Dutch, it's time for you to go have a nice, long chat w the Lizardmen. They are the only ones who understand how brilliant you are and will agree that Trump is a genius. Your wisdom is wasted on other humans.
GOP senator to object to Electoral College results, forcing Congress to vote on overturning Biden's win
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
That's not true...you just make stuff up...also, not everything is as complicated as you present them as.
Ok, I read it...is an opinion paper from a law firm, not a court of law.
The first thing they say is hearsay evidence may be accepted by a judge's discretion if it is necessary and reliable...this law firm gives eight ways hearsay evidence can be used and none of them apply to the election.
You read it, but didn't understand it fully. There are 8 traditionally established "categories" of exceptions to the hearsay rule. However, the Supreme Court of Canada (not just this law firm) has now rejected this "categorical" approach to exceptions in favour of a principled approach. That's why the circumstances under which hearsay will be accepted are not limited to these 8 categories (or any category) and are constantly expanding.
Exactly what I told you.
How apropos that you would make try to make a point about electronic music as if it were mechanical.
You are making up "That's why the circumstances under which hearsay will be accepted are not limited to these 8 categories (or any category) and are constantly expanding."
You are making up "However, the Supreme Court of Canada (not just this law firm) has now rejected this "categorical" approach to exceptions in favour of a principled approach."
Also, Supreme Court of Canada has no input in American election issues.
So you post an opinion piece by a legal firm about Canadian law then state that this opinion is wrong so therefore affidavits in the US with hearsay are now legit even when they have been repeatedly rejected by every level of court in the US.
WTH are you talking about?
The SCC case, R. v. Khan, is cited in the paper!
As to how the courts have applied R. v. Khan (and there are plenty of cases applying it since 1990), you'll have to do your own research or pay someone to do it for you.
Why do you think the US law on hearsay is significantly different? Here are almost 30 exceptions recognized by category under the Federal rules of evidence:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
Here's at least a starter to help you understand the growth of a principled approach in the US in conjunction with express exceptions in the Rules of Eviddnce:
Hearsay in United States law - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You only found out 10 minutes ago that there were any exceptions. Come back to me when you know something about the subject.
One of your greatest S's.So you post an opinion piece by a legal firm about Canadian law then state that this opinion is wrong so therefore affidavits in the US with hearsay are now legit even when they have been repeatedly rejected by every level of court in the US.
Have to get you back on track...we were talking about hearsay evidence as it relates to the US election.WTH are you talking about?
The SCC case, R. v. Khan, is cited in the paper!
As to how the courts have applied R. v. Khan (and there are plenty of cases applying it since 1990), you'll have to do your own research or pay someone to do it for you.
Why do you think the US law on hearsay is significantly different? Here are almost 30 exceptions recognized by category under the Federal rules of evidence:
Rule 803. Exceptions to the Rule Against Hearsay
www.law.cornell.edu
Here's at least a starter to help you understand the growth of a principled approach in the US in conjunction with express exceptions in the Rules of Eviddnce:
Hearsay in United States law - Wikipedia
You only found out 10 minutes ago that there were any exceptions. Come back to me when you know something about the subject.
The Supreme Court of Canada is not at issue here...nor is R v. Khan.
I am aware of hearsay evidence...you suggesting I found out about in 10 minutes ago is another one of your ignorant, misleading statements of arrogance.
None of the exceptions of hearsay evidence rules apply...none.
He’s a difficult guy...arguing for the sake of confrontationSo you post an opinion piece by a legal firm about Canadian law then state that this opinion is wrong so therefore affidavits in the US with hearsay are now legit even when they have been repeatedly rejected by every level of court in the US.
Why thank you sir, you are too kind.
But really, the credit goes to you and your most outrageous theory of fact and law that appears rational to you yet.
Do you understand how Khan is applied? Let me help you.
First, the witness has to be unavailable. That doesn't mean "has a dentist appointment" or "is a half-hour bus ride away". That means dead, in another country, is in a coma, etc. In Khan, the witness was a small child who was ass-fingered by the pervert Khan and was too hysterical and emotionally fragile to attend court and testify. There was a massive pile of medical evidence about this.
Second, there has to be overwhelming circumstantial guarantees that the evidence is reliable. The terrorized little kid in Khan immediately ran to his mom and wept that he / she had been ass-fingered, providing specific details. No room for coaching, over active imagination or any other tainting. The Mom attended as a witness and was cross examined.
Saying "Hey judge, someone whose name I forget told me that she saw people throw out Trump ballots somewhere in Wisconsin" does not explain why you didn't get the damn name and subpoena the eyewitness, nor does it provide any guarantee that alleged eyewitness didn't just make the entire story up. So the Trump lawsuits didn't even BEGIN to meet any of the Khan tests.
So no. Khan doesn't help you.
