Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
Originally Posted by redietz View Post
The problem with the KewlJ(s) narratives is that they're basically all hearsay. Not admissible in court. Not even entered into evidence.
LOL

It's always fun to watch laymen express opinions on thorny legal issues such as hearsay.

Mr. Dietz, I regret to inform you that your comment above is WRONG.

KJ's comment is NOT "hearsay" and would be fully admissible in a court of law.

As framed by you, the CORRECT analysis would be "what probative weight should be given to KJ's claims" and NOT "no court would allow him to say that during a trial."

A judge will pretty much always let someone testify as to what they claim to have done: that will be admitted into evidence as "direct testimony" and most certainly is NOT "hearsay.".

Note: just because something is admitted into evidence does NOT make it "true."

Please weigh in next on your cogent understanding of "The Rule Against Perpetuities:" that would rock.

Not to challenge your legal expertise, MrV, but could you point to the post where I said, "no court would allow him (meaning KewlJ(s)) to say that during a trial." My neurons have aged considerably, and sometimes I get confused as to what I actually wrote. So please humor me. I appreciate it.