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: The Duke of URL© who wrote (66264)	3/21/2002 1:11:31 PM
From: jonkai	Respond to of 74651

Don't be drift-missing here, Chuck. The original issue by Junko is that it was alright and if fact good that the attorneys for sunw to "accidently" introduce incompetent hearsay evidence to corrupt the judge with known inadmissible evidence, see The Book of Junko 16:23. you can misquote me all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the judge did accept most of the testimony, some of it, another judge may consider hearsay in another court room.... this judge only objected to a small part, which you seem to be fascinated with.... like it never happens in court...... it HAPPENS ALL THE TIME..... it just must be new to you..... another judge may have accepted the that part of it, and thrown out another part........ depends on what the judge decides is hearsay and what is not....its not like hearsay has a big red tag on it.... it has to be the judge who decides which is and is not........ jon.