Is this email the smoking gun?

[whichphilosophy]

Hearsay is a middle English word

Middle English heren seien, Old English herdon secgan
hear (what some others)say.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hearsay?s=t

1525-35; orig. in phrase by hear say, translation of Middle French par ouïr dire

Synonyms:
1. talk, scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle.
Other synonyms exist such as rumour. However hearsay can be rumour in certain cases.

The point in the previous post will be correct if the mail quoted is directly from the person making a statement and if called for the mail is also authenticated.

Also mail(from the originator's mailbox) and delivered to the recipient's mailbox is considered valid communication where the 'signature' is an electronic signature.

There are still instances where electronic signatures are not accepted but this is a dwindling area.

Useful reference (for the USA)
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/06/what-are-e-signatures-are-they-legally-valid.html

Again, nobody gives a fuck about your arguments. You're wrong.

This is not an argument unless you disagree with the English language the definition of terms. Now that does not mean it's as clear cut as that because there are differences in interpretations in the courts. This is where your views would properly come in.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Again, nobody gives a fuck about your arguments. You're wrong.

It's cute how he can go on and on and on about 'quoting actual legal references' when it suits him, to be precise, then quotes common usage when that suits him better.

You put it much better than ZiprHead. We use the terms both in language and the legal nomenclature to gain a consensus application. However hearsay is also a grey area where the courts may be needed to clarify what constitutes hearsay and what does not.

Even lawyers and judges may sometimes disagree in particular instances,so why shouldn't we.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Hearsay is a middle English word

Middle English heren seien, Old English herdon secgan
hear (what some others)say.

Those are two words, not one word.

Correct but taken from two words that are now fused together through a few hundred years of usage.

 

[Elixir]

Hearsay is a middle English word

Middle English heren seien, Old English herdon secgan
hear (what some others)say.

Those are two words, not one word.

That's heresy, I tellya!

 

[whichphilosophy]

Those are two words, not one word.

That's heresy, I tellya!

Being dyslexic, it took me some time to get the spelling right.

 

[ZiprHead]

The word hearsay comes from the Greek word...

Hearsay is a middle English word

Middle English heren seien, Old English herdon secgan
hear (what some others)say.

Nods to you, Jimmy. You called it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Again, nobody gives a fuck about your arguments. You're wrong.

This is not an argument unless you disagree with the English language the definition of terms. Now that does not mean it's as clear cut as that because there are differences in interpretations in the courts. This is where your views would properly come in.

Troll.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Those are two words, not one word.

Correct but taken from two words that are now fused together through a few hundred years of usage.

Yeah, I know but we're not hearing "say." We are seeing a document that the putative defendant submitted against himself. As already demonstrated multiple times by myself and others, this is not hearsay by both definition and now etymology, too. ETA: the email amounts to a de facto confession and confessions by definition are not hearsay....which is why this is the case:

Admissions by party opponents are not hearsay. So long as the email is being offered against a party and it was “made by the party in an individual or representative capacity” or “the party manifested that it adopted or believed [the contents of the e-mail] to be true” or the email was from “a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject” or the email was “by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship” or the email was “by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of that relationship,” the email is not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).

Citation given earlier.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Correct but taken from two words that are now fused together through a few hundred years of usage.

Yeah, I know but we're not hearing "say." We are seeing a document that the putative defendant submitted against himself. As already demonstrated multiple times by myself and others, this is not hearsay by both definition and now etymology, too. ETA: the email amounts to a de facto confession and confessions by definition are not hearsay....which is why this is the case:

Admissions by party opponents are not hearsay. So long as the email is being offered against a party and it was “made by the party in an individual or representative capacity” or “the party manifested that it adopted or believed [the contents of the e-mail] to be true” or the email was from “a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject” or the email was “by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship” or the email was “by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of that relationship,” the email is not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).

Citation given earlier.

Where there is a direct line of communication as you quoted mentioning a citation I have also seen, and then it does not fit into the legal nomenclature or wide scope of hearsay. I'm aware of this citation which I have seen before.

What you have quoted is where that communication passes through one party to delegate by another, authorised by another or employed by another. Again no one said this would be hearsay in such circumstances.

If you are quoting law or government procedure of any country, definitions do not change but clarity is necessary.

This differs from someone claiming to over hear from someone who heard from another. The citation you mentioned shows an unbroken chain of communication from the originator who authorised repetition demonstrably through an authorised party.

This is different than someone simply passing on something they heard or overheard through another.

However admissibility of hearsay as defined is in certain situations admissible to the US (and English) courts.

Each case has its own circumstances as also modified in case law (or precedent as in the USA).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html

The trial court here admitted the statement on the latter ground, offering several reasons why it was trustworthy: Sylvia was not shifting blame but rather corroborating her husband’s story that he acted in self-defense or “justified reprisal”; she had direct knowledge as an eyewitness; she was describing recent events; and she was being questioned by a “neutral” law enforcement officer. App. 76—77. The prosecution played the tape for the jury and relied on it in closing, arguing that it was “damning evidence” that “completely refutes [petitioner’s] claim of self-defense.” Tr. 468 (Oct. 21, 1999). The jury convicted petitioner of assault

 

[whichphilosophy]

The word hearsay comes from the Greek word...

...meaning "not what WP thinks it means".

However, reproducing the dictionary definition is in itself not giving a viewpoint as to what it means.

Beyond that is determining the validity of hearsay is the legislated in statute and determined by judges in case law or precedent as Americans call this.

Unfortunately to go through it in detail may lead to further incontinence in my posts. In this I can gladly quote some references to this to avoid such horrors.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is not an argument unless you disagree with the English language the definition of terms. Now that does not mean it's as clear cut as that because there are differences in interpretations in the courts. This is where your views would properly come in.

Troll.

Thus quoting directly from the English language is not by definition Trolling

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/troll
To post inflammatory or inappropriate messages or comments on (the Internet, especially a message board) for the purpose of upsetting other users and provoking a response.
to upset or provoke (other users) by posting such messages or comments.

See also posts above.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yeah, I know but we're not hearing "say." We are seeing a document that the putative defendant submitted against himself. As already demonstrated multiple times by myself and others, this is not hearsay by both definition and now etymology, too. ETA: the email amounts to a de facto confession and confessions by definition are not hearsay....which is why this is the case:

Admissions by party opponents are not hearsay. So long as the email is being offered against a party and it was “made by the party in an individual or representative capacity” or “the party manifested that it adopted or believed [the contents of the e-mail] to be true” or the email was from “a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject” or the email was “by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship” or the email was “by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of that relationship,” the email is not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).

Citation given earlier.

Where there is a direct line of communication as you quoted mentioning a citation I have also seen, and then it does not fit into the legal nomenclature or wide scope of hearsay. I'm aware of this citation which I have seen before.

What you have quoted is where that communication passes through one party to delegate by another, authorised by another or employed by another. Again no one said this would be hearsay in such circumstances.

If you are quoting law or government procedure of any country, definitions do not change but clarity is necessary.

This differs from someone claiming to over hear from someone who heard from another. The citation you mentioned shows an unbroken chain of communication from the originator who authorised repetition demonstrably through an authorised party.

This is different than someone simply passing on something they heard or overheard through another.

However admissibility of hearsay as defined is in certain situations admissible to the US (and English) courts.

Each case has its own circumstances as also modified in case law (or precedent as in the USA).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html

The trial court here admitted the statement on the latter ground, offering several reasons why it was trustworthy: Sylvia was not shifting blame but rather corroborating her husband’s story that he acted in self-defense or “justified reprisal”; she had direct knowledge as an eyewitness; she was describing recent events; and she was being questioned by a “neutral” law enforcement officer. App. 76—77. The prosecution played the tape for the jury and relied on it in closing, arguing that it was “damning evidence” that “completely refutes [petitioner’s] claim of self-defense.” Tr. 468 (Oct. 21, 1999). The jury convicted petitioner of assault

Does your response actually make sense in the original Russian?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yeah, I know but we're not hearing "say." We are seeing a document that the putative defendant submitted against himself. As already demonstrated multiple times by myself and others, this is not hearsay by both definition and now etymology, too. ETA: the email amounts to a de facto confession and confessions by definition are not hearsay....which is why this is the case:

Admissions by party opponents are not hearsay. So long as the email is being offered against a party and it was “made by the party in an individual or representative capacity” or “the party manifested that it adopted or believed [the contents of the e-mail] to be true” or the email was from “a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject” or the email was “by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship” or the email was “by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of that relationship,” the email is not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).

Citation given earlier.

Where there is a direct line of communication as you quoted mentioning a citation I have also seen, and then it does not fit into the legal nomenclature or wide scope of hearsay. I'm aware of this citation which I have seen before.

What you have quoted is where that communication passes through one party to delegate by another, authorised by another or employed by another. Again no one said this would be hearsay in such circumstances.

If you are quoting law or government procedure of any country, definitions do not change but clarity is necessary.

This differs from someone claiming to over hear from someone who heard from another. The citation you mentioned shows an unbroken chain of communication from the originator who authorised repetition demonstrably through an authorised party.

This is different than someone simply passing on something they heard or overheard through another. The citation you provided provides one good example of this.

However admissibility of hearsay as defined is in certain situations admissible to the US (and English) courts.

Each case has its own circumstances as also modified in case law (or precedent as in the USA).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html

The trial court here admitted the statement on the latter ground, offering several reasons why it was trustworthy: Sylvia was not shifting blame but rather corroborating her husband’s story that he acted in self-defense or “justified reprisal”; she had direct knowledge as an eyewitness; she was describing recent events; and she was being questioned by a “neutral” law enforcement officer. App. 76—77. The prosecution played the tape for the jury and relied on it in closing, arguing that it was “damning evidence” that “completely refutes [petitioner’s] claim of self-defense.” Tr. 468 (Oct. 21, 1999). The jury convicted petitioner of assault

Does your response actually make sense in the original Russian?

It makes sense on two accounts

1. By defining the definition in language and legal nomenclature by way of quoting them.
2. By applicability in statute and precedent but may be modified dependant on individual circumstances of a case. The citation you gave is a good example of how hearsay is applied.

See:
http://federalevidence.com/node/1303
This expands but hopefully it is not excessively long.

If an email (unchallenged or proven true if challenged) is authorised by the source (be it through another person in unaltered form) then that would be most likely accepted as valid.

I didn't disagree with your points as you can see in earlier posts.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yeah, I know but we're not hearing "say." We are seeing a document that the putative defendant submitted against himself. As already demonstrated multiple times by myself and others, this is not hearsay by both definition and now etymology, too. ETA: the email amounts to a de facto confession and confessions by definition are not hearsay....which is why this is the case:

Admissions by party opponents are not hearsay. So long as the email is being offered against a party and it was “made by the party in an individual or representative capacity” or “the party manifested that it adopted or believed [the contents of the e-mail] to be true” or the email was from “a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject” or the email was “by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship” or the email was “by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of that relationship,” the email is not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).

Citation given earlier.

Where there is a direct line of communication as you quoted mentioning a citation I have also seen, and then it does not fit into the legal nomenclature or wide scope of hearsay. I'm aware of this citation which I have seen before.

What you have quoted is where that communication passes through one party to delegate by another, authorised by another or employed by another. Again no one said this would be hearsay in such circumstances.

If you are quoting law or government procedure of any country, definitions do not change but clarity is necessary.

This differs from someone claiming to over hear from someone who heard from another. The citation you mentioned shows an unbroken chain of communication from the originator who authorised repetition demonstrably through an authorised party.

This is different than someone simply passing on something they heard or overheard through another. The citation you provided provides one good example of this.

However admissibility of hearsay as defined is in certain situations admissible to the US (and English) courts.

Each case has its own circumstances as also modified in case law (or precedent as in the USA).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html

The trial court here admitted the statement on the latter ground, offering several reasons why it was trustworthy: Sylvia was not shifting blame but rather corroborating her husband’s story that he acted in self-defense or “justified reprisal”; she had direct knowledge as an eyewitness; she was describing recent events; and she was being questioned by a “neutral” law enforcement officer. App. 76—77. The prosecution played the tape for the jury and relied on it in closing, arguing that it was “damning evidence” that “completely refutes [petitioner’s] claim of self-defense.” Tr. 468 (Oct. 21, 1999). The jury convicted petitioner of assault

Does your response actually make sense in the original Russian?

It makes sense on two accounts

1. By defining the definition in language and legal nomenclature by way of quoting them.
2. By applicability in statute and precedent but may be modified dependant on individual circumstances of a case. The citation you gave is a good example of how hearsay is applied.

See:
http://federalevidence.com/node/1303
This expands but hopefully it is not excessively long.

If an email (unchallenged or proven true if challenged) is authorised by the source (be it through another person in unaltered form) then that would be most likely accepted as valid.

Anything can be challenged by invalid argument. That doesn't mean the thing under discussion might not be true. The email as it pertains to Trump Jr doesn't fit hearsay and so any competent judge will recognize that.

I didn't disagree with your points as you can see in earlier posts.

Okay, this is just close enough, for this sub-thread to end. Let's move past any minor differences and discuss whatever this thread was supposed to be about--I don't even remember anymore.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yeah, I know but we're not hearing "say." We are seeing a document that the putative defendant submitted against himself. As already demonstrated multiple times by myself and others, this is not hearsay by both definition and now etymology, too. ETA: the email amounts to a de facto confession and confessions by definition are not hearsay....which is why this is the case:

Admissions by party opponents are not hearsay. So long as the email is being offered against a party and it was “made by the party in an individual or representative capacity” or “the party manifested that it adopted or believed [the contents of the e-mail] to be true” or the email was from “a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject” or the email was “by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship” or the email was “by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of that relationship,” the email is not hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).

Citation given earlier.

Where there is a direct line of communication as you quoted mentioning a citation I have also seen, and then it does not fit into the legal nomenclature or wide scope of hearsay. I'm aware of this citation which I have seen before.

What you have quoted is where that communication passes through one party to delegate by another, authorised by another or employed by another. Again no one said this would be hearsay in such circumstances.

If you are quoting law or government procedure of any country, definitions do not change but clarity is necessary.

This differs from someone claiming to over hear from someone who heard from another. The citation you mentioned shows an unbroken chain of communication from the originator who authorised repetition demonstrably through an authorised party.

This is different than someone simply passing on something they heard or overheard through another. The citation you provided provides one good example of this.

However admissibility of hearsay as defined is in certain situations admissible to the US (and English) courts.

Each case has its own circumstances as also modified in case law (or precedent as in the USA).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html

The trial court here admitted the statement on the latter ground, offering several reasons why it was trustworthy: Sylvia was not shifting blame but rather corroborating her husband’s story that he acted in self-defense or “justified reprisal”; she had direct knowledge as an eyewitness; she was describing recent events; and she was being questioned by a “neutral” law enforcement officer. App. 76—77. The prosecution played the tape for the jury and relied on it in closing, arguing that it was “damning evidence” that “completely refutes [petitioner’s] claim of self-defense.” Tr. 468 (Oct. 21, 1999). The jury convicted petitioner of assault

Does your response actually make sense in the original Russian?

It makes sense on two accounts

1. By defining the definition in language and legal nomenclature by way of quoting them.
2. By applicability in statute and precedent but may be modified dependant on individual circumstances of a case. The citation you gave is a good example of how hearsay is applied.

See:
http://federalevidence.com/node/1303
This expands but hopefully it is not excessively long.

If an email (unchallenged or proven true if challenged) is authorised by the source (be it through another person in unaltered form) then that would be most likely accepted as valid.

Anything can be challenged by invalid argument. That doesn't mean the thing under discussion might not be true. The email as it pertains to Trump Jr doesn't fit hearsay and so any competent judge will recognize that.

I didn't disagree with your points as you can see in earlier posts.

Okay, this is just close enough, for this sub-thread to end. Let's move past any minor differences and discuss whatever this thread was supposed to be about--I don't even remember anymore.

I think I confused the other points with yours so my apologies as I got involved in the definitions and sort of forgot your point.

I've done worse however. I have replied a couple of times to my own posts thinking I found someone who agrees with me.

 

[ZiprHead]

I've done worse however. I have replied a couple of times to my own posts thinking I found someone who agrees with me.

The elusive holy grail.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I've done worse however. I have replied a couple of times to my own posts thinking I found someone who agrees with me.

If the other whichphilosophy ever replies back, then you've found yourself a new best friend.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I've done worse however. I have replied a couple of times to my own posts thinking I found someone who agrees with me.

If the other whichphilosophy ever replies back, then you've found yourself a new best friend.

The first time it happened I was going to give a reputation comment.

- - - Updated - - -

I've done worse however. I have replied a couple of times to my own posts thinking I found someone who agrees with me.

The elusive holy grail.

By the way it's not Baboon; its Orangutan.

 

[Elixir]

If the other whichphilosophy ever replies back, then you've found yourself a new best friend.

Lol!
... with friends like that ...

 

[whichphilosophy]

If the other whichphilosophy ever replies back, then you've found yourself a new best friend.

Lol!
... with friends like that ...

I even get compliments