# Arrogant Freeloading "Information" Seeking Asshats!

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115>\
**Category:** The BBQ Pit\
**Created:** [May 12, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115 "2009-05-12T00:39:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 12

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/221 "2009-05-13T04:41:46Z")

</div>

> [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#):
>
> I work with doctors every day at work and have for ten years. Few insurance companies will pay for massage therapy benefits while most pay for physical therapy. You can call yourself whatever you want, but I believe that most doctors would consider a massage therapist a medical professional as much as they do an esthetician.

Dr’s prescribe massage therapy. I know plenty who consider it a medical profession, as that it’s it’s legal distinction. This isn’t a matter of opinion here it IS a medical profession. You don’t get to make up the distinction.

> [@](#):
>
> Of course there are medical benefits of massage therapy, of course! There are medical benefits of getting a facial, too. I like my medical providers to have more than 1000 hours of schooling and 150 hours of patient care. YMMV.

A massage therapist isn’t prescribing medicine or giving you shots, they are working your muscles. Sure it’s not as intensive as other medical professions, but that’s irrelevant, again this isn’t a matter of opinion. Physical therapy and massage therapy are different things, and it’s simply not true that insurance companies will not pay for massage if it’s Dr. prescribed. Massage can be done at many different levels. If I wanted to go do lymphatic drainage I’d have to get certified to do that and it would require duh duh duh more schooling. If I got that certification I’d be working with cancer patients and other immune suppressed patients, and guess what people would still call me? You guessed it a massage therapist.

So in this case it’s just your ignorance that’s holding you back from recognizing a legitimate medical profession. If it’s not a medical profession then why was the state board exam almost all medical questions? If it’s not a medical profession why did I have to take one semester of neurology, two semesters of pathology, about 6 semesters worth of anatomy and several of kinesiology? I don’t pretend it’s on the same level as a Doctor.

Whenever you’re getting your nails done ask your esthetician what she thought of her neurology class?

> [@](#):
>
> Except Nevada, which is still a state.

And I believe requires prostitutes to be licensed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/222 "2009-05-13T04:45:57Z")

</div>

Estheticians don’t do nails, but you’re cute to try to guess. Cosmetologists and estheticians have to take a certain amount of medical courses and need to be licensed. In fact, in New York they need 1000 hours, just like you!

Don’t worry Hon, I’d still tip you as well as I do the girls at the spa.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/223 "2009-05-13T04:51:57Z")

</div>

This one is actually seriously hairy. Which is why I used it as the example. It bumps into a bunch of issues. It’s not at all self-evident. But I’m not a lawyer, so of course I have no idea.

First of all, I’d be shocked to find out that someone could talk about their OWN statement under the hearsay exception for spontaneous declarations. That exception is generally offered under the theory that the person speaking under the stress of excitement has had no opportunity to reflect and speak falsely, therefore what they said was probably honest from their own point of view, at least.

A party testifying that he said something so excitedly that he couldn’t have been lying when he said it would be… lame, to say the least.

And being pissed hardly qualfies anyway:

•

> [@](#):
>
> Was made "spontaneously’while the declarant was under  
> the stress of excitement caused by such perception.  
> [Ev.C. §1240(a) & (b)]
> 
> a. [8: 1466] Rationale: The requisite spontaneity under  
> stress of excitement presupposes the declarant  
> had no opportunity for reflection and deliberate fabrication,  
> thus providing sufficient guarantee of the trustworthiness of  
> such evidence.
> 
> b. [8:1466.5] Requirements for admissibility: To be admissible  
> for the truth of the matter asserted, the statement  
> must meet the following requirements:
> 
> **• there must have been an occurrence startling enough  
> to produce nervous excitement and render the utterance  
> spontaneous and unreflecting;**
> 
> **• the utterance must have been made before there was  
> time to contrive and misrepresent, while the nervous  
> excitement still dominated and the reflective powers  
> were still in abeyance; and**

Merely being pissed off hardly rises to that.

So, The Plaintiff’s accusation: that he informed the defendant two years earlier that he didn’t want certain bills paid. (Therefore she shouldn’t have paid them, therefore they should be disallowed as legitimate, but all that is secondary. The meaningful matter that is being asserted is that he did, in fact, tell the defendant that he did not want these bills paid.) Therefore he is testifying that he said something to prove that he said something, already a problem, and he’s throwing in a comment about his former state of mind as proof that he actually said it:  
\*The defendant on cross:  
Q: Do you know what you said?  
A: No.  
Q: Do you remember if you said it in person or in writing?  
A: I don’t recall.  
Q: Do you remember if you said it on the phone?  
A: I don’t recall.  
Q: Do you remember what the answer was?  
A: No  
\*_Q: But you are certain that you told defendant this?  
A: Yes, I’m sure. I’m sure because I remember being angry about it._  
\*\*  
This is all from the Rutter Group Civil Trials and Evidence.

> [@](#):
>
> [8: 1 028J “Hearsay declarant”: The “hearsay declarant”  
> is the person who made the statement out of court.  
> (2) [8:1030J Witness as declarant: Typically, hearsay  
> evidence consists of the testimony of a witness who  
> heard the “declarant” make a statement (or saw the  
> declarant’s assertive conduct).
> 
> However, a “declarant” can wear two hats: If the out-ofcourt  
> statement was made by the witness who is testitying  
> at trial (i.e. , witness testifies in court to what he or  
> she said on another occasion), the witness is the hearsay  
> “declarant” (see ~8:1034, below).

* * *

> [@](#):
>
> 8:1034J Includes witness’ own statements: **A  
> witness’ testimony as to his or her own statements outside  
> court ("I said … " on the event in question) are likewise  
> subject to the hearsay rule.**
> 
> (a) [8: 1 035J Example: Witness testifies attrial that,  
> just before the accident, he said to his wife, “That  
> guy (D) is driving like a maniac! He must be doing  
> 95!”
> 
> If offered to prove its truth (i.e., that D was driving  
> too fast), Witness’ testimony as to what he told his  
> wife is hearsay. Though the witness is currently  
> present in court, he or she is testifying to a statement  
> made out of court (thus, the trier of fact cannot  
> evaluate the witness’ perception, memory, veracity,  
> etc. when the statement was made).
> 
> On the other hand, Witness can testify directly on  
> personal knowledge as to the acts observed  
> (nonhearsay because not testifying to an out-ofcourt  
> statement).
> 
> 1. [8:1036J “Offered for its Truth”: An out-of-court statement  
> is hearsay only if offered in evidence to prove the truth of the  
> matter asserted (expressly or by reasonable implication,

BUT…what’s here?

> [@](#):
>
> a. Statements of independent legal significance  
> (operative facts): The hearsay rule is not implicated  
> where the issue is whether certain things were said or done,  
> and not whether those things were true or false. In such  
> event, the out-of-court statement or conduct has independent  
> legal significance (whether or not the content is true  
> and despite the declarant’s credibility) and is admissible  
> nonhearsayto prove the words were spoken or the act was  
> done.
> 
> "In these situations, the words themselves, written or oral,  
> are ‘operative facts,’ and an issue in the case is whether they  
> were uttered or written :’

But really, that’s not a problem, it just seems like one, see further down…

Getting back to mental and physical state for a moment:

> [@](#):
>
> (2) [8:1547] Statutory trustworthiness limitation: A  
> state-of-mind/physical sensation hearsay statement,  
> though otherwise satisfying §§ 1250 or 1251 , is inadmissible  
> if made under circumstances indicating its lack of  
> trustworthiness. [Ev.C. §1252; and Ev.C. §1252, Comment-"  
> If a statement of mental or physical state was  
> made with a motive to misrepresent or to manufacture  
> evidence, the statement is not suHiciently reliable to  
> warrant its reception in evidence" (emphasis added)]

Well, in this case the Plaintiff is trying to convince the judge that all the business expenses should be disallowed and awarded to him because he said he didn’t want the money spent that way. I’d say he had a motive to lie.

Moving on…

> [@](#):
>
> mental or physical state: Subject to the Ev.C. §1252  
> trustworthiness limitation (~8: 1547), a declarant’s statement  
> of his or her state of mind, emotion or physical sensation  
> (“including a statement of intent, plan, motive, design,  
> mental feeling, pain, or bodily health”) on a prior occasion  
> is admissible notwithstanding the hearsay rule if (Ev.C.  
> §1251):  
> • The declarant is unavailable to testify as a witness at  
> trial (Ev.C. §1251 (a); see ~8:1080 re “unavailability”);  
> and  
> • The evidence is offered to prove that priorstate of mind,  
> emotion or physical sensation which is itself in issue in  
> the action (Ev.C. §1251 (b)); and  
> **• The evidence is not offered to prove any other fact (Ev.C.  
> §1251 (b)).**  
> [8: 1549] Statement of declarant’s then-existing mental  
> or physical state: Subject to the Ev.C. §1252 trustworthiness  
> limitation (~8:154?), a declarant’s statement of his  
> or her then-existing state of mind, emotion or physical sensation  
> is admissible notwithstanding the hearsay rule when  
> (Ev.C. §1250):  
> • Offered to prove the declarant’s state of mind, emotion  
> or physical sensation at that time or any other time when  
> it is itself in issue in the action (Ev.C. §1250(a)(1));  
> OR  
> • Offered to prove or explain the declarant’s acts or con- ,–,..  
> duct (Ev.C. §1250(a)(2)).

Well, that’s certainly why it was offered, except…

> [@](#):
>
> [8: 1555] Limitation-statement of memory!  
> belief inadmissible to prove fact remembered!  
> believed: \*\*A declarant’s statement of memory or  
> belief is not admissible under §1250 to prove the  
> fact remembered or believed. \*\*[Ev.C. §12S0(b}]
> 
> 1} [8:1556] Rationale: To hold otherwise  
> would virtually undo the hearsay rule:  
> Any statement of a past event is essentially a  
> statement of the declarant’s then-existing state "  
> of mind-his or her memory or beliel-regarding  
> the past event. If such evidence (the statement  
> of memory) were admissible to show the  
> fact remembered or believed actually occurred,  
> any statement narrating a past event would, “by  
> a process of circuitous reasoning,” be admissible  
> to prove the event occurred. [See Ev.C.  
> §1250, Comment]
> 
> (1) [8:1569] Rationale for hearsay exception: In contrast  
> to presently-existing state-of-mind evidence  
> , the rationale for permitting the hearsay use  
> of past mental-state evidence is relatively undefined.  
> Concededly, statements involving narrations of past  
> conditions are unreliable because there is a greater op-  
> portunity for the declarant to remember inaccurately or  
> even to fabricate. Hence. the real reason for admitting  
> the evidence for the limited purpose provided in §1251  
> is simply that, as a practical matter, the declarant’s unavailability  
> necessitates reliance upon his or her out-ofcourt  
> statements. [See Ev.C. §1251, Comment]  
> In any event, the Ev.C. § 1252 “safety valve” applies, thus  
> rendering the statement inadmissible if made under  
> circumstances indicating its lack of trustworthiness  
> (~8:1547).  
> (2) Ev.C. §1250 distinguished  
> (a) [8: 1570] Section 1251 conditions more restrictive:  
> Because of the greater likelihood of  
> fabrication or faulty memory, the conditions for  
> admitting hearsay evidence of the declarant’s past  
> mental state or physical condition are far more restrictive  
> than applicable to the hearsay use of presently-  
> existingphysical or mental state declarations.  
> As distinguished from Ev.C. §§1250, 1251 applies  
> only ifthe declarant is now unavailable; and only for  
> the purpose of proving the declarant’s prior mental  
> or physical state which is in issue in the action (below).  
> (b) [8:1571] Declarant’s also distinguishable on the  
> issue of admissibility of evidence of a declarant’s  
> memory or belief:  
> • Section 1251 permits the use of a declarant’s  
> statement of memory or belief about a past  
> mental or physical state to prove the previous  
> mental or physical state if in issue in the case.  
> [Ev.C. §1251]  
> • In contrast, §1250 precludes the use of a  
> declarant’s statement of memory or belief to  
> prove the fact remembered or believed. [Ev.C.  
> §1250(b); see~8:1555]  
> Thus, if the declarant’s past mental or physical  
> state is offered simply as circumstantial evidence  
> of some other fact (i.e., not to prove the  
> declarant’s past mental or physical state), §1250(b)  
> still applies and the statement of past mental/physical  
> state is inadmissible hearsay. [See Ev.C. §1251,  
> Comment]
> 
> [8:1578] Compare-inadmissible to prove any  
> other fact: The prior state-of-mind/physical condition  
> declaration cannot be offered to prove any  
> fact other than the declarant’s state of mind, emotion  
> or physical sensation to which it refers. [Ev.C.  
> §1251 (b)] Thus, much evidence otherwise admissible  
> under §1251 will be subject to a limiting in-  
> struction (.

My acute awareness of my lack of education makes me extra super careful, not obsessive. I don’t have the luxury of assuming I have it right because I passed the bar, thank god.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/224 "2009-05-13T04:53:58Z")

</div>

> [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#):
>
> Estheticians don’t do nails, but you’re cute to try to guess. Cosmetologists and estheticians have to take a certain amount of medical courses and need to be licensed. In fact, in New York they need 1000 hours, just like you!

And the time it takes to get an esthetics license is relevant because? Again, this isn’t a matter of opinion. You’re wrong, it doesn’t matter what sort of insults you hurl at me, or if you hurt my feelings or even if you bait me, you’re still wrong. Massage Therapy is a regulated medical profession.

How many estheticians do you know who work for Sloan Kettering out of curiousity?

When I work on someone I can help their posture. I worked on a friend who was in a terrible car accident 25 years ago and her Pelvis is permanently messed up. She sees a chiropractor every week. When I saw her she went to her chiropractor a week later and he told he had nothing to do. The reason for that is because I used my seaweed mudrap facial technique to adjust the muscles that would pull her out of alignment and undo the chiropractor’s work.

Wait, are you one of those idiots that doesn’t believe in chiropractic either?

> [@](#):
>
> Don’t worry Hon, I’d still tip you as well as I do the girls at the spa.

My office happens to be in a Dr’s office. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/225 "2009-05-13T04:57:36Z")

</div>

For someone who doesn’t care, you sure are giving lots of examples and explaining an awful lot.

Now run along and get my hot towel ready.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/226 "2009-05-13T05:02:56Z")

</div>

Oh, and, as you might imagine, this little tidbit is from my case. Plaintiff has **no** memory of **anything** about it. Except that he was mad, so he must have said it, right?

Which is why it’s hearsay… it reeks.

(I remember LOTS of conversations I’ve had when I was pissed. I had them in my head, over and over. So vividly that I might even start to think I REALLY had the conversations…except that since the ONLY thing I can remember is my emotion, and not what I said, where I was, how I said it, or what the reply was…I’d be pretty sure that was one of those conversations I only had in my head. Like the one the Plaintiff testified he’d had with the Defendant that led to his being angry and abusive during a particular telephone call. He’d worked himself up so much in the fantasy conversation, he reacted to the real conversation like it was merely a continuation.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/227 "2009-05-13T05:04:56Z")

</div>

> [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#):
>
> For someone who doesn’t care, you sure are giving lots of examples and explaining an awful lot.

This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance no? What started as a playful jibe at lawyers got a whole bunch of ignorant vitriole thrown at me, so I am educating the people who think they know more but actually know less.

> [@](#):
>
> Now run along and get my hot towel ready.

Try to keep up, I am teaching you now, not doing body work on you. 😉

I’m having trouble finding esthetics on the New York State Licensed Professions list. [http://www.op.nysed.gov/proflist.htm](http://www.op.nysed.gov/proflist.htm)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/228 "2009-05-13T05:06:30Z")

</div>

> [@Stoid](#):
>
> I remember LOTS of conversations I’ve had when I was pissed.

I for one, am not surprised. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/229 "2009-05-13T05:10:03Z")

</div>

> [@Stoid](#):
>
> My acute awareness of my lack of education makes me extra super careful, not obsessive. I don’t have the luxury of assuming I have it right because I passed the bar, thank god.

Good thing, because you still have it wrong.

The statement “I was angry at the time” is not a statement of belief or memory. That would be a statement like “I said I believed I discharged his obligations” when offered to prove the fact of discharge. The statement “I was angry at the time” is not going to prove the fact of discharge, it’s going to establish the reason for the witness’s remembering the event.

“I told him not to pay the bill” is not hearsay to begin with, because the declarant’s statement had independent legal significance. How do you think oral contracts are proven up in court? How do you think one’s intents and emotional states are proven up? Mind readers?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/230 "2009-05-13T05:20:35Z")

</div>

> [@mswas](#):
>
> This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance no? What started as a playful jibe at lawyers got a whole bunch of ignorant vitriole thrown at me, so I am educating the people who think they know more but actually know less.
> 
> Try to keep up, I am teaching you now, not doing body work on you. 😉
> 
> I’m having trouble finding esthetics on the New York State Licensed Professions list. [http://www.op.nysed.gov/proflist.htm](http://www.op.nysed.gov/proflist.htm)

Hey there’s this new thing called Google and you can find neat stuff on there! Here you go: [http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lcns/instructions/1323ins.html](http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lcns/instructions/1323ins.html) Estheticians need 600 hours, it’s cosmetologists that need 1000 hours, like you.

But hey, this little back and forth has been good for one thing. I have a friend who wants to get a new profession since she’s sick of the business world, but she doesn’t want to have to go back to school forever. A thousand hours of school and she can be in business!

At least I’m being entertained by my insomnia tonight.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/231 "2009-05-13T05:26:07Z")

</div>

The Plaintiff wants to prove: \*\*That he told the Defendant not to pay the bills. \*\*(It goes like this: “I told her I didn’t want her to spend money on advertising or pay for postage or pay for medical insurance. So all the money she spent on advertising and postage and medical insurance after I told her not to should now be awarded to me in a judgment. Because I told her I didn’t want her to spend it.”

**The Evidence** the Plaintiff is offering as proof:  
“I told her I didn’t want her to spend it.”

After being unable to **remember** any detail whatsoever related to his telling her he didn’t want her to spend that money on those things, nothing at all, he asserts he was angry, with the plain implication that he must be REMEMBERING it CORRECTLY because he REMEMBERS he was ANGRY.

That is the beginning, the middle, the end.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/232 "2009-05-13T05:38:08Z")

</div>

> [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#):
>
> Hey there’s this new thing called Google and you can find neat stuff on there! Here you go: [http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lcns/instructions/1323ins.html](http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lcns/instructions/1323ins.html) Estheticians need 600 hours, it’s cosmetologists that need 1000 hours, like you.
> 
> But hey, this little back and forth has been good for one thing. I have a friend who wants to get a new profession since she’s sick of the business world, but she doesn’t want to have to go back to school forever. A thousand hours of school and she can be in business!
> 
> At least I’m being entertained by my insomnia tonight.

Here’s another profession that requires about the same amount of schooling.

[http://www.op.nysed.gov/rtlic.htm](http://www.op.nysed.gov/rtlic.htm)

They must not be a medical profession either because they only require an associates degree!

Glad you’re entertained, you’re still wrong.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/233 "2009-05-13T05:42:46Z")

</div>

> [@Stoid](#):
>
> First of all, I’d be shocked to find out that someone could talk about their OWN statement under the hearsay exception for spontaneous declarations. That exception is generally offered under the theory that the person speaking under the stress of excitement has had no opportunity to reflect and speak falsely, therefore what they said was probably honest from their own point of view, at least.

From the lego-man video, it seems like the hearsay exception, at least rule 803!!, is for relating statements that other people made that speak to then current events.

Let’s say there was a bank robbery perpetrated by a gang of steampunk ne’er-do-wells.

If you were trying to establish the presence of 1920’s style death rays at the quote scene of the crime unquote, you wouldn’t be allowed to say stuff like “Jimmy said they had 1920’s style death rays” because it doesn’t actually establish that there were death rays present. Jimmy should be on the stand, since he’s the one who saw the death rays.

There are (at least) two exceptions to this rule. The 803 exception would come into play if, when the aforementioned ne’er-do-wells appeared at the quote scene of the crime unquote, Jimmy espied their 1920’s style death rays and in shock and horror exclaimed “My god! They’ve got 1920’s style death rays!” Because of the (presumably) unpremeditated nature of his comment, it serves as a proxy for the event itself. This wouldn’t be as convincing as if you had seen the 1920’s style death rays yourself, but it lends more evidence to the claim that they were present than Jimmy’s say so.

The other exception, which wasn’t covered in a lego-man video so I’m winging it now, would be if the point of the question was not to establish that 1920’s style death rays were present, but to establish that Jimmy said they were. I don’t know why Jimmy’s utterance would be important, but it doesn’t seem impossible that it should be so.

I’ve got it! John Rambo was also at the bank, and heard Jimmy exclaim there were 1920’s style death rays. Hearing this utterance he leapt into action and shot down the ne’er-do-wells’ escape zeppelin with an explosive arrow. Now the fact that Jimmy said “they’ve got 1920’s style death rays” is an important piece of evidence (relating to Mr. Rambo’s purported heroics) and so is legitimate testimony.

The distinction between these two exceptions and the normal rule of hearsay being that in the first, the statement itself, being spontaneous, is evidence that an event occured. (Not very good evidence, I wouldn’t think, but maybe with some other corroborating bits it could make a whole picture.) The second exception, that I kind of made up, is allowed because your testimony (“Jimmy said they had 1920’s style death rays.”) isn’t actually a statement about whether there were death rays present, but is rather a statement about what Jimmy said.

Is that about right, lawyer people?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/234 "2009-05-13T05:49:23Z")

</div>

> [@Tenebras](#):
>
> From the lego-man video, it seems like the hearsay exception, at least rule 803!!, is for relating statements that other people made that speak to then current events.
> 
> Let’s say there was a bank robbery perpetrated by a gang of steampunk ne’er-do-wells.
> 
> If you were trying to establish the presence of 1920’s style death rays at the quote scene of the crime unquote, you wouldn’t be allowed to say stuff like “Jimmy said they had 1920’s style death rays” because it doesn’t actually establish that there were death rays present. Jimmy should be on the stand, since he’s the one who saw the death rays.
> 
> There are (at least) two exceptions to this rule. The 803 exception would come into play if, when the aforementioned ne’er-do-wells appeared at the quote scene of the crime unquote, Jimmy espied their 1920’s style death rays and in shock and horror exclaimed “My god! They’ve got 1920’s style death rays!” Because of the (presumably) unpremeditated nature of his comment, it serves as a proxy for the event itself. This wouldn’t be as convincing as if you had seen the 1920’s style death rays yourself, but it lends more evidence to the claim that they were present than Jimmy’s say so.
> 
> The other exception, which wasn’t covered in a lego-man video so I’m winging it now, would be if the point of the question was not to establish that 1920’s style death rays were present, but to establish that Jimmy said they were. I don’t know why Jimmy’s utterance would be important, but it doesn’t seem impossible that it should be so.
> 
> I’ve got it! John Rambo was also at the bank, and heard Jimmy exclaim there were 1920’s style death rays. Hearing this utterance he leapt into action and shot down the ne’er-do-wells’ escape zeppelin with an explosive arrow. Now the fact that Jimmy said “they’ve got 1920’s style death rays” is an important piece of evidence (relating to Mr. Rambo’s purported heroics) and so is legitimate testimony.
> 
> The distinction between these two exceptions and the normal rule of hearsay being that in the first, the statement itself, being spontaneous, is evidence that an event occured. (Not very good evidence, I wouldn’t think, but maybe with some other corroborating bits it could make a whole picture.) The second exception, that I kind of made up, is allowed because your testimony (“Jimmy said they had 1920’s style death rays.”) isn’t actually a statement about whether there were death rays present, but is rather a statement about what Jimmy said.
> 
> Is that about right, lawyer people?

This is clearly the [Chewbacca defense](http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1974564/chewbacca_defense/). Case closed.

> [@mswas](#):
>
> Glad you’re entertained, you’re still wrong.

You’re always entertaining, especially when you’re so easily riled. Dance some more for me. Bring me more links and explanations, I demand it!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/235 "2009-05-13T05:54:12Z")

</div>

> [@Stoid](#):
>
> The Plaintiff wants to prove: \*\*That he told the Defendant not to pay the bills. \*\*(It goes like this: “I told her I didn’t want her to spend money on advertising or pay for postage or pay for medical insurance. So all the money she spent on advertising and postage and medical insurance after I told her not to should now be awarded to me in a judgment. Because I told her I didn’t want her to spend it.”
> 
> **The Evidence** the Plaintiff is offering as proof:  
> “I told her I didn’t want her to spend it.”
> 
> After being unable to **remember** any detail whatsoever related to his telling her he didn’t want her to spend that money on those things, nothing at all, he asserts he was angry, with the plain implication that he must be REMEMBERING it CORRECTLY because he REMEMBERS he was ANGRY.
> 
> That is the beginning, the middle, the end.

Ah, of course, you are using this as your definition of hearsay: “any evidence that helps the other side make their case, however dubiously”

Testifying “I recall what happened that day so clearly because it made me so mad and I just kept thinking about the events of that day over and over again” just isn’t hearsay, **Stoid,** irrespective of however badly you want to take your opponent’s case away from them. You address it in your closing argument by noting that emotionally trying situations do not correlate particularly well with good, dispassionate memory.

And of course, you’ve yet to address the fact that the statement itself is a verbal act, and thus is also not hearsay.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/236 "2009-05-13T05:58:39Z")

</div>

> [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#):
>
> You’re always entertaining, especially when you’re so easily riled. Dance some more for me. Bring me more links and explanations, I demand it!

So easily riled? I’m not that easily riled at all. I just like to argue. Everyone in like every thread thinks I’m upset about it. Half the time I am sitting here laughing. Go read the ‘gay marriage’ thread and see how many times people thought I was getting upset about it. Nothing of the sort. I get passionate about things when I argue, even if I could care less about it, I’ll argue it passionately. In this case I do actually care, but that doesn’t make me particularly upset that you don’t have any respect for my profession, it’s a common misconception. The educators at my school got so upset about it, I used to kind of chuckle to myself when they would talk about the scourge of the ‘happy ending’. But in a way they are right, there are a lot of ignorant people out there. Massage Therapy is a great tool and can help people stay very healthy. People should know this and recognize the difference between massage therapy and a ‘Manual release’. Everyone is walking around with tons of tension needlessly. Personally I think massage should be so ubiquitous that there is no longer a profession for it. I’d be happy if everyone knew how to give each other massages and did so more often. I think we’d have a more mature and healthy culture over all. _shrugs_ But hey, if actually talking about something I care about and am passionate about brings out the troll in you, have at it, I don’t care. Do you think I would’ve said what I did in the Pit if I were worried about getting ridiculed for it? Hardly. 😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/237 "2009-05-13T05:59:52Z")

</div>

Speaking of the Chewbacca defense, while it doesn’t make sense that Chewbacca lives on Endor with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks, I think this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Johnny Cochrane is the only person who thinks that Chewbacca lives on Endor with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks. Seriously, is there anything even remotely canon that says that Chewbacca lives or lived on Endor? The closest I can come up with is the eternal moaning and groaning of the RotJ haters who wish Endor had been the wookie planet. To the RotJ haters I reply: you got your wish already! The Ewoks are being slaughtered until Chewie takes over the AT-ST! Watch the freaking movie and you’ll see the primitive screwheads didn’t really have the upper hand over the might of an Imperial garrison. What the hell is wrong with you? Move out of your parents’ basement!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/238 "2009-05-13T06:01:53Z")

</div>

> [@Tenebras](#):
>
> Speaking of the Chewbacca defense, while it doesn’t make sense that Chewbacca lives on Endor with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks, I think this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Johnny Cochrane is the only person who thinks that Chewbacca lives on Endor with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks. Seriously, is there anything even remotely canon that says that Chewbacca lives or lived on Endor? The closest I can come up with is the eternal moaning and groaning of the RotJ haters who wish Endor had been the wookie planet. To the RotJ haters I reply: you got your wish already! The Ewoks are being slaughtered until Chewie takes over the AT-ST! Watch the freaking movie and you’ll see the primitive screwheads didn’t really have the upper hand over the might of an Imperial garrison. What the hell is wrong with you? Move out of your parents’ basement!

Yeah, wookies are from Kashyyyk duuuuh!!!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/239 "2009-05-13T06:03:53Z")

</div>

> [@Tenebras](#):
>
> Speaking of the Chewbacca defense, while it doesn’t make sense that Chewbacca lives on Endor with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks, I think this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Johnny Cochrane is the only person who thinks that Chewbacca lives on Endor with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks. Seriously, is there anything even remotely canon that says that Chewbacca lives or lived on Endor? The closest I can come up with is the eternal moaning and groaning of the RotJ haters who wish Endor had been the wookie planet. To the RotJ haters I reply: you got your wish already! The Ewoks are being slaughtered until Chewie takes over the AT-ST! Watch the freaking movie and you’ll see the primitive screwheads didn’t really have the upper hand over the might of an Imperial garrison. What the hell is wrong with you? Move out of your parents’ basement!

I admire your outrage. Give 'em hell.

> [@mswas](#):
>
> I get passionate about things when I argue, even if I could care less about it, I’ll argue it passionately.

It’s couldn’t care less. If you could care less, that’s really not saying that much. DUUUHH!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\
**Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/240 "2009-05-13T06:11:47Z")

</div>

> [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#):
>
> It’s couldn’t care less. If you could care less, that’s really not saying that much. DUUUHH!

**Not\_Alice** is that you?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115.md?page=11)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115.md?page=13)