Podcasts about Hearsay

This is the ultimate guide to mock trial objections! You'll learn the six most common types of objections, how to argue and win objections, the biggest mistake you can make when dealing with objections, and five types of objections you should avoid. 

This conversation delves into the core doctrines of evidence law, focusing on burdens of proof, judicial notice, privileges, and hearsay exceptions. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the underlying principles and policies that govern these legal concepts, providing listeners with a comprehensive framework for navigating evidence law in exams and practical applications.Imagine standing in a courtroom, the stakes high, and the truth hanging in the balance. Evidence law is the backbone of this scenario, ensuring fairness and justice. In this post, we delve into the intricacies of burdens of proof, judicial notice, and privileges, unraveling their significance in the legal landscape.Burdens of Proof: At the heart of any legal proceeding lies the burden of proof, a party's responsibility to substantiate their claims. This burden is twofold: the burden of production, which requires presenting enough evidence to establish a prima facie case, and the burden of persuasion, which demands convincing the judge or jury of the truth of the claim. The dynamic nature of these burdens, especially in negligence cases, highlights the delicate balance between fairness and efficiency in trials.Judicial Notice: Judicial notice serves as a powerful tool for efficiency in the courtroom, allowing certain facts to be accepted as true without formal proof. Governed by F.R.E. 201, it distinguishes between adjudicative facts, which relate directly to the case, and legislative facts, which inform the law itself. The Lincoln Almanac trial exemplifies the strategic use of judicial notice, showcasing its potential to sway a case without additional testimony.Privileges: Privileges in evidence law represent a deliberate choice to exclude relevant evidence to protect vital relationships and societal values. The spousal privileges, for instance, safeguard marital harmony and confidential communication, reflecting the law's prioritization of personal relationships over complete transparency. Understanding these privileges, along with others like attorney-client and psychotherapist-patient, is crucial for navigating the legal landscape.Evidence law is a complex tapestry woven from the threads of fairness, efficiency, and truth. As you continue your legal journey, consider how these elements shape the pursuit of justice, balancing the scales between individual rights and societal interests. Subscribe now to stay informed on the latest insights in legal studies.TakeawaysThe goal is to understand the why behind evidence rules.Trial fairness is a constant balancing act with other societal values.The burden of proof is a party's responsibility to prove their claims.There are two components to the burden of proof: production and persuasion.The burden of production can shift between parties during a trial.The burden of persuasion never shifts from the party who originally had it.Different standards of persuasion exist: preponderance, clear and convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt.Judicial notice allows courts to accept certain facts as true without formal proof.Privileges protect certain relationships even at the cost of excluding relevant evidence.Hearsay exceptions require the declarant to be unavailable for certain statements to be admissible.evidence law, burdens of proof, judicial notice, hearsay exceptions, legal privileges, trial fairness, standards of persuasion, legal education

This conversation delves into the complexities of hearsay in legal evidence, focusing on Federal Rule of Evidence 803 and its exceptions. The discussion provides a systematic approach to understanding hearsay, emphasizing the importance of context, spontaneity, and the reliability of statements. Key exceptions such as present sense impression, excited utterance, and business records are explored in detail, along with their requirements and limitations. The conversation also touches on the implications of modern technology on hearsay rules and the evolving nature of legal evidence.In the world of law, hearsay is often seen as a daunting topic, especially for students preparing for exams or the bar. The complexity lies not just in the definitions but in the myriad exceptions that exist within the Federal Rules of Evidence. This post aims to demystify Rule 803, focusing on exceptions where the declarant's availability is immaterial.Understanding Rule 803: Rule 803 outlines exceptions to the hearsay rule, emphasizing circumstances that inherently guarantee the reliability of a statement. These exceptions are crucial for legal practitioners to understand, as they often appear in exams and real-world cases.Key Exceptions:Present Sense Impression (PSI): This exception allows statements made during or immediately after an event to be admissible, provided they describe or explain the event. The immediacy of the statement is key to its reliability.Excited Utterance: Unlike PSI, this exception relies on the declarant's state of shock or stress. The statement must relate to a startling event and be made while the declarant is still under the influence of that stress.Then-Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition: Statements reflecting the declarant's current state of mind or physical condition are admissible, provided they don't attempt to prove past events.Practical Application: Understanding these exceptions is not just about memorizing rules but grasping the rationale behind them. The law seeks to balance the ideal of live testimony with the practical need to admit reliable evidence. As technology evolves, so too does the interpretation of these rules, particularly in how spontaneous statements are viewed in the digital age.Mastering hearsay exceptions requires a structured approach and a deep understanding of the underlying principles. By focusing on the rationale and systematically analyzing each element, legal practitioners can effectively navigate this complex area of law.Subscribe now to stay updated on more insights into the intricacies of legal evidence and other foundational topics.TakeawaysHearsay is universally seen as the toughest topic in evidence.Understanding the context is crucial for analyzing hearsay.Five mandatory steps must be followed for hearsay analysis.The risk of insincerity is minimized in spontaneous statements.Timing is critical for present sense impressions.Excited utterances require a startling event to be admissible.Statements about current feelings are admissible under Rule 803.Business records must meet strict criteria for admissibility.Emails may not qualify as business records if not systematic.Modern technology challenges traditional hearsay rules. hearsay, evidence, law, Federal Rule of Evidence 803, legal analysis, law school, exam preparation, legal exceptions, courtroom evidence, hearsay exceptions

This conversation delves into the complexities of hearsay in evidence law, particularly focusing on Federal Rule of Evidence 801. The discussion covers the definition of hearsay, the policy reasons behind its exclusions, and the distinctions between hearsay exclusions and exceptions. Key concepts such as the TOMA framework, non-TOMA purposes, and the implications of the Confrontation Clause are explored, providing a comprehensive understanding of hearsay and its application in legal contexts.In the realm of evidence law, few topics are as daunting as hearsay. For students preparing for finals or the bar, mastering the intricacies of hearsay is crucial. In our latest Deep Dive session, we explore Federal Rule of Evidence 801, aiming to demystify this often-confusing area.The Foundation of Hearsay AnalysisUnderstanding Rule 801 is key to tackling any hearsay problem. Before diving into the rule book, it's essential to grasp the policy behind hearsay exclusions. The rule exists to ensure the reliability of evidence presented in court, emphasizing the importance of testimony being tested through procedures like cross-examination.The Three SafeguardsThe Anglo-American tradition values three key safeguards for ideal testimony: the witness testifying under oath, the presence of the witness before the jury or judge, and the opportunity for cross-examination. These elements are crucial in assessing the credibility of statements and are at the heart of the hearsay rule.Non-Hearsay Categories and ExclusionsHearsay analysis begins with defining whether a statement is offered for the truth of the matter asserted (TOMA). If not, it falls into non-hearsay categories such as verbal acts, effect on the listener, or the declarant's state of mind. Understanding these categories is vital for identifying non-TOMA purposes and navigating hearsay exclusions under Rule 801D.Hearsay Exceptions and the Confrontation ClauseWhile hearsay exceptions under Rules 803 and 804 allow certain statements to be admitted due to circumstantial reliability, the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause adds another layer of complexity. The Crawford v. Washington case revolutionized the approach, emphasizing the need for confrontation through cross-examination for testimonial hearsay.A Thought-Provoking DebateThe intricate structure of hearsay rules raises fundamental questions about their necessity. Some critics argue for abolishing the categorical rule against hearsay, suggesting reliance on other rules like Rule 403 to weigh the probative value of statements. This debate challenges us to consider whether the current system is the optimal way to uncover the truth.TakeawaysHearsay is a complex topic that often confuses law students.Understanding the policy behind hearsay rules is crucial for legal analysis.The TOMA framework is essential for defining hearsay.Non-TOMA purposes include verbal acts, effect on the listener, and state of mind of the declarant.Hearsay exclusions under Rule 801D are not considered hearsay due to procedural safeguards.Prior statements of testifying witnesses have specific admissibility requirements.Admissions by a party opponent do not require guarantees of trustworthiness.The Confrontation Clause ensures defendants can confront their accusers.Testimonial statements have specific requirements for admissibility under the Confrontation Clause.The complexity of hearsay rules raises questions about their necessity in the legal system.hearsay, evidence law, federal rules of evidence, TOMA, legal analysis, hearsay exclusions, hearsay exceptions, confrontation clause, testimonial statements, legal education

In this Founder Friday we are joined by Pip Stocks, founder of The Startup Muse.With two decades building, advising, and investing in customer-led businesses, Pip has founded twp ventures in Brandhook and Hearsay. Now building a new platform called The Startup Muse - using AI to bridge the gap between female founder ideas and real life businesses.Founder Friday is about works still in progress. Learning from success stories is important, but learning from founders still in the thick of getting to market is just as useful - and sometimes much more realistic.About Pip Stocks:Linkedin: https://au.linkedin.com/in/pipstocks Website: https://thestartupmuse.com/The Startup Muse Book is on Amazon----------------------The Bootstrap is a production of Hieland Road for The Product Bus. It was developed by Scotty Allen and Declan Magee. Our producer is Sammy Perryman with assistance from Portia McEwan. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

NYPTI Rocks Hearsay - Prior Testimony in Criminal Cases based off the Guide to NY Evidence 8.37 - https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8.37_Prior_Testimony_Crim.pdf and CPL 670.10 https://statutes.nypti.org/$$CPL670.10$$ and CPL 670.20 https://statutes.nypti.org/$$CPL670.20$$

Song based off the Guide to NY Evidence section 8.15 https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8.15_DYING_DECLARATION.pdf

NYPTI Rocks Hearsay - Prior Inconsistent Statement based off the Guide to New York Evidence section 8.33 https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8.33_PRIOR%20INCONSISTENT%20STATEMENT.pdf

Welcome to Fanatical Fics and Where to Find Them! This episode was originally posted on our Patreon bonus feed in January of 2022. Listen to You Pod It, Dude! on Apple Podcasts and Spotify - and follow on instagram!Listen to Professional Talkers on Apple Podcasts and Spotify - and follow on instagram!While this show is no longer being actively produced, we're so grateful to you for tuning in and hope you enjoy the back catalogue and coming wide releases of our bonus episodes. You can find an ad free feed at patreon.com/fanaticalficsFic: https://www.fanfiction.net/s/3943479/1/Only-HearsayPlease leave a review! We'll take kind and constructive… but no flames! You can also help us by suggesting this podcast to every person you've ever met!To see a full list of episodes and recommendations, grab some podcast swag, or get that sweet patreon link visit our website at https://www.fanaticalfics.com/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Song from NYPTI Rocks Hearsay the Album - Prior Consistent Statement set to barbershop quartet based off the Guide to New York Evidence Section 8.31 https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8.31_PRIOR_CONSISTENT_STATEMENT.pdf

NYPTI Rocks Hearsay - NY Guide State of Mind 8.41 - song based off https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8.41_State_of_Mind.pdf

NYPTI Rocks Hearsay - Song based off New York Guide to Evidence https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8.05_ADMISSION_BY_ADOPTED_STATEMENT.pdf Adopted Admission

Our Northern editor Vincent Kearney tells us more.

Caitlin is back with a life update on the absence, and to have a little much-needed fun with a brand-new season of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City, and the premiere episode “Hotdogs and Hearsay” does not disappoint. Angie plans a surprise RV getaway for the group, but with Lisa tied up with work, Bronwyn seizes the moment to stir things up with rumors about Lisa's business. Britani doesn't hold back when she calls out Whitney, while Heather and Bronwyn quickly find themselves in a heated showdown. The drama escalates when Angie drops a bold claim about one of the women, and just when the tension feels ready to explode, a familiar face from Salt Lake City's past resurfaces — bringing a haunting twist to the night. From RV revelations to ghostly surprises, Caitlin breaks down every messy exchange, shocking accusation, and icy stare that set the tone for this unforgettable season opener. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Send us a textLet's get into the season six premier episode of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City! When I tell you the girls came with it...I laughed from start to finish! From the RV, to the campsite to Britani's announcements and the ladies reactions..It was a ten out of ten! I would definitely recommend!Support the show

On this episode of Bravo Bravo Effing Bravo, we break down the Season 6 Premiere of the Real Housewives of Salt Lake City, 'Hot Dogs and Hearsay'. Join Nathan and Mariana as they offer a blunt Aussie perspective of our favourite people in our favourite world of Bravoland. You can also follow us on Instagram @effingbravo for podcast updates, tea, and Bravo news.  On this episode of RHOSLC: Angie arranges a surprise RV trip for the women, but with Lisa gone for work, Bronwyn brings up some rumours she's heard about Lisa's business. Tensions brew as Britani calls out Whitney. Heather and Bronwyn go head-to-head. Angie makes a bold claim about one of the women. A ghost of Salt Lake City past creates a haunting evening for the ladies. Buy us a coffee or a rosé! We appreciate your support. www.buymeacoffee.com/bravobravoeffingbravo  Follow Bravo Bravo Effing Bravo: @effingbravo on Instagram  Follow Nathan: @nathanbrown90 on Instagram or @nathanpatrickbrown on YouTube 

Angie arranges a surprise RV trip for the women, but with Lisa gone for work, Bronwyn brings up some rumors she's heard about Lisa's business. Tensions brew as Britani calls out Whitney. Heather and Bronwyn go head-to-head. Angie makes a bold claim about one of the women. A ghost of Salt Lake City past creates a haunting evening for the ladies. #RHOSLC #LisaBarlow #HeatherGay Thank you for your support of this channel

Song based off the New York Guide to Evidence Section 8.25 Past Recollection Recorded https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8.25_PAST%20RECOLLECTION%20RECORDED.pdf see also People v. Taylor, 80 NY2d 1 (1992) - https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5459673391372827693&q=People+v+Taylor+80+NY2d+1+(1992)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33&inst=12410752515029022684

The Utah ladies kick off their 6th season with an RV camping trip, sans Lisa Barlow and condiments. Armed with residual grudges, scary stories, and camcorders, they put on waders trudge through fly fishing, and their issues. Without Lisa present, the group begins to critique her absence, and her conflicts, with Heather and Brittany eagerly tagging in to come to her defense. As a result, insults from Brittany about Whitney's business leads to an admission about the complete failure of her company, and its financial and emotional toll. Bronwyn brings up Lisa's multiple lawsuits (most regarding her company and/or allegations of unpaid loans) while also apologizing for last season's jewelry confusion when she made it seem like she purchased a $4million dollar necklace on camera...but didn't. Mary and Angie serve as trip hosts as well as MVP's for the amount of comedic relief they provide. All opinions are personal and not representative of any outside company, person, or agenda. Information shared is sourced via published articles, legal documents, press releases, government websites, public websites, books, public videos, news reports, and/or direct quotes and statements, and all may be paraphrased for brevity and presented in layman's terms.Wanna support this independent pod? Links below:BuyMeACoffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/BBDBVenmo @TYBBDB Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Song about an exception to hearsay - the excited utterance. Based of NY Guide to Evidence section 8.17 https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8.17_EXCITED_UTTERANCE.pdf

Present Sense Impression based off NY Guide to Evidence 8.29

Hello and welcome back to SLC!I'm excited to recap this season of The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City. Today we're yapping about Season 6, Episode 1 "Hot Dogs and Hearsay"Let me know what YOU thought of the season premiere! @TheLunaMuseMeredith Marks Brunch Recap: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2256811/episodes/16648612Watch me Compete in a pageant! https://linktree.com/lunamuseSLC recap: 10:45Support the showBe sure to subscribe wherever you listen and keep up to date with new episodes!https://linktree.com/lunamusehttps://instagram.com/TheLunaMusehttps://twitter.com/thelunamusehttps://www.facebook.com/TheLunaMuse/https://www.tiktok.com/@thelunamusehttps://www.tiktok.com/@bravoqueenpodhttps://www.campederson.com/LunaMuseREGISTER TO VOTE! https://vote.gov/

NYPTI Rocks Hearsay - song based off the NY Guide to Evidence 8.09 Coconspirator Statement https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8.09_COCONSPIRATOR%20STATEMENT.pdf

NYPTI Rocks - Hearsay an Overview - catchy single based on the NY Guide to Evidence - Article 8 Hearsay: https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8-hearsay.shtml

Song based on the Business Record Exception to Hearsay section 8.08 of the NY Guide to Evidence: https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/8-HEARSAY/8.08_Business_Record.pdf

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of evidence law, focusing on foundational concepts such as relevance, materiality, and probative value. It explores the federal rules of evidence, including general provisions, gatekeeping roles of the court, specific rules of relevance, and the implications of the rape shield law. The discussion also covers the nuances of witness testimony, hearsay exceptions, and the authentication and best evidence rule. Practical applications and trial strategies are examined, emphasizing the importance of understanding these rules in the pursuit of justice.In this enlightening episode, we delve into the foundational concepts of evidence law: relevance, materiality, and probative value. Discover how these principles shape the legal landscape, ensuring that only pertinent and significant evidence is considered in court. Whether you're a legal professional or simply curious about the intricacies of the law, this episode offers valuable insights into how evidence is evaluated and utilized in legal proceedings. Tune in to deepen your understanding of these critical legal concepts.TakeawaysUnderstanding evidence law isn't just about memorizing rules.Relevant equals material plus probative.The purpose of these rules is to ensure justice.You must make a timely objection or a motion to strike.The court must decide any preliminary question about admissibility.FRE 411 specifies that evidence of insurance is generally not admissible.FRE 412 is designed to protect victims in sex offense cases.The court may admit evidence of similar crimes in sexual assault cases.Every person is competent to be a witness unless stated otherwise.Hearsay is generally not admissible unless an exception applies.evidence law, relevance, materiality, probative value, federal rules of evidence, rape shield law, hearsay, witness testimony, authentication, trial strategies

This conversation provides a comprehensive overview of hearsay and its exceptions, particularly focusing on spontaneous statements and business records under the federal rules of evidence. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the nuances of hearsay, the practical applications of these rules in legal settings, and the challenges posed by modern communication methods. Key themes include the reliability of statements made under stress, the foundational requirements for business records, and the implications of the confrontation clause in criminal cases. The conversation also highlights strategies for law students to effectively navigate these complex topics in exams and real-world scenarios.Dive into the intricate world of hearsay and its exceptions with our latest episode, "Understanding Hearsay and Its Exceptions." Designed specifically for law students, this episode unpacks critical hearsay exceptions under the federal rules of evidence, focusing on spontaneous statements and business records. Gain clarity on how these exceptions allow out-of-court statements to be admitted as evidence, and learn practical insights for exams and the bar. Join us as we explore the balance between reliability and the need for cross-examination, providing you with the tools to navigate this complex area of law with confidence.TakeawaysObjection hearsay is a common legal term.Understanding hearsay exceptions is crucial for law students.Immediacy in statements increases their trustworthiness.Excited utterances are driven by emotional stress.The confrontation clause impacts hearsay admissibility.Business records rely on routine and accuracy.Double hearsay can complicate evidence admission.Emails are not automatically considered business records.Custodians of records must meet specific standards.Future evidence law may need to adapt to digital communication.hearsay, law students, evidence, spontaneous statements, business records, confrontation clause, legal exceptions, courtroom, federal rules of evidence, legal education

In the world of law, the hearsay rule stands as a pivotal principle, shaping the way evidence is presented and evaluated in courtrooms. Imagine a trial where every piece of gossip or second-hand information could sway the verdict. The hearsay rule prevents this chaos, ensuring that only reliable evidence is considered. But what exactly is hearsay, and why is it so crucial?What is the Hearsay Rule? The hearsay rule is a legal doctrine that excludes out-of-court statements from being admitted as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. This rule is grounded in the belief that such statements are inherently unreliable, as they are not subject to cross-examination, and the declarant's credibility cannot be assessed by the jury.Why is the Hearsay Rule Important?Ensures Reliability: By excluding hearsay, the rule ensures that only evidence that can be tested for accuracy and truthfulness is presented in court. Protects the Right to Cross-Examine: The rule upholds a defendant's right to confront their accuser, a fundamental aspect of a fair trial. Maintains Judicial Efficiency: By filtering out unreliable evidence, the hearsay rule helps streamline legal proceedings, focusing on facts that can be substantiated.Exceptions to the Rule: While the hearsay rule is stringent, there are notable exceptions where hearsay can be admitted, such as statements made under the belief of impending death or those that are part of a business record. These exceptions are carefully crafted to balance the need for reliable evidence with practical considerations.Conclusion: The hearsay rule is more than just a legal technicality; it is a safeguard that upholds the integrity of the judicial process. By understanding its nuances and exceptions, legal professionals and the public alike can appreciate its role in ensuring justice is served.Stay informed about legal principles that impact our justice system. Subscribe now for more insights into the world of law and its intricacies.TakeawaysHearsay is a foundational pillar of the adversarial system.The hearsay rule is designed to ensure reliability and fairness in legal proceedings.A statement is defined broadly under the hearsay rule, including nonverbal conduct.The purpose for which a statement is offered is crucial in determining hearsay.Declarants must be human beings for the hearsay rule to apply.The hearsay rule addresses four principal risks: sincerity, narration, memory, and perception.Understanding the missing safeguards of hearsay is vital for grasping its application.Non-hearsay uses include showing the effect on the listener and verbal acts.Hearsay exceptions exist to allow certain statements deemed inherently reliable.A systematic approach to analyzing hearsay is essential for legal success.hearsay, evidence law, legal education, courtroom, trial, law school, hearsay exceptions, legal analysis, evidence admissibility, legal principles

"Hearsay" by Anika from Abyss; "Escape Lounge" by heith from Escape Lounge; "Forest Knows Pt1" by 2muchachos from Natura: 2009-2012; "For Keeps" by Night School from For Keeps; "At Noon" by Zoh Amba from Sun; "30 Groove St Dub" by Nightmares on Wax from Still Smokin III; "Two Bishops" by C. Joynes and Mike Gangloff from Tom Winter, Tom Spring; "Kali Yuga" by Obey Cobra from Mwg Drwg; "Ayaza" by Huma Utku from Dracones; "Tru Nature" by Discovery Zone from Remote Control; "(Dis)place(d)" by Tim Barnes from Noumena; "Erase" by Umberto from Black Bile Variations.

This week, join us as we revisit our episode on Hearsay for a refresher! Original Air Date: July 23, 2021. Rumor has it…there are times when the evidence you are seeking to introduce in court does not come from a witness there in court, but by someone who heard something that someone else said. If you are seeking to introduce this evidence to prove the truth of what was heard, then what you have is hearsay.  Contrary to what you may have heard, hearsay isn't always inadmissible, and sometimes, hearsay isn't even (technically) hearsay.  As usual, it depends – on whether the speaker is available, when and why they were speaking, and what motivated that statement. On this week's installment, Rebecca and Steve navigate the hearsay rule, its exceptions, and the exceptions to those exceptions to provide insight on precisely when out of court statements can be deemed admissible and when a court should refuse to play telephone.

By John Yau

Chris is joined by Marc In this episode, they discuss; Horus Heresy, Old World, and Warmachine.     Music by Muzaproduction from Pixabay

     Slam the Gavel welcomes back James Schoch to the podcast. James was last on Season 3, Episodes 3, 37 and 109 and Season 4, Episodes 81, 113. Today we discussed updates to his case and the growing trend of putting Family First. We discussed Mike "Thunder" Phillips article on Substack, "A Second Declaration: How The Family Court Crisis Mirrors The Reasons We Fought For Independence," and how well written and on point it was in discussion of this national and global crisis.     Jim recommends to parents, after having 10 lawyers in NY State, 12 lawyers across 3 states and 8 judges in Florida, Pennsylvania and NY combined is, "that the only way to win is not to play the game. Who gets hurt? The child who doesn't get to see both parents."To Reach Jim Schoch mule1991@yahoo.com Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.com   https://ko-fi.com/maryannpetrihttps://www.zazzle.com/store/slam_the_gavel/about*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution. Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

Andy dealt with court. Dan had a bachelor party. Tyler walked out of a Primus concert. All our guests have tv credits. try not 2 cum.

This conversation delves into the intricacies of evidence law, focusing on its fundamental principles, including relevance, materiality, and admissibility. It explores character evidence, hearsay, and privileges, while also connecting these concepts to practical applications in the Multistate Performance Test (MPT). The discussion emphasizes the importance of mastering these rules for success in the bar exam and effective legal practice.TakeawaysEvidence law is dense but fundamental for courtroom proceedings.Relevance, materiality, and admissibility are key concepts in evidence law.Character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove propensity.Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted.Privileges protect certain relationships and communications from disclosure in court.The MPT tests practical legal skills using provided materials.Understanding evidence rules is crucial for bar exam success.The balancing act in evidence law reflects the tension between truth and fairness.Judicial notice allows courts to accept certain facts as true without formal evidence.The philosophical implications of evidence law highlight the complexity of achieving justice.evidence law, bar exam, hearsay, character evidence, privileges, MPT, relevance, admissibility, legal analysis, courtroom

In this lecture, we explore the foundational principles of the law of evidence, including relevance, hearsay, impeachment, and privileges, which are crucial for bar exam success. We also introduce the Multi-State Performance Test (MPT), emphasizing its structure, types of tasks, and strategies for effective completion. Mastery of these topics is essential for both doctrinal fluency and practical proficiency in legal practice.TakeawaysMastery of evidence doctrine is crucial for success on the bar exam.Evidence governs what information may be presented at trial.Relevance is the foundational requirement for admissibility of evidence.Hearsay is one of the most nuanced doctrines in evidence.Impeachment allows parties to attack a witness's credibility.Authentication ensures that evidence is what it claims to be.Privileges protect confidential communications within specific relationships.The MPT simulates a real-world legal task requiring practical skills.Success on the MPT requires careful reading and reasoning.Mastery of both evidence and MPT is essential for bar exam success.law of evidence, Multi-State Performance Test, bar exam, hearsay, relevance, impeachment, privileges, legal reasoning, evidence rules, bar prep

The Soul Cafe: Hearsay Catch Chris Clay Mon - Fri 2p-6pm EST On www.soulcaferadio.com  Produced By Heather Whitley and C.Clay Season 9   Hour 1 Leon Thomas & Kehlani - DIRT ON MY SHOES Chico Debarge - Soon I'll Be Loving You Again Alex Isley - Hands (Stripped Down) Kenyon Dixon - Here ft Susan Carol SIR - That's Why I Love You Ft Sabrina Claudio David Oliver - Ms   The Double Down: Eric Bent - Co Star Eric Benét & Alex Isley – Remember Love Eric Benét & SalDoce - Too Soon   Coco Jones - AEOMG Mack Wilds - Simple Things Jeffrey Dennis - On Purpose R. Kelly featuring Nivea -  Touchin MInt Condition  - You Don't Have To Hurt No More Jon Vinyl - Dopamine Normani & Ciara - Ecstasy (Remix) (feat. Teyana Taylor) The Temptations - You're My Everything     Hour 2 Jessie Reyez - CUDN'T B ME John Legend - You & I (Nobody In The World) Emmi -I Love You Earth Wind And Fire - Wait India.Arie & Eric Benét - Must Be Love Iyamah - A Woman's Worth   Rare hard To Find Throwback Jam:  Anita Baker - You're My Everything   Vandell Andrew, Raheem DeVaughn, & The Colleagues - Joyful Noise - The Colleagues remix CeCe Peniston - Before I Lay (You Drive Me Crazy)   Blue Eye Soul Corner  Average White Band - Soul Searching Loaded Honey - Don't Speak Teddy Swims - God Went Crazy England Dan & John Ford Coley - I'd Really Love to See You Tonight  Boz Scaggs - Look what youve done Mariah-Carey-fly-like-a-bird End Of Show 

The defense submitted a letter to Judge Subramanian in response to a government filing made early that morning regarding the anticipated testimony of Ms. Bongolan. The defense argues that the government is making a last-ditch effort to admit evidence that is both inadmissible and irrelevant hearsay. They assert that this attempt amounts to a "second bite at the apple," seeking to reintroduce material that should not be allowed under the rules of evidence.Additionally, the defense contends that the government's letter is not only legally baseless but also misleading in its presentation of both the facts and applicable law. They accuse the prosecution of mischaracterizing the situation in an effort to sway the court, and they urge Judge Subramanian to reject the government's latest arguments and prevent the introduction of the contested testimony.The defense submitted a second letter to Judge Subramanian responding to the government's objections regarding certain exhibits the defense plans to introduce during the cross-examination of government witness Bryana ("Bana") Bongolan. The defense also used the letter to object to two exhibits they understand the government intends to introduce through this same witness. They argue that their proposed exhibits and topics of cross-examination are relevant and permissible.Specifically, the defense seeks to introduce a series of photographs intended to counter the government's narrative that Sean Combs controlled or inhibited Cassie Ventura's professional career. According to the defense, these photographs serve as physical evidence showing that Ventura actively worked on her music and pursued various business activities independently of Combs, including projects she undertook while collaborating with Ms. Bongolan.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.400.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.386.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The defense submitted a letter to Judge Subramanian in response to a government filing made early that morning regarding the anticipated testimony of Ms. Bongolan. The defense argues that the government is making a last-ditch effort to admit evidence that is both inadmissible and irrelevant hearsay. They assert that this attempt amounts to a "second bite at the apple," seeking to reintroduce material that should not be allowed under the rules of evidence.Additionally, the defense contends that the government's letter is not only legally baseless but also misleading in its presentation of both the facts and applicable law. They accuse the prosecution of mischaracterizing the situation in an effort to sway the court, and they urge Judge Subramanian to reject the government's latest arguments and prevent the introduction of the contested testimony.The defense submitted a second letter to Judge Subramanian responding to the government's objections regarding certain exhibits the defense plans to introduce during the cross-examination of government witness Bryana ("Bana") Bongolan. The defense also used the letter to object to two exhibits they understand the government intends to introduce through this same witness. They argue that their proposed exhibits and topics of cross-examination are relevant and permissible.Specifically, the defense seeks to introduce a series of photographs intended to counter the government's narrative that Sean Combs controlled or inhibited Cassie Ventura's professional career. According to the defense, these photographs serve as physical evidence showing that Ventura actively worked on her music and pursued various business activities independently of Combs, including projects she undertook while collaborating with Ms. Bongolan.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.400.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.386.0.pdf

The defense submitted a letter to Judge Subramanian in response to a government filing made early that morning regarding the anticipated testimony of Ms. Bongolan. The defense argues that the government is making a last-ditch effort to admit evidence that is both inadmissible and irrelevant hearsay. They assert that this attempt amounts to a "second bite at the apple," seeking to reintroduce material that should not be allowed under the rules of evidence.Additionally, the defense contends that the government's letter is not only legally baseless but also misleading in its presentation of both the facts and applicable law. They accuse the prosecution of mischaracterizing the situation in an effort to sway the court, and they urge Judge Subramanian to reject the government's latest arguments and prevent the introduction of the contested testimony.The defense submitted a second letter to Judge Subramanian responding to the government's objections regarding certain exhibits the defense plans to introduce during the cross-examination of government witness Bryana ("Bana") Bongolan. The defense also used the letter to object to two exhibits they understand the government intends to introduce through this same witness. They argue that their proposed exhibits and topics of cross-examination are relevant and permissible.Specifically, the defense seeks to introduce a series of photographs intended to counter the government's narrative that Sean Combs controlled or inhibited Cassie Ventura's professional career. According to the defense, these photographs serve as physical evidence showing that Ventura actively worked on her music and pursued various business activities independently of Combs, including projects she undertook while collaborating with Ms. Bongolan.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comSource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.400.0.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.386.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Poet of the Week, June 9–15, 2025. Full text of the poem & interview: brooklynpoets.org/community/poet/aiden-farrell

On the season premiere of HearSay, we were joined by Matthew Freeman, Director of EU Sales at AudioEye, and Susanna Laurin, Managing Director and Chair of Funka Foundation and a key player in the European Accessibility Act.Together, Matt and Susanna dive deep into the European Accessibility Act (EAA) and unpack:Who really needs to comply (spoiler: it's not just EU-based companies)What digital products and services fall under the EAA (hint: it's not just websites)Why the EAA is more than just a regulation but an opportunity to build a better, more accessible web for everyone.Matt and Susanna also provide practical steps and best practices to help your organization meet EAA requirements and embrace digital accessibility.HearSay is produced by Mike Barton, Sojin Rank, and Missy Jensen. Edited by Alex Dorrier.--View Transcript: https://aeurl.xyz/hearsay-podcast-with-susanna-laurin--See how accessible your digital content is — scan your digital content with AudioEye's free Website Accessibility Scanner. Or schedule a demo to see AudioEye in action.--Resources:European Accessibility Act: Ultimate Guide to ComplianceThe Cost of EAA Violations and Their Legal Consequences5 Steps Businesses Should Take Now to Meet Europe's New Accessibility RulesHearSay is a podcast focusing on the advocates, heroes, and leaders making the web more accessible. We're interviewing these change makers to hear what they have to say, to set the record straight, and offer their perspectives on how we can all work to make the web accessible to all.

Tonight the team talk about the newest news about the upcoming 3.0?   The Heresy Accountabilibuddies Podcast is brought to you by: Our patrons at Patreon. Join us for exclusive access and benefits. https://www.patreon.com/HeresyAccountabilibuddiesPodcast Our sponsors: Elric's Hobbies, where you can use code HERESYABB at checkout for a discount. Monument Hobbies, where by following our affiliate link, and using code HERESYABB at checkout, you can get a 5% discount on all purchases. https://monumenthobbies.com/?ref=heresyaccountabilibuddiespodcast Pop Goes the Monkey, where you can get 10% off your first order over $125 with code HERESYABB at checkout.. Music credit: Dethroned by Karl Casey @ White Bat Audio

Pete and Jason discuss the upcoming Dropsite Preview and the latest rumours on thehorushearsay.com for Horus Heresy 3.0 (3rd edition).

GW's suing a bunch of people, and releasing a new edition of Horus Heresy!

In the season finale of HearSay, we're joined by Don Torrez, Director of Partnerships at CivicPlus, discussed the upcoming ADA Title II compliance deadline and how government municipalities are proactively preparing. Mike and Don also discussed best practices for enhancing accessibility and how the partnership between AudioEye and CivicPlus simplifies the whole process.—Below are links to the resources mentioned during the show:ADA fact sheet on new rule for website and mobile apps provided by state and local governments: https://www.ada.gov/resources/2024-03-08-web-rule/W3C's WCAG Guidelines: https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/AudioEye's ADA Compliance Checklist: https://www.audioeye.com/post/ada-reasonable-accommodation-checklist—View Transcript: https://aeurl.xyz/hearsay-podcast-with-done-torrezHearSay is a podcast focusing on the advocates, heroes, and leaders making the web more accessible. We're interviewing these change makers to hear what they have to say, to set the record straight, and offer their perspectives on how we can all work to make the web accessible to all.

Our first ever story from the bonus feed! Originally published August 19th, 2019. Forgive us (lol).Ad Free Feed:https://www.patreon.com/fanaticalficsStory:https://www.fanfiction.net/s/2992803/3/The-Hogwarts-HearsayRecommendation: Interesting Timeshttps://www.fanfiction.net/s/2393308/1/Interesting-Times Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Chris Andrew, Co founder and CEO of Scrunch AI, joins the show to talk aboutThe evolution of search and consumer shift toward finding answers with AI.Building a marketing platform for an AI first customer journey.The opportunity for AI and Scrunch to audit search and help brands manage their identities in the era of AI.Reflecting on Chris leaving Intuit to work for Clara Shih at Hearsay, and what Chris learned from Clara as employee #3 at Hearsay that made him a better entrepreneur. A wild car ride with Gary Vee when Gary first launched Wine Library TV, and pitching Gary Vee a cooking show.

Jeff Kline, the former Manager of Accessibility Consulting, Compliance, and Strategic Programs at IBM and the author of Strategic IT Accessibility: Enabling the Organization, joined us on the latest episode of HearSay. He discussed how digital accessibility is so much more than compliance and the need for organizations to recommit to prioritizing accessibility. Jeff also discussed best practices for getting started with accessibility and helping C-Suite executives realize the benefits of making products and services more accessible.HearSay is produced by Sojin Rank, Mike Barton, Mariella Paulino, and Missy Jensen. Edited by Alex Dorrier.–View transcript here: https://aeurl.xyz/hearsay-podcast-with-jeff-klineHearSay is a podcast focusing on the advocates, heroes, and leaders making the web more accessible. We're interviewing these change makers to hear what they have to say, to set the record straight, and offer their perspectives on how we can all work to make the web accessible to all.