Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jonkai who wrote (66234)	3/20/2002 8:31:03 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I suspect the attorney offering the evidence had an argument why it was not hearsay, or should be accepted despite being hearsay. JMHO. Charles Tutt (SM)

To: jonkai who wrote (66234)	3/21/2002 1:46:09 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

The definition of hearsay is perhaps 800 years old. It does not tax the philosophical jurisprudential abilities of roadkill. On the other hand you don't know what it means, but you are more than happy to re define it to suit your purposes. He who knows not, and knows not he knows not, he is the fool, shun him. In law there is a declension of "Jail House Lawyer". It refers to someone who throws legal terms around because they sound good together. I will tell you again, that pisses Judges off. Even good Judges look to the attorney to supply good rational, well thought out, well reasoned arguments so that the Judge who may write an opinion that rules in their favor won't be reversed on appeal. It pisses off readers of the thread, also.