Comment: You need to read it in CONTEXT, not just one sentence

(See in situ)

In post: Common Law
In reply to comment: Apparently you do not seem to (see in situ)

You need to read it in CONTEXT, not just one sentence

First, it is the United States Code, which means it has to do with federal law, not state law.

Second, it is in Title 5, which has to do with the structure and operation of the various agencies of the federal government.

Third, Section 556 says in the very first subsection (a) that it applies to administrative hearings that have to do with Section 553 and 554, which are when a federal agency proposes a rule and makes it public, and court cases that are an appeal from an agency ruling.

So, that second part MIGHT have something to do with what Carl was talking about ... except there is nothing in any of those sections, much less 556(d), that says the judge LOSES JURISDICTION, which is what Carl is claiming.

The very next sentence of 556(d) after the one you cited says, "Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the agency as a matter of policy shall provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence."

It is all about federal agencies and MIGHT have something to do with a court case where an agency makes a ruling and someone appeals. An example might be an EPA ruling.

However, there is nothing about a judge losing jurisdiction.

If you see it, WRITE it; don't resort to hidden implications.

Just cite the part about a judge losing jurisdiction.