not_alice Give it a rest, not even Kimmy_Gibbler is taking your inane line of argument.
So let me get this straight, Mswas. You’re telling me that as a licensed massage therapist, there are certain things you wouldn’t do? Because those things would violate your professional ethics?
So there are certain things you won’t do that are pretty obvious, like you won’t give your client a handjob during a massage.
But it also turns out there are certain things you won’t do that aren’t obvious…like you won’t give sex advice while speaking as an LMT? Not only won’t you give handjobs, you won’t advise people on the best way to give handjobs? Because that might cause confusion among the public about the role of the massage therapist?
Do I have that about right?
Whoah.
I think we’re all missing the forest for the trees here. The real question we should be asking ourselves is whether lawyers can give advice about the best way to give a handjob.
No, no. Lawyers don’t give handjobs… they fuck you.
Nice! 
I’m going to have to turn that into a Lawyers and Masseuses joke:
What’s the difference between a Masseuse and a Lawyer? A Masseuse gives you a handjob while a lawyer just fucks you!
That part is less obvious? :dubious:
Do you ask your Dentist about the best way to give a blow job?
Am I being whooshed is this just a joke with terrible delivery?
Inferring doesn’t mean what you think it means either.
Yes I do use words for a living, I use them to persuade (although IANAL)
You are the one who is using words, important words to your case, improperly, because you either don’t know what they mean (despite being 6th grade vocabulary level) or because you think they sound important in a discussion with lawyers.
They only make you look foolish really.
And when you miss the point of Kimmy’s question six ways until Sunday, you can’t simply say you messed up, you take it out on me.
And no, he didn’t ask you your advice on what oil YOU use, he asked what oil of a list you recommend HE use.
Now you see how easy it is to misinterpret requests for professional advice on the internet? You do get that don’t you?
Really?
Inane doesn’t mean what you think it means either.
Why would it be obvious? If I ask you for ways to provide enjoyable and therapeutic touch to my new gf who happens to be paraplegic, you couldn’t tell me?
ummmm…NO MORE QUESTIONS!!
not_alice You truly are a moron. You had good luck with prognosis now you’re pushing for the overkill. Now you’re following me around to other threads hate-crushing. Your little bit about trying to change the scope of practice of a massage therapist is yes, inane.
–adjective
- lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions.
- empty; void.
I just lurve Witkin, and it’s so hard to lay hold of outside a library. I can send all of Bender’s P&P and other stuff to myself via email from the library for leisurely study, and my next door neighbor has some good CEB and Rutter guides…but Witkin…the elusive and delicious Witkin… Now if I could just lay hands on the Summary of Ca Law. I think I have found a good source for Evidence…
I never see Cal Jur, though. But then, that’s a a hundred volumes or something like that.
Contrary to the assumptions being made from what has been very deliberately truncated and incomplete information, my arguments and theories are very clear. I’m not obsessing on esoterica - but I don’t want to be tripped up by concepts that aren’t clear to me by assuming they don’t count. Like ultimate/evidence/legal conclusions. Especially since it turns out that a clear understanding of the difference was crucial in relation to her statement of decision and will be important in my appeal argument.
It’s very strange the way people have assumed that since the beginning…that because I bring up a specific topic, it’s THE topic I think is the heart and soul of my case. No…it’s a topic I want to understand better, that’s all. Because it might make a difference.
From one of my early organizing lists from last year:
C. Research
1. Areas of law/topics
a) Procedure
(1) Appellate Generally
i) Standards of Review
(a) De Novo
(b) Abuse of Discretion
(c) Sufficiency of Evidence
ii) Brief Writing
(2) New Trial
(3) Equity
(4) Judicial Notice
(5) Unclean Hands
(6) Bifurcation
(7) Judicial Bias & Disqualification
(8) Judgment, Interlocutory
(9) Operating Agreements, Contracts
(10) Statutory Construction
(11) Summary Judgment
(12) Judgment on the Pleadings
b) Law & Equity
(1) Dissolution
(2) Deadlock
(3) Partition
(4) Unlawful detainer
i) demur
ii) special appearance
iii) jury trial
(5) Attorney Fees
i) common benefit
(6) Receivership
(7) Undertakings
Some things turned out to be less of an issue or were resolved, and other things ahve emerged. But my goal since the beginning has been to take in all the information I can about every aspect of my case, both legally and procedurally. And when I run across something that I can’t figure out to my satisfaction, I have asked for information so I can understand it better.
I’ve been steeped in evidence study recently, and the whole hearsay thing? holy mother of god. I asked my lawyer pal next door if hearsay and the exceptions filled up an entire year of law school and she laughed but said the truth was not far off.
It’s fascinating stuff and very difficult to be perfectly clear about…there comes a point where it seems as though pretty much everything is hearsay under one theory or another.
For instance. Plaintiff says on the stand:
“I told Defendant that I didn’t want her to pay this bill. I’m sure I did because I remember being angry about it.”
Hearsay!
Yes, reporting one’s own speech at an earlier time is hearsay, but that’s not the best part. It’s hearsay because he’s stating that he was angry when he said it. Not to prove that he was angry, but to prove that he said it. Can’t do that.
And I’d love to see a trial with really top notch kick ass litigators and a judge who knows their shit backwards and forwards and see what such a trial would look like, because it seems quite the expectation for people to remember every one of these nuances in the moment that they are being spoken. Having sat through two trials, and now knowing how much completely outrageous shit made it through on both sides, I assume it that these nuances are NOT remembered thoroughly very often. I can understand the idea of “teams” of lawyers now… I imagine one is assigned to one very narrow area to be on the watch for, kinda like a script girl on a movie set…
Classic excited utterance. Admissible., provided there’s a proper offer of proof, which there could or could not be, depending on… well, you don’t want to know. If it disagrees with you, you’re not going to read it.
Watch this- it will teach you more than you could ever learn doing what you’re doing.
Party admission – so you don’t even need a hearsay exception. Possibly a verbal act, as well. Also, the statement “I was angry at the time” is in no wise hearsay. I don’t know how Stoid could possibly come to the conclusion that it is. Well, except for the fact that she is a nutter.
Also when you introduce testimony “I said X” not to prove the truth of X, but to prove that someone said something (to show that the person was capable of speech, or that a notice was given), that is classic non-hearsay.
Don’t worry Stoid, I’m sure you’ll find Wigmore on Evidence. Appellate courts love having hornbooks cited at them.
:smack:
This nugget of analytical gold illustrates why you are an appellant and not an appellee.
My favorite part was the breathless reporting of something everyone learns on the first day of the hearsay module in Evidence class.
It’s not a party admission if you’re testifying about something you yourself said previously that helps your litigation position.
Depends on who is trying to get the evidence in. The Plaintiff made the statement so it’s admissible against her, but not in her favor. Rule 801(d)(2).
I agree with the rest of your analysis. It depends a lot on the issue as to which exceptions might apply.