PWCC Huigens Now Has a Criminal Defense Attorney

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What posts are we talking about here?

I thought this started in the context of this particular thread. I was responding to post 189.

I was only talking in general context as I just stated. Sorry about that. As far as Jeff posting anything, or representing Brent, again, you guys and girls can talk about that stuff. I have my own thoughts. sorry about that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I was only talking in general context as I just stated. Sorry about that. As far as Jeff posting anything, or representing Brent, again, you guys and girls can talk about that stuff. I have my own thoughts. sorry about that.

Oh ok well sure in theory if something said here was relevant and otherwise admissible.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh ok well sure in theory if something said here was relevant and otherwise admissible.

You mean, like it wasn't hearsay or subject to an exception? Not a FRE 403 issue? Not a 404 issue? It would be pretty easy to make several other arguments to keep all of this out as well. I think you would have to be pretty imaginative and have a pretty understanding judge to get most of this in.

[Johnny630]

If this ever gets to court it would be cool if the judge presiding over the case was a vintage card collector :-)

[asphaltman]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

If this ever gets to court it would be cool if the judge presiding over the case was a vintage card collector :-)

I believe I read somewhere once that Judge Ito collected low grade filler Zeenuts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

You mean, like it wasn't hearsay or subject to an exception? Not a FRE 403 issue? Not a 404 issue? It would be pretty easy to make several other arguments to keep all of this out as well. I think you would have to be pretty imaginative and have a pretty understanding judge to get most of this in.

I didn't mean anything on this thread, or in any other thread, I just meant in theory. That's how I took Leon's question.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I didn't mean anything on this thread, or in any other thread, I just meant in theory.

I am once again not disagreeing with you. I just think it would be extraordinarily difficult, verging on impossible, to get what Jeff said before he was retained, into evidence. Haven't really sat down and given it the thought I would if was an issue in one of my cases. But I'm not seeing it at first glance.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I am once again not disagreeing with you. I just think it would be extraordinarily difficult, verging on impossible, to get what Jeff said before he was retained, into evidence. Haven't really sat down and given it the thought I would if was an issue in one of my cases. But I'm not seeing it at first glance.

Impossible. Not his lawyer so not an admission. Inadmissible opinion. Irrelevant. Unduly prejudicial. Etc.