PAJC- THIEVES, LIARS, and HYPOCRITES

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

At last, someone with the ability to read the whole post without jumping off the deep end first.

The problem is that you are accusing some of certain things without proof. A "he said/she said" type thing. What's the legal name for that....heresay?

[MrMasterMind]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The problem is that you are accusing some of certain things without proof. A "he said/she said" type thing. What's the legal name for that....heresay?

Hearsay. And there are approximately 27 exceptions to the hearsay rule, in federal rule alone. Or so I have been told

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by MrMasterMind

Hearsay. And there are approximately 27 exceptions to the hearsay rule, in federal rule alone. Or so I have been told

Indeed. I just checked my horn book on Federal rules and there are 175 pages explaining hearsay and the exceptions.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The problem is that you are accusing some of certain things without proof. A "he said/she said" type thing. What's the legal name for that....heresay?

No, What he is saying is that if the revisionists are to be believed then the previous generation was no good.

The fact is the revisionists are not just saying things but writing them. The fact that something is said doesn't mean that it would be excluded by hearsay rules...far from it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

No, What he is saying is that if the revisionists are to be believed then the previous generation was no good.

The fact is the revisionists are not just saying things but writing them. The fact that something is said doesn't mean that it would be excluded by hearsay rules...far from it.

The part in bold is the problem...WHO are the revisionists? What did they say?

If it is a fact, someone give us some information that are in the dark. I have no idea what MM is speaking of...