never
to live as a vegetable," that is direct evidence of what Terri
told Michael, not hearsay.

You could attack in on several grounds. Maybe Michael isn't
telling the truth and Terri never said that, maybe Terri did
say that, but there was some reason to think she did not mean
it, and so forth. But you can't exclude it on the grounds that
it is hearsay, because it isn't.

There are also situations in which hearsay is admissible - and
in general the rules of evidence are not quite so strict in civil
procedings. This, however, was not a situation in which the
court decided to admit hearsay. Michael's testimony about what
his wife said to him was never hearsay to begin with.

Have you seen this:
3. A wife or husband may not testify to confidential communications
received
from the other unless the other gives consent.
http://www.tpub.com/maa/38.htm

Doesn't go to the issue of hearsay, besides being military law.

Thanks. I was not aware that was military code.
I know there are times when hearsay is all we have to go on to begin an
investigation.
It still isn't evidence, but it can provide what is needed to start an
investigation.
Also, the corroborating testimony that others gave regarding Mrs.
Schiavo's
expressed feelings regarding vegetative life was noted.
I do not dispute that she made the statement.
I just do not consider her as having wanted to die later.
You know the saying about that was then, this is now?
How do you know that if she coulda talked she would not have wanted to
live?

1) You've just backtracked about a million miles, since initially you
did say you thought Michael was "lying" about what his wife had said
and that her other inlaws were doing likewise.

You're lying.

2) The "that was then/this is now" theory could make absolutely every
decision anyone ever makes moot since they could change their mind at
any point in time.

Decision?
Casual conversation is not ranked up there with life and death decision
making.

All the courts had to go on were Terri's stated opinions

Which they never heard or read.

on the matter
to her husband an in laws.

"Pull the tube on your wife, son." Is that what Terri's in-laws said?

To go against those opinions would have
been to second guess a woman who never bothered to indicate to others
that she had changed her mind.

She never had the chance to voice her opinion after her 'accident'.

Given what we know now about her
medical condition, we also know that once she suffered her attack,
there was no "Terri Schiavo" as a thinking, feeling person with
opinions.

What a ludicrous view of medicine.

The mind that cared was gone and all that was left was her
body, which continued to be healthy -- but utterly without intellect.

All your opinion which has been rebutted by other people.